Mark Zuckerberg Wants The Government To Help Police Internet Content (bbc.com) 275
"Mark Zuckerberg says regulators and governments should play a more active role in controlling internet content," according to the BBC, calling for new laws governing harmful content, election integrity, privacy, and data portability.
An anonymous reader quotes their report: In an op-ed published in the Washington Post, Facebook's chief says the responsibility for monitoring harmful content is too great for firms alone... "Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree," Mr Zuckerberg writes... In brief, Mr Zuckerberg calls for the following things:
- Common rules that all social media sites need to adhere to, enforced by third-party bodies, to control the spread of harmful content
- All major tech companies to release a transparency report every three months, to put it on a par with financial reporting
- Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors
- Laws that not only apply to candidates and elections, but also other "divisive political issues", and for laws to apply outside of official campaign periods
- New industry-wide standards to control how political campaigns use data to target voters online
- More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force last year
- A "common global framework" that means these laws are all standardised globally, rather than being substantially different from country to country
- Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data when they move it from one service to another
Zuckerberg believes the same regulations should apply to all web sites to make it easier to stop the spread of "harmful content." He also says Facebook will be creating "an independent body so people can appeal our decisions" when content is taken.
An anonymous reader quotes their report: In an op-ed published in the Washington Post, Facebook's chief says the responsibility for monitoring harmful content is too great for firms alone... "Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree," Mr Zuckerberg writes... In brief, Mr Zuckerberg calls for the following things:
- Common rules that all social media sites need to adhere to, enforced by third-party bodies, to control the spread of harmful content
- All major tech companies to release a transparency report every three months, to put it on a par with financial reporting
- Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors
- Laws that not only apply to candidates and elections, but also other "divisive political issues", and for laws to apply outside of official campaign periods
- New industry-wide standards to control how political campaigns use data to target voters online
- More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force last year
- A "common global framework" that means these laws are all standardised globally, rather than being substantially different from country to country
- Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data when they move it from one service to another
Zuckerberg believes the same regulations should apply to all web sites to make it easier to stop the spread of "harmful content." He also says Facebook will be creating "an independent body so people can appeal our decisions" when content is taken.
Policing Internet Content? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the idea was that information wants to be free, and we shouldn't restrict content (unless it's clearly illegal, like child porn). Even if it's content you don't agree with...
Indeed. Everyone gets to piss in the pool, except that guy with smallpox.
What would be better would be working to be sure everyone knew the truth about the pool.
Re:Policing Internet Content? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point.
What he really wants is:
a) The taxpayer to foot the bill instead of Facebook.
and
b) To pass the buck to the Government every time the system fails.
Re:Policing Internet Content? (Score:4, Interesting)
This! Well partially anyway. By passing the buck to the government through clear guidelines the whole issue ceases to be a moving target. Dealing with a wide array of nutjobs who range from "Fixing my spelling mistakes is censorship" to "Why did Facebook let someone hurt my feelings" and from "damn Cambridge analytica hoovered up private data" to "I purposefully posted this publicly how dare someone can't see it" is difficult.
When you have a wide range of people to appease it would help if at some point someone draws a line in the sand for you the walk along. Being able to pass the buck to the government is kind of what the government is there for in the first place and that way when Congress come knocking, you can just throw your certificate of regulatory compliance in their face.
Re:Policing Internet Content? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the idea was that information wants to be free, and we shouldn't restrict content (unless it's clearly illegal, like child porn). Even if it's content you don't agree with...
The problem seems to be that folks have become reluctant to protect that most important free speech; the one you disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem seems to be that folks have become reluctant to protect that most important free speech; the one you disagree with.
I think the real problem here is we can't even decide which speech should be protected, and which should be banned. I mean, most of us agree some things are so heinous we should not speak about them/promote them.. but even then, the people who want to espouse those ideas a majority might find completely unacceptable will scream free speech if we try to do anything about it.
It's a completely losing battle. Free speech cuts both ways, and it's kind of annoying at times that it does.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real problem here is we can't even decide which speech should be protected, and which should be banned. I mean, most of us agree some things are so heinous we should not speak about them/promote them.. but even then, the people who want to espouse those ideas a majority might find completely unacceptable will scream free speech if we try to do anything about it.
