Republicans threaten to break up Facebook

Wolseley · May 5, 2021

How much control over massive media content should a private company have?

Trump ban: Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision | Fox News

Wolseley · May 5, 2021

Jonathan Turley: Facebook vs. Trump – Big Tech has allowed for the creation of a state media without the state | Fox News

GreekOrthodox · May 5, 2021

In all honestly, I'm concerned about these tech companies swallowing up potential competitors. I've only listed FB but the FAANG market is a bit daunting.

The most downloaded app between 2010 and 2019 was Facebook's main app, followed by the company's Facebook Messenger app. WhatsApp came third, and Instagram fourth.
Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 for $1bn (£760m), and WhatsApp in 2014 for $19bn.

Facebook owns the four most downloaded apps of the decade

paul1149 · May 5, 2021

The US has always regulated sectors crucial to national security - railroads, telephone, satellite, etc. We never were purely capitalistic. The Internet is how Americans talk now, it's their public square. And what Big Tech is doing is harmful to the national interest. This is something Barr should have actually been on, rather than just talking about it.

A_Thinker · May 5, 2021

Wolseley said:
Jonathan Turley: Facebook vs. Trump – Big Tech has allowed for the creation of a state media without the state | Fox News

State media ???

Surely you realize that Facebook publishes what it chooses to publish ...

A_Thinker · May 5, 2021

Wolseley said:
How much control over massive media content should a private company have?

Trump ban: Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision | Fox News

Wolseley · May 5, 2021

A_Thinker said:
State media ???

Surely you realize that Facebook publishes what it chooses to publish ...

I think what they were trying to get at was Facebook is nearly like a country with state-controlled media---they control so much of what people read, and they censor out anything that they disagree with.

Which is their right, under the 1st Amendment. But there needs to be a counterbalance to their ubiquity....Facebook and Twitter should not be permitted to simply grow until they devour literally everything. That's extremely, extremely deadly to freedom of thought, speech, religion, etc.

seeking.IAM · May 5, 2021

I believe FB, Twitter, and the like have the right to monitor and restrict their own content just like is done here on CF. If one violates the standards set up by the operators of the platform, they can and should be given the boot. If you don't agree with the community standards, don't join. And, if you can't abide by the community standards, don't whine when they give you the heave-ho. There are plenty of Republican legislators hitting my FB newsfeed and Twitter, so they're not silencing conservative voices - only the segment that violates their standards. As it should be.

pgp_protector · May 5, 2021

Last I checked nothing is preventing anyone from starting their own social media platform. Look at this site, it exist without Facebook or Twitter, and they're not blocking or taking it down either.

Why do not more people use this site vs Facebook / Twitter, Simple most don't want to.

DerSchweik · May 7, 2021

seeking.IAM said:
I believe FB, Twitter, and the like have the right to monitor and restrict their own content just like is done here on CF. If one violates the standards set up by the operators of the platform, they can and should be given the boot. If you don't agree with the community standards, don't join. And, if you can't abide by the community standards, don't whine when they give you the heave-ho. There are plenty of Republican legislators hitting my FB newsfeed and Twitter, so they're not silencing conservative voices - only the segment that violates their standards. As it should be.

Is it your assertion then that the process of enforcing community standards on social media sites (regardless which ones they are) is always, and necessarily a demonstrably objective one, that subjectivity never plays a role in these [enforcement] processes?

Knowing something about these [enforcement] processes (I was once an admin here), I'd have to express a rather huge degree of doubt over such an assertion.

DerSchweik · May 7, 2021

Wolseley said:
How much control over massive media content should a private company have?

Trump ban: Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision | Fox News

Hard to say, but imho, the invisible hand needs to start slapping a few of them, quite hard, on their marxist dairy-aires.

seeking.IAM · May 7, 2021

seeking.IAM said:
I believe FB, Twitter, and the like have the right to monitor and restrict their own content just like is done here on CF. If one violates the standards set up by the operators of the platform, they can and should be given the boot. If you don't agree with the community standards, don't join. And, if you can't abide by the community standards, don't whine when they give you the heave-ho. There are plenty of Republican legislators hitting my FB newsfeed and Twitter, so they're not silencing conservative voices - only the segment that violates their standards. As it should be.

DerSchweik said:
Is it your assertion then that the process of enforcing community standards on social media sites (regardless which ones they are) is always, and necessarily a demonstrably objective one, that subjectivity never plays a role in these [enforcement] processes?

Knowing something about these [enforcement] processes (I was once an admin here), I'd have to express a rather huge degree of doubt over such an assertion.

I can't say it is "always" objective, but in the most notable recent case I think it is a fair and objective decision to ban repeated lies and misinformation targeted to sway public opinion based upon falsehood.

Wolseley · May 7, 2021

I think Facebook is going to censor itself out of existence, if they're not careful. The picture below was posted on one of the military forums I'm a member of over there....the picture was fuzzed out by one of Facebook's snowflake censors, with the message, "Sensitive Content: This photo may be sensitive to some people."

I'm not exactly sure how this photo can be considered sensitive or offensive, but what can I say.

I do think, however, that Facebook ought to start accepting a little accountability. Every time a photo or a post is censored or removed, the identification, *BY NAME*, of the censor who made the decision to remove it, should be required to to be posted along with the notice of censoring.

