Facebook, Roger Ebert And The Pointlessness Of The Jerk Patrol
from the it-doesn't-work dept
There's been a lot of talk recently about issues concerning "corporate censorship" after Facebook shut down Roger Ebert's page, supposedly because some people complained about his comments (on Twitter, not Facebook) concerning a death, which some took offense to. A lot of people are jumping on the "censorship" bandwagon, and part of it makes me wonder if we need a different word. When a private company "censors," it's quite different from when a government "censors," and using the same word often leads to confusion.But, perhaps a larger point of this is how private companies now have tremendous say over what speech they will and will not allow. That's legal, but it leads to a certain arbitrariness, as was demonstrated here, with many people thinking Facebook went too far. The company later tried to claim it was a "mistake," but not many people seem to believe that.
However, I think where this gets more interesting is in raising a separate issue: the total pointlessness and arbitrariness of the "jerk patrol." Some people apparently disliked Ebert's comments. That's fair enough, but does a few "offended" people mean he should lose his account? That's what makes lots of people quite uncomfortable. As it should. And yet, as all of this is happening, there are all these efforts to try to criminalize being a "jerk" online. But, as this little kerfuffle shows, what is and what is not "a jerk" or "offensive" is totally subjective, in most cases, and offending one person is hardly a reason to take action against the speaker. It's too bad that Facebook doesn't seem to recognize that, but it's even scarier when governments pass laws without understanding it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, jerks, roger ebert, terms of service
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Granted there are plenty of reason to remove some facebook accounts, groups and pages, but it seems that Facebook does so with no actual investigation. Once they get a complaint, that account is gone.
To add to the problem is Facebook's completely non-existent "customer service" they rarely respond and when they do, it is with the use of short form letters that do nothing to explain the situation.
This is turning into a rant, so I will end it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And if you die doing something crazy/stupid, we'll be allowed to say we're glad you died?
You're an ass. Chose your words more carefully. I wish you a horrible death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He was an idiot, drove drunk, and killed himself and his passenger. If it were just some random guy, his name would be vilified across the internet, but because he's a movie star somehow he gets sympathy? Not from me.
His friends and family get my sympathy because they lost someone they cared about, but that guy was a complete jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Great example of irony! Well done Sir. I hope you won't be too disappointed when I wish you a long and happy life, even though I disagree with your statements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So in that context, is it a mistake for Mr. Joe Facebook Administrator to delete the page of some guy who is being a jerk? No, he probably did it intentionally according to his potentially valid understanding of Facebook's policy. But what about for the organization as a whole? You bet it's a mistake. They want to keep things on Facebook bellow the lawsuit level and reduce the incentives for the feds to bust down the door and create new regulation, but they don't want to kick off every jerk out there. It's the same thing as when in the morning you accidentally pour yourself a glass of milk and pour the orange juice in the cereal. (That not just me right?) You have a process that works pretty well most of the time but every once in a while, for one reason or another things are a little bit different and everything goes wrong. That sounds like a mistake to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you haven't violated the terms of service
The terms of service are a contract and the advertising dollars you provide facebook is the payment for that contract.
This "private companies can violate their contracts at their own whim" is ridiculous when all your social contact and purchasing is being done through massively huge monopolies.
Could bell telephone have denied service to anyone they didn't like back when they were a monopoly? No, of course not. To even consider that idea is ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you haven't violated the terms of service
OTOH, many people feed their FB updates to twitter, I suppose its possible for your twitter updates to appear on your FB profile. If that's what Ebert did, I could understand his FB readers getting confused and reporting the post (although I disagree that his post s/b reported in the first place).
Some people simply have too much time on their hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diaspora seems to be a good alternative have anybody tried that yet. I didn't so I really don't know if it is any good.
I don't think the "jerk patrol" has any saying in there or other places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eventually, if they piss enough people off, people will start to go elsewhere. If they want to arbitrarily censor people, so be it. It's their business.
Government is a much, much bigger worry. Our elected representatives are unable to represent us competently for all matters that are Internet-related. The vacuum of understanding is astounding. Our representatives are easy prey for special-interest lobbyists.
THE CAMPAIGNS FOR THE NEXT ELECTION ARE BEGINNING. IF WE ELECT ANOTHER CROP OF INTERNET DUMMIES, WHOSE FAULT WILL IT BE?
The Republicans are the party of censorship and restricted personal freedoms - send them a message to change.
The Democrats are the party of too much government involvement - tell them to stop messing with things that don't need fixing.
I'm not optimistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do it on your own
The blog is on my site, not somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they didnt close it because of Ebert's comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It really is amazing...
(1) a proto-troll, far more competent at being such than any of the mere amateurs around today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
NO. It is NOT legal. Which is why I have severe doubts if you, Techdirt, and a lot of others in positions to know better, really understand the First Amendment.
Facebook's TOS does not, under ANY circumstances, trump the First Amendment. Its the other way around. This is yet another way that business has snookered people like you into nullifying the intent of the framers.
I know Ebert through his writing, and I believe he is not the kind of guy to make insensitive remarks. His timing was off, and who among us has not been guilty of that.
