Facebook Refers Its Trump Ban To Its 'Supreme Court' (fb.com) 123
While NBC News reported on Tuesday that Facebook "has no plan in place to lift the indefinite suspension on President Donald Trump's Facebook account," there was a new twist two days later.
"Facebook on Thursday announced that it will refer its decision to indefinitely suspend the account of former President Donald Trump to its newly instituted Oversight Board," reports CNBC: The independent body, which has been described as Facebook's "Supreme Court," will review the decision to suspend Trump and make a binding decision on whether the account will be reinstated. Until a decision is made, Trump's account will remain suspended, the company said in a blog post.
The board will begin accepting public comments on the case next week, it said in a tweet. It will have up to 90 days to make its decision, but its members have committed to move as quickly as possible, a spokesman for the body told CNBC. A decision can't be overruled by CEO Mark Zuckerberg or other executives.
"We believe our decision was necessary and right..." Facebook's VP of Global Affairs wrote on their blog, adding "We look forward to receiving the board's decision — and we hope, given the clear justification for our actions on January 7, that it will uphold the choices we made..." Some said that Facebook should have banned President Trump long ago, and that the violence on the Capitol was itself a product of social media; others that it was an unacceptable display of unaccountable corporate power over political speech. We have taken the view that in open democracies people have a right to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can be held to account. But it has never meant that politicians can say whatever they like. They remain subject to our policies banning the use of our platform to incite violence. It is these policies that were enforced when we took the decision to suspend President Trump's access.
Whether you believe the decision was justified or not, many people are understandably uncomfortable with the idea that tech companies have the power to ban elected leaders. Many argue private companies like Facebook shouldn't be making these big decisions on their own. We agree... It would be better if these decisions were made according to frameworks agreed by democratically accountable lawmakers. But in the absence of such laws, there are decisions that we cannot duck.
This is why we established the Oversight Board. It is the first body of its kind in the world: an expert-led independent organization with the power to impose binding decisions on a private social media company. Its decision will be available at the board's website when it is issued.
"Facebook on Thursday announced that it will refer its decision to indefinitely suspend the account of former President Donald Trump to its newly instituted Oversight Board," reports CNBC: The independent body, which has been described as Facebook's "Supreme Court," will review the decision to suspend Trump and make a binding decision on whether the account will be reinstated. Until a decision is made, Trump's account will remain suspended, the company said in a blog post.
The board will begin accepting public comments on the case next week, it said in a tweet. It will have up to 90 days to make its decision, but its members have committed to move as quickly as possible, a spokesman for the body told CNBC. A decision can't be overruled by CEO Mark Zuckerberg or other executives.
"We believe our decision was necessary and right..." Facebook's VP of Global Affairs wrote on their blog, adding "We look forward to receiving the board's decision — and we hope, given the clear justification for our actions on January 7, that it will uphold the choices we made..." Some said that Facebook should have banned President Trump long ago, and that the violence on the Capitol was itself a product of social media; others that it was an unacceptable display of unaccountable corporate power over political speech. We have taken the view that in open democracies people have a right to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can be held to account. But it has never meant that politicians can say whatever they like. They remain subject to our policies banning the use of our platform to incite violence. It is these policies that were enforced when we took the decision to suspend President Trump's access.
Whether you believe the decision was justified or not, many people are understandably uncomfortable with the idea that tech companies have the power to ban elected leaders. Many argue private companies like Facebook shouldn't be making these big decisions on their own. We agree... It would be better if these decisions were made according to frameworks agreed by democratically accountable lawmakers. But in the absence of such laws, there are decisions that we cannot duck.
This is why we established the Oversight Board. It is the first body of its kind in the world: an expert-led independent organization with the power to impose binding decisions on a private social media company. Its decision will be available at the board's website when it is issued.