I mean, sure, it's their site, and they can do whatever you like with it, but they should be forced to own up to their actions and admit to *WHO* is doing *WHAT*, and for what reason, instead of hiding behind the anonymity of "The Community Standards".

DerSchweik · May 8, 2021

Wolseley said:
I think Facebook is going to censor itself out of existence, if they're not careful. The picture below was posted on one of the military forums I'm a member of over there....the picture was fuzzed out by one of Facebook's snowflake censors, with the message, "Sensitive Content: This photo may be sensitive to some people."

I'm not exactly sure how this photo can be considered sensitive or offensive, but what can I say.

I do think, however, that Facebook ought to start accepting a little accountability. Every time a photo or a post is censored or removed, the identification, *BY NAME*, of the censor who made the decision to remove it, should be required to to be posted along with the notice of censoring.

I mean, sure, it's their site, and they can do whatever you like with it, but they should be forced to own up to their actions and admit to *WHO* is doing *WHAT*, and for what reason, instead of hiding behind the anonymity of "The Community Standards".

View attachment 298685

Oh boy, how I wish I could comment!

Arcangl86 · May 9, 2021

Wolseley said:
I think Facebook is going to censor itself out of existence, if they're not careful. The picture below was posted on one of the military forums I'm a member of over there....the picture was fuzzed out by one of Facebook's snowflake censors, with the message, "Sensitive Content: This photo may be sensitive to some people."

I'm not exactly sure how this photo can be considered sensitive or offensive, but what can I say.

I do think, however, that Facebook ought to start accepting a little accountability. Every time a photo or a post is censored or removed, the identification, *BY NAME*, of the censor who made the decision to remove it, should be required to to be posted along with the notice of censoring.

I mean, sure, it's their site, and they can do whatever you like with it, but they should be forced to own up to their actions and admit to *WHO* is doing *WHAT*, and for what reason, instead of hiding behind the anonymity of "The Community Standards".

View attachment 298685

Most of the moderation on FB is done automatically by algorithm, which can be wonky at times.

HannahT · May 9, 2021

seeking.IAM said:
I believe FB, Twitter, and the like have the right to monitor and restrict their own content just like is done here on CF. If one violates the standards set up by the operators of the platform, they can and should be given the boot. If you don't agree with the community standards, don't join. And, if you can't abide by the community standards, don't whine when they give you the heave-ho. There are plenty of Republican legislators hitting my FB newsfeed and Twitter, so they're not silencing conservative voices - only the segment that violates their standards. As it should be.

While, I agree that some rules or standards can be in place? Their rules seems to be to vague, or they aren't sure what they are either.

They make a decision (remove him) - followed up by some 'rules' board that can't make a decision on how to move forward - followed up by throwing the decision back to facebook. Does CF have this issue too? Not that I have seen.

I found it funny this last week their RULES board couldn't put their reputation on the line to make a decision about Trump, but threw it back to facebook. lol! So, I guess it is not that firm or their muddled in their decision making skills. No doubt here (CF) you can appeal at times, but 6 months extension because they aren't sure yet? This should be something that is so clear and obvious - from their first decision and media blast over it. Most are clear on their monitoring (ie CF), and this shows facebook isn't. Their idiots if it takes that long.

They are almost as bad as government taking forever to figure something out. They are waffling as bad as politicians. They allow other countries to make threats, etc on their facebook page (Iran for example). Other leaders of other countries question their move to remove Trump when he was President, and have now started to look for other options of communication to their people. Nothing WRONG with standards for the platform, and actions to follow up if they aren't followed. Yet, they have to be consistent...and so far they haven't been. Their lack of clarity is rather stunning.

I think they are stalling. So the whining and the heave-ho comments if you use the comparison as you did? Yeah. NOT a good example. Most sites are able to make a firm decision, and not wallow in it for months on end unable to make a decision. Having GOP people hitting your FB newsfeed isn't an example of not silencing - or silencing. It's their unclear rules and standards that are interpreted this way one time, and this direction another. For example, A youtuber that I watch from time to time - normally does comedy - put up a video on the death of his mother, and his struggle with his relationship with his father. It was a very human and sad to see someone grieve like that. His video was removed due to hate speak and violence. It made no sense - there was no hate or violence in his speaking of his mother/father. What is even weirder? Youtube still has it up, and yet facebook looks at it as hate speech and violence. Dumb. Someone else put up a link - and spoke about something on the CDC site in agreement with them...lol it was removed by fact checkers saying it was false. It had nothing to do with Covid, and yet facebook fact checkers know the stat on CDC site is false how? Their link they gave had nothing to do with the subject. Dumb.

This isn't a GOP or DEM issue. I have seen Democrats upset by some of their dumb decisions, and stupid fact checking too. It makes Facebook look bad, and incompetent. You can be seen as silencing people when you can't give clarity, and they made their own mess. I can see them losing some of their control, because their waffling and lack of clarity can harm.

Republicans threaten to break up Facebook

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Psalti Chrysostom

that your faith might rest in the power of God

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Episcopalian

Noted strange person

Spend time in His Word - every day

Spend time in His Word - every day

Episcopalian

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Spend time in His Word - every day

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads