Facebook To End Special Treatment for Politicians (theverge.com) 73
Facebook plans to end its controversial policy that shields politicians from the content moderation rules that apply to other users, a sharp reversal that could have global ramifications for how elected officials use the social network. From a report: The change, which Facebook is set to announce as soon as Friday, comes after the Oversight Board -- an independent group funded by Facebook to review its thorniest content rulings -- affirmed its decision to suspend former President Donald Trump but critiqued the special treatment it gives politicians, stating that the "same rules should apply to all users." The board gave Facebook till June 5th to respond to its policy recommendations.
Now publish all the rules! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which they won't do.
It's like being in a Kafka court. Rules should be publicly published, clear, and written in a way that most reasonable people would agree that a posting either violated or did not violate the rules. Agreeing with the rules is another matter altogether. In other words: "All white people.." and "All black people..." both get equally deleted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Rules should be publicly published, clear, and written in a way that most reasonable people would agree
Why? The purpose of these rules is to target their political adversaries. How does your strategy help Facebook achieve its goals?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like:
"All black people need to stay longer in the sun than white people to produce the same amount of Vitamin D"
According to your rules, this should get deleted?
Re: (Score:2)
https://m.facebook.com/communi... [facebook.com]
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, you know, it's fucking Facebook and getting banned is probably the best thing that could happen to you.
Seriously, you are exaggerating. In a Kafka court you go to jail, have your freedom taken away. On Facebook... You get tracked and monetized less. There are other social networks, and you can set up your own, and at the end of the day Facebook is a private company so is allowed to have secrets and allowed to decide who it lets into its herd of cattle to be mercilessly flogged to the lowest bid
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Blatant lies, like saying the rona came from that laborato- oh wait, that was true after all.
And that it was all natural from bats, not modif- oh wait, turns out that's also very likely.
What's next, they'll prove the election was stolen?
Re: Let politicians be immune to censor (Score:2)
They throw every possible permutation of shit at the wall so yeah, people like you can say âoesee? They were right all along!â and then repeat the distilled bs.
The rest is forgotten.
And you fell for it.
People used to be smarter than that.
Re: Let politicians be immune to censor (Score:5, Insightful)
People used to be smarter than that.
No, it just looks that way. People have always been ready to believe what they're told, as long as it doesn't go against what they already believe. It's just a lot easier to find garbage info now, and a lot easier to see people repeating it.
Re: (Score:2)
People used to be smarter than that.
No, it just looks that way. People have always been ready to believe what they're told, as long as it doesn't go against what they already believe. It's just a lot easier to find garbage info now, and a lot easier to see people repeating it.
On average people were smarter because the fool wasn't convinced his ignorance was worth as much as everyone else's knowledge.
The barriers to publishing have reduced to almost nothing these days, whilst I believe overall its a good thing, it does mean that any idiot gets to air their thoughts to all and sundry. As this is a new phenomena, we haven't really learned to deal with it properly. I suspect in 5 to 10 years, we'll be ignoring idiots on You/Insta/Face/whatever like we ignore idiots who shout on s
Re: (Score:2)
On average people were smarter because the fool wasn't convinced his ignorance was worth as much as everyone else's knowledge.
I'm not following which way your logic is going, but your key point is factually incorrect. People were not smarter. If anything, testing indicates newer generations are more intelligent than previous ones. Take a look at the Flynn effect. It's not all increase everywhere, but does show a general increase.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be they had better sources of infomation. Today we have this myth out there that literally everything the mass media says is a lie, and that visiting randomized web sites on the internet is more accurate. Yes, there are sometimes distortions in mass media. but 99% of it can be relied upon. You read the obits page, and it's pretty much a sure thing that everyone on that page did actually die, and that the page is not a lie full of conspiracies; even though the obits themselves will exaggerate h
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting how much religion and superstition are deep at the core of QAnon.
Sort of parallels with Scientology where it sounds like one thing for the new initiate then you get gradually introduced to more and more bizarre underpinnings over time.