Three Quick Rules: Err on the side of the speech should be free even if someone finds it hateful. Restrict only as a last resort. Recognize that no Bill of Rights Amendment assured you the right not to be offended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Policing Internet Content? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the real problem here is we can't even decide which speech should be protected, and which should be banned.
No, we decided that a long time ago. Ergo we arent having a problem deciding.
The real problem isn't even that thats not good enough for some sensitive fucks.. the problem is that we take those sensitive fucks seriously.
We have good policy for what should be banned (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a lawyer but my recollection from some readings I did a few years ago is that the US Supreme Court ruled that speech that tangibly threatens or incites violence can be banned. It all depends on the context of the speech not the words themselves, the context must include a tangible and realistic fear of violence. A satirical or rhetorical or similar threat would not be banned.
Similarly having your feelings greatly hurt, your inner self denied or dismissed, etc would not count as violence no matter how much "pain" you feel.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually we have good policy for what should be banned, a tangible and realistic threat of violence.
So where does so called 'hate groups' fit in to this? Banned or allowed?
Espousing hatred toward a group of people for whatever reasons doesn't necessarily include threats of violence, afterall.
This is where we get in trouble. A majority of people think 'hate groups' should be banned. But in my view, as abhorrent as these groups are, they probably should be protected speech, as long as there's no encouragements of violence within that speech.
A goodly portion (majority for sure) probably think 'hate groups
Re: (Score:2)
Deadnaming and misgendering trans folk is violence, you fucking Nazi.
To be 100% clear, if it's just words, it's not violence. Sorry about that. Come back when someone threatens to beat you up with a baseball bat. That's violence.
Words are NEVER violence, no matter how offended they make you, or how hurtful they might be.
Violence is a physical act (or threat of physical act) against your person.
Please learn the use your words correctly before you post again. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought the idea was that information wants to be free, and we shouldn't restrict content (unless it's clearly illegal, like child porn). Even if it's content you don't agree with...
The problem seems to be that folks have become reluctant to protect that most important free speech; the one you disagree with.
Freedom of speech does not mean lazily handing a global megaphone to everyone in the world, while you look away guilt-free and share no responsibilities for their actions, allow them to use it anonymously from literally anywhere on the planet WHILE totally misrepresenting themselves as anyone anywhere else on the planet.
In the same way that an individual right to bear arms does not mean we have to allow every person to rock surface to air missiles in their backyard, or sell them to people that can, or make,
Re:Policing Internet Content? (Score:5, Insightful)
When "Jeff in Lexington", "Anonymous in Boston", "Real Paul Revere2", and "George Wash1ngton" are all propaganda spewing sock puppets being run directly from the King's Court, then we might not have had a Boston Tea Party, we might have had a Boston Printing Press Party, because that's not free speech, that's an affront to free speech. (...) Freedom of speech does not mean lazily handing a global megaphone to everyone in the world
Actually that is what it's about, every regime from the United States to North Korea has their own propaganda machine, the question is not whether it will exist or not. It's whether there'll be a constitutionally protected opposition or not and whether that freedom is real in practice. Like for example what Martin Luther King fought for, the right to vote was theoretically in the constitution since 1865 but if you just make it hard and dangerous to use you cut it off at the knees. To use a quote from Selma [imdb.com]
We know Johnson can't see the full picture. So, let's paint it for him. What are the specific hardships and humiliations we can address within the larger context of legislation? Doc, we gotta start with banning these laws that if a Negro tries to register, I mean, actually musters up the courage to go in that courthouse, that their name and address is published in the paper. It gives anybody who wants to do them any harm their exact location, and we know how the Klan is. - I hear that. But the poll taxes got to be our focus first. 'Cause black people are poor! Black people are poor down here. - Yep. - And they expected to pay for every year they weren't legally registered before they can register. Now, what the hell is that? Who got that kind of money? Come on now!
Listen now! The big issue is voting vouchers. - Is that the number one issue? - Now hold on. Let me finish. 'Cause everybody'll forget about this part. But if you're Negro, the only way you can vote is if an approved registered voter vouches for you. Right? So, let's say, you take some place like Lowndes County, where there are no Negroes who are registered and you've got to have someone who is registered to vouch for you. What are you supposed to do? Nobody you know, not a single black person for 100 miles is registered. So how do you get the voucher, right? To get you into the courthouse door to pay the poll tax to get your name published and get yourself dead.