We warned you about this (Score:1, Insightful)
People should have seen this coming once you accepted the erroneous notion that individuals or groups had the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner. You can't absolve yourself simply because you agree with their political point of view. The US Constitution doesn't just define a set of rules for the government. It defines quite clearly in the 10th Amendment how our society is intended to function. Facebook does not have the right to restrict free speech any more than they have the right to infring
Re:We warned you about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook does not have the right to restrict free speech
Dunno why some of you still don't get this, but it's their service - their rules. If you want a more hands on example of how this works, head to your local Walmart and loudly start preaching your political views. The store's security staff will be more than happy to explain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We get it. We all get it. You are technically correct. You don't have to explain the obvious in every thread. What you still don't get is the on-going discussion of the political, social, and moral implications of one party silencing another party. Did Facebook take this action at the behest of the DNC? Who does Zuck think he is helping? Is Zuck helping? There is no downside to this ban so who might benefit, if anyone?
Zuckerberg's action(s) this year could easily be the spark that creates a new political party. Does Zuck have enough clairvoyance to predict the ultimate outcome of his actions? Has he even considered the benefit or damage this kind of censorship will do to the future of Facebook? This could possibly spell the end of Facebook. The kids have left and now Zuck chases away the adults who cherish free speech. No one was forced to read Trumps Tweets. I wouldn't read them but I support his Constitutional right to broadcast them on public airwaves. Think about that for a second. Trump on broadcast TV (a growing market) and/or AM Radio.
If I found out where Trump is communicating I might be interested in subscribing because his actions over the next four years may impact all our lives. It will certainly be more interesting than anything happening in the party of symbolism and empty promises. Who does Biden think will loan the US another 3 trillion dollars?
The consumers of Trumps comments are adults who committed no crimes and may just be interested in the operation of the US government. They are not all wacky nut-jobs.
These are just a few of the things adults come in vain to Slashdot to talk about but instead we get a flock of parrots repeating the same old trope we are all sick of hearing.
Guess what, up until a week(ish) ago Trump had all the access to broadcast TV and radio he could have wanted. All he had to do is say that he was going to make an announcement and then head into the White House's broadcast room and every network in the US would have broadcast what he had to say. Instead of using this power he would rather use Twitter and Fox and Friends to make his pronouncements.
Re: (Score:3)
For more fun, go to a church on a Sunday and loudly preach the doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook does not have the right to restrict free speech
Dunno why some of you still don't get this, but it's their service - their rules. If you want a more hands on example of how this works, head to your local Walmart and loudly start preaching your political views. The store's security staff will be more than happy to explain.
My country, my rules then. Perhaps we should remove Zuckerberg for breaking community standards (without specifying what it was he broke exactly).
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook does not have the right to restrict free speech
Dunno why some of you still don't get this, but it's their service - their rules. If you want a more hands on example of how this works, head to your local Walmart and loudly start preaching your political views. The store's security staff will be more than happy to explain.
Or looked at another way. You can say whatever you want, you have not rights that allow you to force facebook to publish what you say.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not corporate fascism when corps and gov't's act in unison to silence people. It's just plain fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah damn that terrible government acting in unison with corporations to ... *checks notes*.... Remove the presidents facebook account?!
Fun fact: When Trumps account was removed for violating the terms and conditions, Trump WAS the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We warned you about this (Score:1)
Re:We warned you about this (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know why some of you still don't get this but the rules change when there is no place else to speak. The rules change when you are big enough to shut down competition just because you can.
No, they don't.
Re:We warned you about this (Score:5, Insightful)
the rules change when there is no place else to speak.
Pirate radio operators tried that same argument in the pre-internet days. It didn't work, and those folks actually had a better argument. Broadcast spectrum is a limited resource, and the companies that controlled it weren't about to let upstarts put their voice on the air.
Real estate on the internet is not a limited resource, so this becomes not an argument over being unable to speak, but over the belief that you're somehow entitled to speak in front of someone else's audience.