Re: Let politicians be immune to censor (Score:2)
Err, those two theories are very unlikely and largely disproven respectively.
And Dumpster lost by 7 million votes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not known to be true after all. Sorry but you seem to have jumped the gun. There is a possibility that it came from a laboratory, but a vastly higher probability that it did not. Please do not get your science and health information from politicians. Anyone who expects science to stay the same does not know much at all about science.
Apparently, the biggest political crime is one of changing your mind. New evidence has come to light so I have new recommendations, whoops that makes me a waffler, a l
Re: (Score:2)
Blatant lies, like saying the rona came from that laborato- oh wait, that was true after all.
Nobody called that a blatant lie. What people said was that it is dangerous to make the claim unless you have evidence that supports it (which there wasn't, and still isn't).
The fact that this outbreak started so close to a lab that was researching coronavirus strains is suspicious, and you'd have to be an idiot to not wonder if there's a connection. The second I heard that there was a virus research facility very close to the outbreak that just happened to be studying the same kind of virus, I immediatel
Re: (Score:2)
That's what newspapers and journalists are for. If you're convinced they're all part of the game, you're reading the wrong ones. Actual journalism that does this for you, and much better than you have the ability and time to do yourself.
Jesus. Imagine thinking you'd get this from letting politicians' socmedia managers.
Re: (Score:3)
Most politicians are actually very careful what they say, and often employ teams of people to curate their public image and write their speeches etc. You see it very often in interviews, where politicians will frequently avoid answering direct questions posed by the interviewer.
Very few if any will ever speak their minds openly. That's extremely dangerous, as it creates a public record that could be used against them in future. Also a lot of speech can be ambiguous, and although in most cases the intended m
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what used to happen, I agree. These days, many politicians will just go full nutter and say what they think their voting base wants to hear. Never go full nutter. You also see the politicians give very different interviews depending upon if they're on Fox today and CNN tomorrow and later at QAnon-a-con.
Re: (Score:3)
If politicians want to say whatever they want without filter, then they should set up their own blog like Trump did.
And then promptly shut it down a month later [go.com] because no one cared for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Words too hard. Many letters.
Empower the USER, not corporate censors (Score:4, Insightful)
The only kind of bad censorship is that done by organizations against individuals. Empower the user to censor content according to their own standards, and you will foster the highest degree of social functioning and freedom of speech.
Plus, you get your business out of politics and back to its core mission of making money.
All agree that spam blockers are a good thing. Nobody complains about them because using them is VOLUNTARY.
Re: Empower the USER, not corporate censors (Score:3)
Using an email service that comes with a bundled spam blocker you are not even aware of is pretty normal. No reason social media should be different. The can choose whether or not to use the service, so they are given a choice.
If you want choice, Facebook is not a good place to go. They do not give you a choice about how they use your data or the various ways they track you around the internet. If you want to be an empowered user, then Facebook is a pretty poor choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Email gives you a choice because it's an open interoperable standard. There are many providers to choose from or you can be your own provider.
Facebook does not, it's a single site operated by a single entity, you have no choice.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a choice. I never created a Facebook account.
Re: (Score:2)
You also don't have to use Facebook to get news. The original intent was just to keep track of friends and family, and it still works for that purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two problems with this idea.
First, people will just whine and moan that the default filters are blocking them, just like they whine and moan about the YouTube algorithm not select their video to highlight.
Secondly, some stuff has to be removed for legal reasons. Those legal reasons are not all that clear either. A lot of stuff is subjective and ultimately only a court can decide, but not being complete bastards they may prefer to act before it gets that far, e.g. involuntary pornography. Saying "s
Re: (Score:2)
OK, sure. Remove any content that you believe harms your service (such as spam, attacks, etc.) or is a crime. Done and done. As a business, you're still out of the censorship business. Those are objective standards not based on opinions.
Politicians to end special treatment of Facebook.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I look forward to the politicians returning the favor by making it perfectly clear that Facebook is abusing its market position to the harm of the general public, and should be more closely regulated and/or prosecuted to deter future harms to consumers.