Now they're trying to wrap up free speech in the same kind of web, sure you have free speech if you register with a government ID, if you go to a "free speech zone", if we get to moderate it first in case of Bad Stuff(tm) because I'm sure nothing controversial or critical of the government will be flagged for review and hidden so it never becomes the top comment, oh and let's have a real names policy so the new Klan knows where you live and so on. And you're never going to mysteriously appear on a no-fly list for extended security checks, no sir. They're never going to go over your tax returns with a fine tooth comb to find a violation. And it'll never be hacked or abused/leaked by people in the system. Unless they choose to play dirty, then you'll sadly be killed in a home invasion or disappear to a reeducation camp.
Look, say if the King of England had allowed free speech, when "Jeff in Lexington" says something obscene about colonial aspirations, that's speech we can just disagree with. Some people did support the monarchy in colonial America after all.
They were plotting actual treason and the armed overthrow of the government. How far do you think they would have gotten if they had to give constant progress reports to the government? Yes, maybe ToasterMonkey (467067) is a propaganda spewing sock puppet from Russia out to destroy America, but I'm willing to take my chances. It's better than creating some kind of registration/verification scheme where everyone has to hand the government a log of their speech before participating in the public debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed many of the proposed "cures" are far worse than the disease...
Re: (Score:2)
The "newbie" is on to something. Nice post Kjella! I'll remember those points next time someone brings up censorship "for the common good".
Re: (Score:2)
When "Jeff in Lexington", "Anonymous in Boston", "Real Paul Revere2", and "George Wash1ngton" are all propaganda spewing sock puppets being run directly from the King's Court, then we might not have had a Boston Tea Party, we might have had a Boston Printing Press Party, because that's not free speech, that's an affront to free speech.
I was thinking that Twitter's verification mark solves that, but actually it doesn't. The problem we have now is Russian trolls pretending to be ordinary people, not notable ones.
In the post-truth world where all politicians are assumed to by lying all the time, people rank the word of their fellow citizens quite highly. Maybe the highest authority in fact, given that actual authorities are deemed to be lying about everything.
So all a politically motivated troll has to do is pretend to be John from Huddersf
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no no, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, libertarian ideals -- these are all naive concepts that you get over after you completely fuck things up, and need a convenient fig leaf to justify cleaning up the mess in which you basically are personally culpable for.
"Disagree With" in a world of "Words Are Violence" (Score:2)
I'm not sure we can count on a modern interpretation of "clearly illegal".
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping it that way is also a form of policing. A platform like facebook that simply acts as a carrier that transits user generated content should be treated like a common carrier such as an internet link itself or the postal system. They shouldn't be looking at or censoring the content at all and they also shouldn't be liable.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason Facebook exists is to look at the content. That's how their business works: Look at content, use it to make inferences about individuals, use those inferences to target advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Facebook exists because it provides value as a social networking system transiting content. Infringing on those communications to target ads is just how they are currently monetizing that. Facebook could change the later and still exist but if it stops doing the former it will cease to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Knowledge Wants To Be Free, not information. Does your web browser history really want to be free?
Re: (Score:2)
We're not giving Zuckerberg enough credit for his visionary thinking. All we need is a name for this new police force designed to keep internet content government-approved.
I think "Thought Police" has a nice ring to it.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you operate a hate site like
**Facepalm**
Websites don't have emotion. *People* do.
If you are offended at words then grow the fuck up because adults don't give a shit about your childish insecurity.
Re: Policing Internet Content? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are **assuming** I was offended. I was not. I simply pointing out the stupidity of using meaningless, bullshit phrases like "hate sites" or "hate speech". But good luck trying to anthropomorphise speech & websites because not everyone is stupid enough to fall for it.