When they shutdown Parler
Facebook didn't shut down Parler; that's a separate issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We warned you about this (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Real estate on the internet is not a limited resource
I guess that explains all those "unlimited" plans that cut you off for arbitrary reasons.
All resources are limited. Just because they are generally cheap doesn't mean they are free as in beer... or free as in freedom. Ask anyone who has tried to run their own e-mail server, and suddenly found out they can't send/receive messages because most networks don't recognize you as a trusted, established business, and thus block all your mail by default. That's how "unlimited" the Internet is these days compared
Re: (Score:2)
When they shutdown Parler they also escorted you off the public side walk on the internet.
No they didn't Parler, got booted off AWS's nothing more. The fact that they are not online now is a mixture of their own incompetence.
I'm online. Somehow I'm online and have been before Jeff Bezos even came up with the idea to start selling books in his basement. Incidentally whole governments have tried to boot websites off the internet and they are still online as well.
Parler's incompetence rivals that of your understanding of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler's incompetence rivals that of your understanding of free speech.
From all that you just said it is clear that I clearly have a understanding of free speech and the ramifications than you do. You and those like think that having Parler shutdown because they pandered to a demographic that is unpopular with you. So, big tech shutting them down was just fine with you.
More over you don't seem the grasp the whole concept of what happened here. They took a site down because the speech was unpopular with the policies defined by those companies. What was being said on Parler
Re: (Score:2)
Big tech didn't shut them down. Amazon booted them off for breaching *their* terms of service.
Big tech can't shutdown Parler. Hell the entire legal force of multiple governments couldn't even shutdown ThePirateBay a website run by 2 people. To think Amazon not hosting parler is a free speech issue is laughable. What it really is is an attempt to excuse incompetence.
They took a site down because the speech was unpopular with the policies defined by those companies.
Indeed. I fully support that because I am an advocate for free speech. You can't have free speech without freedom of association. Why do you sup
Re: (Score:2)
Stop excusing lazyiness. This isn't a free speech issue. No free speech was violated.
Yes it is, and yes it was. This discussion is over.
Re: We warned you about this (Score:2)
If you want a more hands on example of how this works, head to your local Walmart and loudly start preaching your political views. The store's security staff will be more than happy to explain.
I don't know why some of you still don't get this but the rules change when there is no place else to speak.
You can be kicked out of every last Walmart on Earth, and that's all there is to it, but you can still march up and down the National Mall, or if you're not a total dick, in front of a congressman's house even. Facts don't care about your feelings.
Re:We warned you about this (Score:4, Insightful)
People should have seen this coming once you accepted the erroneous notion that individuals or groups had the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner. You can't absolve yourself simply because you agree with their political point of view. The US Constitution doesn't just define a set of rules for the government. It defines quite clearly in the 10th Amendment how our society is intended to function. Facebook does not have the right to restrict free speech any more than they have the right to infringe upon your 4th Amendment rights or your 5th Amendment rights (look them up. No, seriously, GO LOOK THEM UP). Ergo, they have no right to infringe upon your 6th Amendment rights either.
That's absolutely incorrect. While you have a second amendment right to have a gun, I also have a right on my private property to say "no guns allowed". Your right to own a gun doesn't trump my private property rights.
Re:We warned you about this (Score:4, Informative)
People should have seen this coming once you accepted the erroneous notion that individuals or groups had the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
Aren't you being a bit hyperbolic here? Judge, jury, and executioner? We're talking about your ability to post content on a private company's website.
Facebook does not have the right to restrict free speech any more than they have the right to infringe upon your 4th Amendment rights or your 5th Amendment rights (look them up. No, seriously, GO LOOK THEM UP). Ergo, they have no right to infringe upon your 6th Amendment rights either.
You might want to follow your advice and, seriously, GO LOOK THEM UP. Nevermind, I'll do it for you:
AMENDMENT VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I'll let you go look up the word I bolded on your own, and then I'll be eagerly awaiting your reply telling me how the 6th amendment is even remotely relevant to what we are discussing here.