Politicians to quit trying to regulate Facebook. (Score:3)
making it perfectly clear that Facebook is abusing its market position to the harm of the general public, and should be more closely regulated and/or prosecuted to deter future harms to consumers.
Not even close. Facebook is a private company that runs a service for people to share thoughts with friends and family. It's a free service and Facebook can decide what is and isn't allowed on their site. If you don't like their rules then don't use their site.
Think of Facebook as the bulletin board at your workplace. Your employer has the right to determine what is appropriate to post on the bulletin boards in the hallways. You can't claim they are violating "free speech" just because they don't all
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument might make sense if the US was the only country in the world, and if Facebook didn't buy up competitors (notably Instagram and WhatsApp) and other tech companies (such as Oculus) in efforts to build vertical monopolies. However, neither of those are true, so your assumptions about the legal regime are wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As predicted, politicians are [slashdot.org] making exactly this decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close. Facebook is a private company that runs a service for people to share thoughts with friends and family. It's a free service and Facebook can decide what is and isn't allowed on their site. If you don't like their rules then don't use their site.
What I think keeps confusing you is you think that facebook is beyond regulation. An some how you keep thinking that a company policy is the law of the land. Companies dont' make laws, governments make laws. An a government made law ALWAYS over rules any company policy.
Also you keep forgetting that a company operates at the whim of the government. If the government decides that a company, say facebook, no longer needs to exist, then said government can dissolve said company.
Back to your private
And they will change again (Score:2, Insightful)
If a Republican wins the White House in 2024 they will revert back to the old policy. Facebook has no values, they just do whatever is most expedient.
Which politicians? (Score:2)
Will Alex Lukashenko, Kim Jong Un and Nicolas Maduro be granted the same free rein as Joe Biden and Naftali Bennett?
Re: (Score:2)
Why more people don't immediately make this argument is a mystery to me. If you empower the organization you like, you've set a precedent. When the next organization comes along you don't like, now you've effectively empowered them to hurt you.
Re: makes sense (Score:2)
Yeah, not the dumpster fire you had for a leader at all.
Re: (Score:1)
And attract your republican base over to that free speech site.
say what? (Score:3)
"You can always start your own social media website..."
Um, like Parler, right?
Sorry, but in an environment where all the big tech giants will instantly coordinate to nullify any upstart who attempts to "start your own", eliminating his ability to run servers, get ads, get payments, etc this argument is not valid. Free market competition only functions in a free market - NOT in a market of government-sponsored and protected monopoly and collusion. Parler may finally be back up, but even after finding a ver
Re: say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parler was given examples of promoting violence and murder posts and asked to remove those posts. Parler refused and was shut down.
As soon as parler removed those posts they were back online with the same providers .
Truth will set your stupid mind free if only you accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler talked a big game about how they were a free speech platform, but when big daddy amazon came to them with requests to punish users or delete posts they bowed down and deep throated the boot. AWS is currently arguing that they can remove business partners for any reason with zero notice.
Parler's repeated attempts at resurrection have been done using entirely static pages and without the aid of their vertically integrated toolset previously used.
If you really think that parler exists in its current li
Is the CCP and its ilk going to get blocked? (Score:3)
It should, but I doubt FB has the cajonies. What the CCP is doing to the Uyghurs plus its fentanyl pipeline into the US should make them #1 on the social media hit list.
There is no independent Oversight Board... (Score:4, Insightful)
The change, which Facebook is set to announce as soon as Friday, comes after the Oversight Board -- an independent group funded by Facebook to review its thorniest content rulings
The Oversight Board is funded by the very same entity that they're supposed to be "overseeing". They're absolutely NOT independent and they have ZERO recourse against the entity they're supposed to be "overseeing" if Facebook decides to pull funding for a decision by the Oversight Board that they don't like. This is nothing more than watching the phrase "We've investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing" in action. If this supposed "oversight" board decided not to affirm Facebook's decision to permanently suspend the prior Cheetoh In Chief, you can bet that their funding from Facebook would have vanished faster than my Internet browser history after my "date night" is concluded. As soon the board rules against Facebook in ways that Facebook doesn't like, especially on issues with a significant PR exposure, there's not going to be an oversight board anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
Except in this case, since they hyped up the oversight board, even calling it FB's supreme court, etc, and then suddenly pull the funding after a decision, it will be a huge PR nightmare I guess.