You either have 100% Free Speech OR you have Censorship. There is NO middle ground BY definition. Only insecure children censor, adults discuss and even laugh about "taboo" subjects. Without the ability to openly communicate and criticize there is no opportunity for learning and growth. Ignoring a problem doesn't magically make it go away. Free Speech -- and the consequence of a few trolls spamming and people being butt-hurt because they are insecure, special snowflakes -- is the LESSER of the two evils. Do you REALLY want to end up like the idiots over in China where a fucking NUMBER [pri.org] is censored??? If you don't like what someone is saying then use your fucking brain and ignore them. Trying to censor someone else due to Political / Religious / Moral EXCUSES else just proves you are insecure. Grow the fuck up already.
Go learn the meaning of this quote:
Your myopic no anonymity allowed ("require everyone to have a passport" **Facepalm**) won't solve the problem. It will either:
a) drive it underground, or
b) people will just blatantly ignore it.
Go study Prohibition of the 1920's since you seem to be completely clueless about history.
Fear of regulator (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, quite simply the lying conartist wants to privatise the profits of mass privacy invasion and thought control and socialise the losses of administrating Facebook. Facebook makes the money, whilst we pay for the salaries of ten of thousands to monitor his for profit web site for him. Quite simply use real names, then as a corporation you are promoting that speech for profit and hence should be fully legally liable for it. Choose and perish, drop real names and loose that lovely lovely mass invasion of p
Re: (Score:2)
So, instead of holding people responsible for their own actions, you want the corporations to be held responsible because they gave the person a space to say "wrong stuff". This is not a good mindset to have. Why not hold the person responsible? Is it because they are not actually committing any crime so there is no realistic way you can hold them responsible? If I say little johnny is a fucking toxic piece of shit, and little johnny's feelings get hurt. There is nothing illegal happening. Why should facebo
Re: (Score:2)
They should decide if they are 'common carriers' and just run 'wires' or if they control speech on their platform.
If they control it, they are liable for _all_ of it.
Re: (Score:3)
More likely he just doesn't want to employ anyone to do the work. Aside from the cost they are all getting PTSD from the horrific stuff they are confronted with day-in day-out. Much better (for Zuckerberg) to offload that to law enforcement.
It also shields them from criticism of moral decisions like banning white supremacists if they can outsource that decision to politicians.
Clean up your own shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for the rest of us, the truth is that your business model doesn't work if you have to pay humans to moderate content. But, don't worry. In the US, you can continue to buy Congresspeople, and the rest of us non-billionaires just have to eat shit. You'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not. You, however, apparently are.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to examine my posting history to see if this is consistent with my previous posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets just do the progressive thing and ban ALL speech on the internet. No forums, no chat, no communicating. That's where were headed anyways. Progress yay!
Re: Clean up your own shit (Score:2)
For instance Russia is very progressive in that vain.
Re: (Score:2)
So is china, I however like free speech, and even if I don't like your opinion I am not advocating others to silence you.
Re: Clean up your own shit (Score:2)
Being a libertarian I believe in freedom above all, even for a shit stain like you. Facebook has externalities that it has to deal with though to bring in those mad Benjaminâ(TM)s for its investors.
Re: Clean up your own shit (Score:2)
He doesnâ(TM)t use logic. Her argues emotionally. He anonymously also challenges anonymous people to fights.
Re: (Score:2)
yay i have a creepy old stalker!
Re: Clean up your own shit (Score:2)
I like slapping you around. How is life in that shitty little hovel you call an apartment. Weekly and monthly rates!!!! ðYoe
Re: (Score:2)
Stretching a little far there. I'm me. I'm me on various platforms as this name. I don't have the type of mental problems that cause me to chase people around slashdot pretending to be others. If I want to troll I just go AC.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, tell me, was that base address without full attribution real?
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't misquote the Talmud [minuteswithmessiah.com].
it is his problem not governments (Score:5, Insightful)
sounds more like he is trying to save money and get the government to foot the bill for moderating his and others websites.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds more like he is trying to save money and get the government to foot the bill for moderating his and others websites.
Hardly. I don't see anything that would make it cheaper for Facebook there, especially not with reporting requirements. I see it as he wants a target to work against, rather than the ever moving target that is the general opinions on speech at large. "Don't censor terrorism, free speech!" "Some guy posted that he went in a manhole, Facebook should delete this blatent sexism".
Multiple moving targets can never be hit at once which is precisely why government regulation exists.