Why is it that the people who go on blabbing about their constitutional rights almost never have a clue what the constitution even says or means?
Re: (Score:3)
People should have seen this coming once you accepted the erroneous notion that individuals or groups had the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner [of peoples' speech].
Turns out no, the way the constitution is written, this is not an "erroneous notion"-- people have the right to freedom of speech, but individuals (and that includes corporations) have no obligation to host that speech on their platform.
This may be a flaw in our notion of freedom of speech, if the platforms to disseminate speech are dominated by a small number of very large corporations; and even more of a flaw if these corporations act in concert.
This needs to be carefully thought through. The problem may
Re: (Score:2)
People should have seen this coming once you accepted the erroneous notion that individuals or groups had the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
Equating deplatforming with execution is a typically sleazy reich-wing tactic.
The US Constitution doesn't just define a set of rules for the government.
No, but the first amendment does define a set of restrictions for the government... and for nobody else.
Re: (Score:3)
That is exactly what it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does a private bus company have a right to refuse service to blacks?
There's a series of laws, but most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that specifically outlaws this sort of behaviour. Remember that for a century, the USSC said that it was perfectly constitutional for blacks to be treated differently.
There is no analagous law that applies to Facebook. It is not a constitutional issue. The only way to outlaw what Facebook did would be to pass a law that outlaws it. And even that wouldn't make removing Trump's account illegal retroactively.
Re: (Score:2)
You are 100% incorrect. You can contractually sign away every single right in the bill of rights when interacting with any entity other then the government. Free speech? Meet NDAs. Freedom of Religion? Meet an employment contract. Freedom of Association? Meet NDA, Copyright, Patents, Trade Secrets (middle 2 are officially sanctioned by US consitution). Right to bear arms? Meet any establishment rules (No shirt, no shoes, no guns, no service). Due Process? Meet mandatory arbitration.
Everything I've listed co
Re: We warned you about this (Score:2)
I dont have a strong oponion either way, but I view facebook as more of a privately owned forum.
Wouldn't this be more liken to Facebook not having the right to censor free speech, but rather have the right to have the loud drunk guy escorted from it's lawn?
Much as I couldn't tell somebody downtown to shut up, but I could tell him to leave my priperty and yell from the street?
I guess what I mean is, the face that facebook is popular shouldnt mean they aren't afforded the same rights as any other private enti
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah thats not how it works at all
The 10th ammendment specifically says
In other words it means the federal govt can only make laws permitted by the constitution. Thats it. Its in very clear wording so theres no ambiguity here.
So what does that mean for the first ammerndment?
Re: (Score:2)
10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th amendment doesn't say "how our society is intended to function". It just stipulate that if the Constitution doesn't specifically stipulate that a power resides with the Federal government then that power is under the purview of the states (or the people) and not the federal government.
4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These are limitation on the government. None of that in anyway applies to Facebook. Even if they did I have yet to hear of Facebook entering anyone's home and seizing "papers and effects"
"Necessary and right" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Necessary and right" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Facebook would get less backlash from conservatives if instead of making arguments like "necessary and right," they simply said that Trump's presence was "bad for business,"
No. They won't. They will just move the goalposts. They always have an excuse. They always have an explanation as to why they should be different. There's nothing you can do to placate those people.
Re: (Score:1)
So you just made an excuse not to keep the goalposts on the field with an explanation as to why they should be different. Apparently there is nothing they can do to placate you people.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I gave an explanation of a reason not to move the goalposts in order to appease fascists. You can't appease fascists. They will always promote fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree until Facebook and it's like minded folks use their monopoly power to stop competitors from giving dissenting voices a platform to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, and controversy, are good for business (Score:2)
The problem is that Trump isn't bad for business. Controversy, on a site that makes its money on conveying communications, is very very good for business. Which is why they are floating the idea now that they might go back on their decision. They made their money when Trump's star was ascendant, kept going when he brought them millions of new users, and then banned him only a week before he lost power. Now that Trump's followers are bleating about taking their toys and playing somewhere else, Twitter wa
Time for elections! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I believe that Twitter and Facebook and any company in a free society have the right to ban users as they see fit, as long as they're not a part of a protected class. Yes, that means you can be banned for your political stances. To have it any other way is the government compelling speech. The comparisons to China by the right wing are not apt; China will force you to print or not print certain speech if you're a social network operating in their country. Being able to suspend, flag and ban users is an act of agency. (I say this despite disagreeing with a lot of what Twitter does. I've had friends that have been banned for the crime of being women that don't take shit from guys sending them death threats. The guys sending the death threats weren't banned, but the women telling them to fuck off were.)
2. If people honestly believe that Twitter and Facebook are the new 'public square' (they're not), then as a public resource, we should be allowed to vote on who we think is in charge. Seriously. A public square without public governance makes no sense. Logistically this seems impossible. How does a country nationalize an international public square? How does a company adhere to the many 'public square' laws that multiple countries could pass? Would it be better if every country had their own public facebook timeline or something?
National Public Access (Score:2)
The problem with National Public Access is that while is completely solves the problem they're loudest about (the ability to speak in a public forum) it doesn't give them what they really want: Facebook and Twitter's ready made audience and the tools to automatically t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"If people honestly believe that Twitter and Facebook are the new 'public square' (they're not)"
Explain that to Jack Dorsey who testified under oath th Congress that Twitter is indeed the Public Square. His words. Zuckurberg has long said that about Facebook.
Re:Time for elections! (Score:5, Insightful)
2. If people honestly believe that Twitter and Facebook are the new 'public square' (they're not),
According to Jack Dorsey, Twitters creator, Twitter is indeed a public square.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech... [breitbart.com]
Yes, I know, Breitbart, but the video is valid. Since it is clear that they intend Twitter to be a public square then it should be regulated as one. The first amendment should apply.
Re:Time for elections! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you say something, doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Public space is simply another name for space that is owned by the government, such as side walks, parks, and other public property. There are literately thousands of laws that refer to public spaces and public property. It is a well defined concept defined under common law.
Re: (Score:2)
2. If people honestly believe that Twitter and Facebook are the new 'public square' (they're not), then as a public resource, we should be allowed to vote on who we think is in charge. Seriously. A public square without public governance makes no sense. Logistically this seems impossible. How does a country nationalize an international public square? How does a company adhere to the many 'public square' laws that multiple countries could pass? Would it be better if every country had their own public facebook timeline or something?
We do. We vote for the political leaders who are ultimately in charge of companies that operate in a nation.
As for whether we should be voting for the management of Twitter and Facebook, I don't see that as a useful thing.
Lets set aside the whole nationalization/private property angle. Do elections for judges really improve the quality of the judiciary? Did elections for dog catcher improve the quality of animal control?
Public attention is a very finite resource, the more elections and electoral choices you
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you. But I also don't believe that Twitter is the 'public square'—I believe that the public square is still the public square. Go outside and shout if you want, the government can't stop you. But Twitter isn't a utility, it isn't run by the government, and they can make whatever rules they want.
If the government wants to start running an online public square, fine. As you say, we already have elections that pick the government, and they can do it.
Re: (Score:2)
as long as they're not a part of a protected class
Just to clarify here. Are you saying that there are classes of people who don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else? If so, how would you reconcile that with ideals of equality? Because that would sound like some animal farm 'more equal than others' bullshit to me.
I'm technically part of a minority, do I have to wait until they make best-selling documentary about how oppressed we are to get my special treatment too? Should we hire a PR firm? What's the threshold? What happens if a protected
Re: (Score:2)
Protected classes as I understand them are people that are a particular way basically by virtue of birth, rather than any particular choice that they've made. Black people can't choose to be not black, so you can't discriminate against them on the basis of their skin colour. A constitutional monarchist has DECIDED to be that thing, and so deciding that their speech isn't welcome on your 'fuck the monarchy' social network is perfectly reasonable.
It IS a fine line to walk; see jury selection, where any excuse
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. I was mostly just pointing the problem with the concept of a protect class other than 'human' when it comes to law. Because regardless of it being done for good or ill, it makes laws apply differently for certain groups of people. As such are contradictory to their stated purpose, if perhaps in a more socially acceptable way.
As a gross oversimplification. Member of group A breaks law by punching member of group B. Penalty should be the same as if A and B were reversed. Having A be pen
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. In europe for example the philosophy is more like "hand over as much as work as possible to private companies because they are cheaper and more capable while regulating them so they act in the public interest."
Tough call, from a business sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the amount of public backlash from giving outside-the-norm people a hugely public platform to attract more followers finally outweighed the revenue it generated. When you have a political figure who tells everyone they should only listen to his tweets and posts, and that everything else is fake news, it puts social media companies in an uncomfortable spot. They have to be seen as tolerant of free speech, but they also have to walk a line between that and being seen as tolerating extremism/conspiracy theories.
I have zero illusions that all the crazies that existed before January 20 are still out there, and they're just waiting for Trump to start Trump TV so they can get their daily dose. Combine this with older people seeing Facebook as similar in authority to TV newscasts and younger people basically getting all their news from social media, and you could have a big mess on your hands. All the RNC, political SuperPAC, NRA and MyPillow ads in the world aren't worth alienating the other half of your customer base, so it's a business decision.
I don't think it was much of a call (Score:3)
History of the present mental illness politics (Score:2)
Yes. Also: The violence on January 6 was started many years ago by social degradation. This book explains how:
Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth [amazon.com]
A brief background: History of right wing media in the US since the 1980s [imgur.com].
It's a kind of mental illness suffered by people who had bad childhoods.
Trump plans to continue making the problems MUCH more damaging: Trump campaign had paid [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Uhuh. Sure he did. We believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
Using some reasoning, can't a billionaire start or buy their own online service? Why does Facebook (or Twitter) have to be the place? Surely someone of his resources can work around this.
Facebook has to be *the* place (Score:4, Interesting)
First, they've got everybody on there (or as many as will use social media). In particular there are a lot of older folks who are receptive to your message and who joined FB to chat with family.
Second, Facebook's algorithm is well suited for radicalizing people. It methodically curates the content you receive, keeping it from being too extreme for your current position on a political compass.
Take the Geophysicist who is in jail for trying to drag a cop into an angry mob on the 6th. At some point you've got to start wondering how somebody with that level of education, a wife and 3 kids and a great life, six figure income and he throws all that away to storm the Capital. What got him to that point?
It probably didn't happen overnight. Maybe he's a fluke. Maybe he was always like that. But it's more likely it happened over time. Netflix has a movie called "The Brainwashing of My Dad" that chronicled it happening. It generally has to be a gradual thing. If you start out a normal guy with a good job and head over to Gab and see all the white supremacists and neo-N@zis over there it's a shock and you're turned off. But you start out with talk radio, move to Fox News & OANN, and all the while FB is drip feeding you more and more extremists views. It knows not to show you the N@azi dog whistles yet because if it does you'll recoil in horror and stop doom scrolling. So it gradually feeds you that stuff. A little here and a little there, until you're inured to it. Until it's not a shock to see it in your feed.
That's why it has to be Facebook. Facebook spent billions making that algorithm work. You can't just make your own FB and replicate that.
Re: (Score:2)
Using some reasoning, can't a billionaire start or buy their own online service? Why does Facebook (or Twitter) have to be the place? Surely someone of his resources can work around this.
This was the Parler approach. Now look up what happened to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Parler's failure really Facebook's fault or bad management (or just a bad idea)? Aren't we supposed to let businesses do their thing and fail or succeed on their own merits?
If there can never be a new Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc because of anti-competitive practices or sheer market dominance. Then yes, we should regulate these types of businesses. If the reason we want to regulate it is because someone we like got kicked off, then the reasoning is suspect and I'll remain skeptic of the motives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like to get contracts in writing so I can sue service providers that don't deal fairly.
The real failure here is that a small business versus AWS, GCP, Azure, etc is not on equal footing when it is time to agree to terms. It's why we don't like monopolies and why we regulate utilities.
Republicans may not like it, and Tech companies really will hate it, but we will have to start regulating cloud providers like we do other utilities. That it happened to Parler is temporarily funny, but it won't be funny very
Re: (Score:2)
This was the Parler approach. Now look up what happened to them.
Comparing Parler to Facebook is not a fair comparison at all. The biggest difference one might notice is Parler stood up their shitshow entirely on someone else's shitshow. Facebook runs their own shitshow.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the Mercers did with Parler.
Other very wealthy people did the same with OANN, Newsmax, etc.. These were all founded to push an agenda, not to accurately report the news.
"Independent experts" (Score:3)
There's more to it (Score:2)
"independent experts" picked by the very people who then use them as a shield. If they were REAL "independent" experts, somebody independent would select and pay them. Somebody TRULY independent, including somebody not politically aligned.
This is hardly something new. Congress and Presidents have used this scam for decades - when something happens (anything from a geopolitical event to a corrupt demand from a campaign contributor) that makes politicians need to take an action they know will upset their vote
Expert (Score:4, Interesting)
>"This is why we established the Oversight Board. It is the first body of its kind in the world: an expert-led independent organization"
"Expert-led"
[Major eye roll]
Nothing says censorship like the aristocracy/technocracy deciding what we are allowed to see. I feel so much "safer."
What is needed is user-moderation with no censorship, ever. Allow actual users to not only rate things based on various criteria, but decide what they want to see (or not) based on their own criteria and settings (or choose to defer to others'). That is freedom of speech and freedom of consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
sometimes tyrannical governments accidentally silence real criminals. Just because Stalin was bad doesn't mean everyone he murdered was good, I'm sure accidentally one or two out of millions deserved it.
Re: (Score:2)
>"This is why we established the Oversight Board. It is the first body of its kind in the world: an expert-led independent organization"
"Expert-led"
[Major eye roll]
Nothing says censorship like the aristocracy/technocracy deciding what we are allowed to see. I feel so much "safer."
Independent oversight actually seems like a good solution to me.
Moderation will always be controversial. Oversight boards are basically built to absorb and dispel controversy. Partially by being a somewhat abstract target, but also by developing rules to drive their decisions.
What is needed is user-moderation with no censorship, ever. Allow actual users to not only rate things based on various criteria, but decide what they want to see (or not) based on their own criteria and settings (or choose to defer to others'). That is freedom of speech and freedom of consumption.
So are you asking for hidden moderation via AI tuning, or for people to unintentionally build themselves silos of crazy as their info streams become crazier and crazier as moderates are inevitably filtered away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step outside the world of politics and ask yourself how that idea works with child pornography and other images. A lot of the people that Facebook pays to review this type of material end up with PTSD.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Step outside the world of politics and ask yourself how that idea works with child pornography and other images. A lot of the people that Facebook pays to review this type of material end up with PTSD."
I think it would work quite well. Designed correctly, the moderation/tagging options would include content as well as author.