"woke"-panic just means you lack social skills (Score:5, Interesting)
My prediction? They're going to pivot away from politics, generally. They're an advertising company. Sure...fear and anger sells guns, doomsday prepper supplies, scams for the elderly, and apparently Lindell Pillows, but the market for that is pretty limited compared to selling entertainment, cars, alcohol, soft drinks, ads for local entertainment and dining establishments, food, etc. Angry people tend to have less disposable income and be less in the mood to spend money. Happy people spend more and sad people spend even more than happy or angry people. I liked facebook when it was about seeing photos from friends....before the stupid people learned how to use it and spewed their dumbass conspiracy theories and the dumbest patriotic bluster one could conceive of. I am not the only one. Facebook is losing their busy and fun crowd and the only ones staying are old and angry. It's already a cliche that no one under 40 is on there. It used to be the hottest site on the web and it would be making a LOT more money if it was about kid photos and fun things and not people expressing dread that their country is going down the shitter.
Stop the complaining about "wokeness." It's not really a thing outside twitter. I live in one of the deepest blue places in the country and there are very few openly woke people here...because everyone fucking hates them. No one wants to be around a self-righteous pompous ass.
Every single person I've met who complains about "wokeness" was just an asshole with a habit of cluelessly spewing racist, sexist, and generally clueless nonsense...and then when all their friends said..."hey, I'm trying to enjoy dinner, can you stop complaining about black people and let us enjoy our night out?"...they get this chip on their shoulder thinking they've been silenced by this shadowy movement financed by George Soros or Bill Gates or whatever.
Yeah, buddy...quote whatever Tucker Carlson was ranting about last week around your coworkers and they'll tell you to shut up...not because they're "woke" or even liberal...they're your friends, so they probably have pretty similar views to you....they'll tell you to stop...just because you're an ass...you're a buzzkill...you have SHIT social skills...and no one wants to be around you. Wokeness is not a real thing. When people ask you to stop talking, it's not about politics, or your truth being too deep for them to understand, but about you being an unpleasant person. I have strongly liberal views, but I keep them to myself in social situations...why?...because no one wants to fucking hear my view on world events at a party. No one wants to go to the beach with me and hear my views on Donald Trump...even if they agree 100% why?...it's shit manners and we have a million more fun things to do and talk about than politics. There's a reason politics and religion are traditionally taboo conversation subjects....because when you talk about it, you're a fucking bummer. Work on your social skills and you'll realize wokeness is not the issue...you've just been behaving like an asshole this entire time.
Re: (Score:2)
Our local facebook office is having a really tough time recruiting engineers. Anyone they want to hire has many options and who the fuck wants to get on that sinking ship? Every friend I had that worked there left. It was mildly toxic culturally when it was cool...now it's despised and the opposite of cool.
You noticed symptoms, but then you decided...
This isn't about being woke.
How could you fail to connect "toxic culturally" and woke ideology? Do you think FB is toxic because they are not woke/censorious enough?! Are you serious?
Facebook's toxicity is cultural not political (Score:2)
Our local facebook office is having a really tough time recruiting engineers. Anyone they want to hire has many options and who the fuck wants to get on that sinking ship? Every friend I had that worked there left. It was mildly toxic culturally when it was cool...now it's despised and the opposite of cool.
You noticed symptoms, but then you decided...
This isn't about being woke.
How could you fail to connect "toxic culturally" and woke ideology? Do you think FB is toxic because they are not woke/censorious enough?! Are you serious?