Mark Zuckerberg (Score:2, Interesting)
Mark Zuckerberg is THE biggest threat to the internet that the world has ever seen.
Mark Zuckerberg is a threat to everything the internet was. He's a threat to openness, freedom, end user control, and privacy.
He's a threat to our societies outside the internet, too. His power grab is making ripples in a much bigger pond.
Some people even think he is a threat to the very idea of independent thought. [recode.net]
Zuckerberg is a Tool (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he should check from the original Facebook authors he stole the code from maybe they have ideas he cant seem to come up with.
Had they not been holding a justifiable grudge against their Machiavellian business partner, I'm pretty sure The Monozygotic Rowers would've likely recommended converting a few of his 2013 $billions into the Bitcoin Ponzi scheme.
Dear Mark, [cnbc.com]
In April 2013, the Winklevoss twins together held $11 million in bitcoin priced at $120 a coin. That holding grew to be worth more than $1 billion in December 2017 as the price of one coin surpassed $11,700.
Screw You Mark - take RESPONSIBILITY (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw You Mark - take RESPONSIBILITY
I think he just wants the .gov to take the heavy lifting while he take the PROFITS. No I say. Let the White Right blab hate and take the consequences. The .gov's responsibility is to thump you when you put profits over oversight. Your platform, your responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the White Right blab hate
So what is this statement supposed to be? An expression of love and goodness? Or does it throw together a race and a political conviction, and then blindly assume that anyone of that race or conviction automatically "blabs hate"?
And that gets +4 insightful. You people disgust me.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw You Mark - take RESPONSIBILITY
How? Please list out the complete requirements. When you're done run it through congress once and the Zuck gets exactly what he asked for.
The .gov's responsibility is to thump you
For that to happen there needs to be rules in place, incidentally this is precisely what he asked for.
the 1st amendment will make it hard / long court (Score:2)
the 1st amendment will make it hard / end up with long list of court cases.
ONLY the government should police Internet content (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Facebook and others who support a wide range of views (unlike a single topic forum, or something like that) should just accept that some people will be offended some of the time. They should block illegal stuff and and leave everything else alone as a platform.
At the same time, they can still create easy ways for people to voluntarily restrict what they see. If you don't want anything from group X, or about topic Y, then make it easy if that shows up to just block it from your feed so it no longer
Re: (Score:2)
There have long been laws against certain things like child porn, plagiarism, and defamation.
One of these things is not like the other. Can you guess which one it is?
Child porn. Pictures of naked children, even in suggestive poses, was perfectly legal when I was a child.
So no, not all of those have been illegal for a long time. Can you identify *WHY* the ban on child porn is so recent?
Because, constitutionally, there is no basis for making it illegal and it is a direct infringement on the First Amendment.
Go ahead, I will give you time. Think of *ANY* reason child porn should be illegal other than i
Re: (Score:2)
So facebook's business model is being the thought police? That's fucking retarded.
Re: ONLY the government should police Internet co (Score:2)
That isnâ(TM)t what he said. Facebook will decide what is best for its business by making judgements about what it allows to be published on its product and how they affect its ability to run its business. This can be guided by government regulations and public opinion. Do keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
he literally said
Facebook isn't. Its business model depends on making value judgements about the content people post.
Thats "Thought police"
Re: ONLY the government should police Internet co (Score:2)
No, itâ(TM)s a private service. I donâ(TM)t think you can think critically. I can see why you think youâ(TM)re a victim and challenge people to fights on the internet.
Re: ONLY the government should police Internet co (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)d be fired in two seconds if you were CEO and there was huge public outcry and your stock and public image were faltering you stood your ground going âoeno, that means we are the thought police! Your stockholders would say, were a publisher and your killing revenue!
Zuck is trying to burn competitors (Score:5, Interesting)
More censorship and more ads (Score:4, Interesting)
Release a transparency report: The EU can show who got reported and removed. How many internet users are getting interviewed by police about their use of words online. What new tax was paid on every internet link in the EU.
Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections. Support one side of politics. Talk about any other politics and get removed and reported.
Laws to apply outside of official campaign periods. The freedom to support one side of politics before and after any approved election.
New industry-wide standards. No freedom of speech. No freedom after speech. Blasphemy laws can be used globally.
More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union. A EU link tax and more EU censorship.
A "common global framework". Censorship.
Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data. Ad brands get to have their approved ads track users globally. No ad blocking software.
All enforced by NGO's, political parties, theocracies, ad brands, police, think tanks, the EU, social media brands and mil govs.
Freedom of speech and freedom after speech is looking great again.
Re: (Score:2)
The only solution is to stop policing altogether, if you can't handle facebook posts, how the fuck are you going to handle life ?
I say throw them in the water, like mother bird pushes baby birds of a cliff to learn flying. You are not separate from nature, stop isolating yourself from it.
Fuck the censors, be it government or
As An American (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually any other government could block his shit tier platform from their country
Re: (Score:2)
There is no country with 'absolute' free speech. Some are more free than others, but they always have some exceptions. The US, for example, has laws which allow for censorship and prosecution of the speaker on grounds of copyright infringeent, libel, national security, obscenity, and incitement to violence.
Re: (Score:2)
A matter that has been put before the courts many times, and their view is the only one that matters. They have concluded that speech may be regulated under certain narrowly defined circumstances. They also concluded that obscene material is not 'real' speech, though they never did manage to work out a consistent definition for it.
Money: (Score:4, Interesting)
Money is what this is about.
Zuck's comments can be boiled down to: It costs us too much money to maintain a hoard of people and machines to monitor the content on our sites. We want the government to take over that expense to both lay it at the feet of the taxpayer and take over the bad PR censoring and making decisions on content gets us.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, he realizes that though the government enjoys reaping the fruits of surveillance that social media provides, they would have reason to support the status quo... where they're not involved in either budgeting it or being blamed when it doesn't go well.
Perhaps he's less dimwitted than we originally suspected, and he's busy reminding the government the rather gratuitous service he provides.
Translation (Score:2)
Zuckerberg wants to retain all the benefits ( data mining ) that Facebook currently enjoys with the people that are connected via his platform.
However, he wants to dump the responsibilities for moderating said platform on anyone but Facebook.
This way, if $objectionable_item_of_the_month is found on Facebook, it's not Facebook's fault.
Requires a lot of time, effort and money to police your own systems when they get this big. Especially when you start taking
into account that different countries have different
In Mark's defense: (Score:5, Insightful)
Government(s): "Fix it so it's better!"
Mark: "What would you like it to look like?"
Governments: "We don't know! You decide! But we'll know it if we see it, and will punish you if we don't like it!" ...He's just asking for the kind of regulatory oversight that most communications businesses eventually receive.
I don't do Facebook and I wish it would go away. But he's not wrong here.
Of course he does (Score:3)
That way, he doesn't have to pay for any of it and totally absolved of any responsibility.
This (Score:2)
It's much easier for Facebook to be able to treat the entire world the same way. That shows him as another filthy megalomaniac globalist. Countries still exist, the want to determine their own course, fuck Zuckerberg and anyone that tries to stand in the way of free speech and personal liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Big business (Score:2)
Trust me, I'm from the government... (Score:5, Informative)
...or even better a third party authorized by the government.
And, exactly, who will decide what "harmful content" is. Perhaps Trump? Perhaps AOC? Perhaps Sanders? Perhaps ISIS?
Zuckerberg, go read the First Amendment - no, go ahead, I'll wait. There are no big words in it so you should be able to understand it eventually. Okay read it again. And, one more time, Very. Slowly. This. Time.
Okay, now, did you notice the "abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press" part?
And, don't forget, some people think Facebook itself is "harmful".
See above.
Re: (Score:2)
...or even better a third party authorized by the government.
And, exactly, who will decide what "harmful content" is.
I think this is exactly the point. Right now it's increasingly looking like society -- and government -- are demanding that Facebook decide what "harmful content" is, and Facebook doesn't want that responsibility. And, honestly, do we really want Facebook to take it? I don't. I don't want government to do it either, but Zuckerberg's point is that if there's any appropriate body for making these decisions, it's governmental, not private enterprise.
I suspect that Zuckerberg doesn't want the government tak
Re: (Score:2)
Since the op-ed was in the Washington Post, primarily a domestic United States publication with a primarily US readership, it's reasonable to assume that Zuckerberg was primarily addressing this at US lawmakers as there are no "international" lawmakers. The use of the word "need" implies a law or regulation of some sort.