Don Imus made the same sort of remark. A remark I detest (nappy headed hoes). Yet there is absolutely NO WAY he should have been fired for speaking his mind, whether it was a joke, or he actually believed it.
Seriously, Techdirt. If you and others like you don't wise up, you're going to turn the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into a corporate press release. The Constitution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about corporate rights. Its about the rights of people, as granted by GOD.
Jesus Christ! Stop giving you rights away to corporatists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
The first amendment has nothing to do with Facebook. So go and plain that a private company, to which you agreed to be censored from, that you got censored? You'll be laughed at and pointed to the door.
Now stop making up rights and go wikipedia a little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
(Why does TechDirt attract these kinds of people? o_O)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
Yes, it is legal, and yes I understand the First Amendment.
Facebook's TOS does not, under ANY circumstances, trump the First Amendment. Its the other way around. This is yet another way that business has snookered people like you into nullifying the intent of the framers.
No one said it trumps the First Amendment. It's just that the First Amendment does not apply here. At all. The First Amendment just says what Congress cannot do -- and it cannot make laws abridging the freedom of speech.
A private entity is free to block speech. That is not at all impacted by the First Amendment.
It may not be smart. It may cause problems. And people can get upset about it. But it's legal. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. At all.
Seriously, Techdirt. If you and others like you don't wise up, you're going to turn the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into a corporate press release. The Constitution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about corporate rights. Its about the rights of people, as granted by GOD.
(1) We never said it said anything about corporate rights. (2) You might want to try reading the actual document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
Facebook is nothing more then a on online virtual courtyard for people to gather and communicate, maybe it should be turned over to the public and regulated as any other public entity. LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
Getting the government involved requires us to grant the government the power of when and where censorship is allowed. Suddenly churches, schools, etc could be sued for censoring content on their Web sites because they don't have "permission" to do so from the government. Creating a government regulation on the right to express or not express speech, whether your own or someone else's, on your private Web site would be a gross violation of rights and a massive expansion of the government's power over our speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it matter? Its gone anyway.
Go back to school, the First Amendment's free speech protections mean that you can't be arrested for speaking freely, not that a private corporation can't decide what you do and DON'T get to say on their provided message forums. This isn't new, BTW, and no amount of tea bags is going to make something "go back" to a state that never existed int he first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of why Daryll can post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What way is that, son? Try and think before you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Facebook is lame for taking down the account, but they have every right to do it. It's not censorship - Ebert has plenty of other outlets to express his opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://xkcd.com/743/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. Its really hard to know what to say.
Congratulations! You've officially bought the corporate BS!
Private companies operating in the US aren't subject to the Constitution? Since when is this true?
OK, I'll play your game. Then where is Ebert gonna say it? Twitter? Nah, TOS violation. MySpace? TOS violation. In the Chicago Sun-Times? They might not like it. Ebert and Roper? They'd fire him (which, of course, would be unconstitutional). I suppose he can go down to State St, and shout it on the corner. Seriously, buddy, do you really believe this crock? Do you have any understanding at all of the meaning of free speech, and why its important?
This is about the fourth time I've come back here, and its not 5 posts till I get this laissez-faire, companies-can-do-whatever-they-want horses**t. I give up. If you want to dismantle the Constitution, do it. I gotta go lift. Circle jerk yourselves into oblivion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since forever. The first amendment only prohibits Congress from restricting free speech. It has NO impact on private parties, except to protect their free speech, which means they may censor or not censor their PRIVATELY OWNED Web site however they see fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess Techdirt's TOS trumps my right to free speech, huh? About what I've come to expect from this guy.
My point was, if you all can't figure it out, I got other things to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let us ever be willing to help a fool and ignore the trolling.
Moving on.
The entire bill of rights, and most of the amendments and various documents only address what the Government can and cannot do.
The Government cannot quarter soldiers in your home in peacetime, The Government is prohibited from making excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, etc, so forth.
A private business is free to do almost anything that does not violate a few specific laws. They can charge you as much as they want for that latte, they can open their doors or stay closed all day And They Can Remove/Block/Edit Your Speech when it is on Their Property. They can take down that post-it note you stuck on their wall and they can remove your facebook post/tweet/forum post for almost any (or no) reason at any time
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress.
Not Facebook, not techdirt..
nd the trollish whines about "my comment was held for moderation, that means mike masnick is holding a personal vendetta against me" just make you look foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess so... go buy yourselves a life, seriously. I heard they give out free friends at the corner store. This is just sad, really. Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Surprised Actually
Seriously, if they can do flash mobs where people actually go meet someplace, I'm sure they could organize even larger Facebook group complaint mobs. I bet you could get thousands to complain just for the griefing factor. Imagine if you could get 5,000 complaints from offended Facebook users. I wonder how fast they could get any group shut down.
It would certainly cause FB to at least consider with more clarity what would cause a take down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
facebook = evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That makes about as much sense as:
telephone = evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerk Patrols
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was Ebert's tweet insensitive? Absolutely. Was he incorrect? No. Did he make the tweet because he's bitter over the fact that the Jackass enterprise is an entertainment titan and his best-known film work was penning the screenplay to "beyond the valley of the dolls," which is shittier quality than Jackass? Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]