You may think wokeness is what makes facebook toxic, but for "woke" people, the culture of move fast and break things was far worse. They have many issues beyond politics. First of all, from what I've heard politics is a small part. I work in a very liberal company myself. Politics is less than 1% of the experience. Every month or so, we get some e-mail where HR breaks it's arm patting itself on the back about diversity and how important social issues are...then every other moment is about getting prod
Re: (Score:1)
I live in one of the deepest blue places in the country and there are very few openly woke people here
the mayor, the school superintendent, the district attorney, the editor of the newspaper, the head of HR...just a few
Re: "woke"-panic just means you lack social skills (Score:1)
This will last until (Score:2)
I've said this many times before, and I'll keep repeating it. Facebook sells ads. It's what they do. It's why they exist. It's the ONLY reason they exist. The social networking app is nothing but a honeypot that helps sell the ads.
Facebook will let NOTHING get in the way of selling ads. This doesn't make them evil. Companies exist to make money. Th
This will create a demand for regulation (Score:2)
Prediction: within 1-2 years, Facebook will be pressured to ban entire political communities from their US sites. Social conservatism, old school class warriors on the left, you name it.
And the people demanding the banning will cite the fact that Facebook is a private platform with social responsibilities, it has 1A protection, etc.
The result is that the constituencies targeted by the woke and their enablers in the moderate, career politician wings of both parties will become even more deeply radicalized an
Re: (Score:2)
I often dislike the same politicians. I just don't have the same faith in said corporations that a lot of people seem to. Person
Re: (Score:2)
I never exactly understood the folks who are cheering on corporate censorship. When you ask them if they'd be fine with power companies turning off power to environmental activists, phone companies denying calls to people who point out misappropriated fiber funding, etc they generally are not in favor of such things. But Facebook, Twitter, etc censoring politicians is okey doke.
I never exactly understood the folks who compare physical infrastructure with an internet service. Physical infrastructure is regulated because it's usually a natural monopoly, plus that a property owner doesn't want to deal with the easements from 4 different companies digging up their backyard to deliver sewer, gas or whatnot. Physical infrastructure is also not an interactive service on the internet where you can post user generated content.
And corporate censorship? Their service, their rules. But censor
interesting. (Score:2)
"Their service, their rules. But censorship? That's just the calling cry of the snowflakes having a meltdown because they aren't allowed to take a shit on private property."
So... it's just fine if Apple won't let people use any Apple servers (and therefore make your iPhone, iPad, etc useless) if you criticize their relationship with China?
and you'd be fine if all the internet server providers refused service to anybody who calls for net neutrality? Their wires and servers, their property, right?
What if th
Re: (Score:3)
So... it's just fine if Apple won't let people use any Apple servers (and therefore make your iPhone, iPad, etc useless) if you criticize their relationship with China?
If you buy Apple products, you have to deal with Apple. If you don't like what they are doing there are a multitude of other device-manufacturers out there, vote with your wallet as the saying goes. Also, what you are referring to is limited to how Apple operates in China, ie they suck totalitarian dick to have a market there and a majority of Apple users don't give a fuck about that, just like how they don't give a fuck about other shitty things Apple does.
and you'd be fine if all the internet server providers refused service to anybody who calls for net neutrality? Their wires and servers, their property, right?
Nice strawman there. An ISP is a network infrastru
They should not use social media at all (Score:3)
No Special Treatment For Politicians (Score:3)
No special treatment for politicians? Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis won't be happy.
Florida, in a First, Will Fine Social Media Companies That Bar Candidates [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetical example, you have a primaries with 2 top runners. One is banned from social media, other is not. Who do you think is more likely to win? Also, whose voice do you think should matter more - primary voters or unelected technocrats?
Well yeah. (Score:1)
And so on (Score:2)
No, the same rules should not apply to all users. You need to knw what your politicians want to do and think, not having intermediaries picking and choosing.
There's a reason the Supreme Court doesn't let the government set itself up as the Arbiter of Truthiness Speech. Because it will, and instantly start censoring things that hurt those in power.
Now this board comes to a bad conclusion, and FB doubles down on it? "We censored Trump. Maybe we shouldn't have?" "Nah. Let's censor evedybody!"
And don't sa
Selective censoring (Score:1)