The First Amendment applies to all residents, not just citizens, of the United States. Of course it does not apply to residents of any other country in another country. As far as US citizens
Shit I hate being right... (Score:2)
Was having a conversation at work and we were talking about fake news and misinformation in general being harmful to people. I expressed my concern at the idea of, and my surprise people weren't talking about it already, misinformation becoming a crime and it becoming a slippery slope to the end of freedom of speech. This sounds like the first step in that direction thanks to Mr. Fuckerberg and his creation.
Re: (Score:2)
Was having a conversation at work and we were talking about fake news and misinformation in general being harmful to people. I expressed my concern at the idea of, and my surprise people weren't talking about it already, misinformation becoming a crime and it becoming a slippery slope to the end of freedom of speech. This sounds like the first step in that direction thanks to Mr. Fuckerberg and his creation.
Freedom of speech will still be healthy, loud, and annoying long after regulatory requirements make it impossible for Mohammed in Iran to pretend to be Misha in Moscow on facebook.ru, and Mike in New York on facebook.com, and all the vice-versas.
90% of the problem is nobody knows anything about anyone else online. The other 10% is human nature nothing can fix.
Walmart won't even sell you a candy bar if you walk into the store with a bag over your head, but otherwise you are free to anonymously crop dust eve
Why not? (Score:2)
Dear Mr .Zuckerberg... (Score:2)
Most of this trouble started when YOU started policing the Internet. And doing it badly.
Please stop censoring your users when they offend you or the people you are allied with Leave it I
I know you want the 'government' to 'help' police the Internet. But the Internet does not need policing, nor is it you or people like you who would be trustworthy policers of the Internet, or anything else. While you should not be trusted even with your own corporation and its platforms, they are yours to do with as you wish
More like, trying to regulate his competition (Score:4, Insightful)
More like, Zuck is trying to regulate his competition to death, while also absolving himself from the shit that's going on on his platform. This strategy worked for many a megacorp. Megacrops can afford the costs of compliance. Smaller companies can't.
Zuckerberg is a Commie (Score:2)
Fox telling the farmer how to guard the henhouse (Score:2)
Moat (Score:2)
Mark Zuckerbeg really wants the government to construct a moat around his business to make sure that other companies will find it difficult to break his stranglehold over social networking.
Governments CANNOT do this! (Score:2)
It would be a First Amendment violation or a government to get involved in policing Facebook as Zuckerberg wants to. Zuck exerts fine-grained control over the politics allowed on his platform with such actions as banning white separatist posting while allowing black separatist posts. Governments would Constitutionally be limited to policing the small number of specific First Amendment exceptions that have been judicially established over the years:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/9... [fas.org]
Sure... our taxes will help improve your platform (Score:2)
Why dont you keep doing everything you can to avoid paying taxes.. while asking the government to do more for you?
what's stopping him? (Score:2)
most of his proposals he can just implement on facebook if he wants to, there is nobody saying that he can't.
his proposals, his own social network, he doesn't need to wait for same laws to come into effect.
Protecting Elections (Score:2)
"- Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors"
Yes and you know who's sure to follow these laws... government agencies!
Re:Holy shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. He wants to turn the internet from the wild west into a dystopian surveillance society.
Re:Holy shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt he wants to turn it into anything.
It's just that in the event of someone legislating anything, he doesn't want to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US did own the internet, until some president went and gave it away.. To people who want to sensor "Hate Speech". Why do you think people were so pissed off over it.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is a lot of hardware. It belongs to the owners of the hardware and is governed by the laws of the nation where the hardware sits.
Many nations choose to have 'great firewalls' and censor the relatively open internet 'homed' in the USA. That's their problem, we can and should ignore their rules. What is the EU going to do about it? Stomp their feet?
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook, along with Google and Twitter, don't want to burden theemselves with the costs of properly perusing the content and so use as many algorithms as possible. However the flaws to that approach quickly become apparent and so now they want the governments to take on the responsibility of doing so along with the monetary burden.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just more fake posturing from dickwad Zuckerberg to avoid actually doing anything.
Re: (Score:2)