Facebook has no "independent" committiees or fact- (Score:1)
Facebook is worthless to Trump (Score:2)
Some will pay Trump just to get an interview with him. Why would a man like Trump want to use Facebook for anything other than taking another verbal shit?! He will only use it to pour more oil into the flames, because he cannot make money from it and rather watches it burn. There are plenty of platforms and media outlets for Trump to speak out on and he's still a free man, alive and kicking. He got banned, like an ordinary citizen, like the little man, and Trump didn't get an elite, rich man's treatment for
misdirecting frame / propaganda (Score:2)
The right decision (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gay Wedding Cake (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You got the ruling wrong. It is not about simple providing goods or services, those are still 'protected'. It is that the baker could not be forced to create a custom artwork that is specified by the customer. i.e. the gay person still had the right to buy a pre-made cake or any pre-made-custom-cake.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-... [scotusblog.com]
"Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs"
Nothing about custom artwork. He simply didn't make cakes for gay weddings.
pre-made cake or any pre-made-custom-cake
First of all, you don't buy a "pre made" cake for a wedding. What, are they going to store it in the fridge at home?
Second,
"but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods."
Read the rest of Phillip's reas
It's all bullshit. (Score:3)
They're merely trying to give an appearance of reasonable, accountable authority.
In reality, they're nothing of the sort.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are reasonable and accountable by any sane measure. Remember Parler started as a safe haven for those "oppressed and censored" by the likes of Facebook. Parler themselves are the ones pointing to Facebook as a site that moderates and censors views.
Unfortunately Facebook had close to 50000 posts per second. Yes, that's 50000. 4000 of those every second are picture uploads. The ability to moderate all content is simply not possible.
Hence "reasonable" here most definitely will allow content to sl
Re: (Score:3)
That was the entire basis of hate against them from the extreme right.
Funny. The Far Left accuses them of been a tool for the Far Right.
In reality, they're at the random whim of a "moderator".
And, seeing where they're located, the political biases are quite clear.
And unevenly enforced
You can make all the excuses you want.
It doesn't change the fact that the platform has a clear political bias, and policies that GENERALLY only cut one way.
And the people who hate them aren't the "extreme right". Unless you view Joe Stalin as "centrist".
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, they're at the random whim of a "moderator".
Correct. You just touched on what makes Facebook different. It's moderated. Additionally it has a community reporting function and a set of standards and guidelines which their moderators work to.
You can make all the excuses you want.
It doesn't change the fact that the platform has a clear political bias, and policies that GENERALLY only cut one way.
Oh? Please tell me which way they are biased. Because by all accounts they are biased to the left, which kind of undermines your argument that it's bullshit them not getting shutdown for what Parler is doing.
You can't have it both ways.
And the people who hate them aren't the "extreme right". Unless you view Joe Stalin as "centrist".
Whatever you say internet random.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep telling yourself this.
Re: (Score:2)
I give you back your own answer.
Whatever you say internet random.
Isn't it adorable when . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't it adorable when Facebook acts like it has integrity?
Human decency vs. advertising revenue streams... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are lots of "Supreme Courts", not just The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Just look up The Supreme Court of <Insert State Here> and you can find dozens of them.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be a violation of the first amendment of the United States of America's Constitution. The government cannot shutdown a company because CNBC chose to call Facebook's Oversight Panel a 'Supreme Court'. Facebook themselves did not even call their Oversight Panel a 'Supreme Court'. See for yourself what they said: https://about.fb.com/news/2021... [fb.com]
Re: Facebook should be shut down (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Did Facebook refer to it as "Supreme Court." or was it "NBC" that did it?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We do have death panels. They work for insurance companies. The insurance companies are written into the ACA.
What we need is Medicare For All, not insurance companies.
Of course, Republicans are even more against M4A than they are against the ACA... So there's no help there.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/c... [cbsnews.com]
Free markets don't exist in something that is limited good (how many hospitals that are independently managed do you have access to?).
I am guessing that you never had a serious illness and saw the bills for it.
Re: Death panels (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a free market without government interference with bad actors.
Since you need government interference anyway, why not have the kind which will reduce costs the most?
Re: Death panels (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If controlled medical markets are such a terrible thing why is it that healthcare in the US is more expensive than in countries that actually have universal healthcare?
Maybe the problem isn't "socialized medicine" but rather the problem is that we shouldn't be trying to profit off of healthcare.