Does this then suggest to you that Facebook's action as a publicly traded capitalist creation is an appropriate one to monitor discourse that verges not on right to free speech, but social winnowing of appropriate (truthful?) and inappropriate (blatant, seditious lies or fabrications?) That this would be private sector (albeit corporatio…
Does this then suggest to you that Facebook's action as a publicly traded capitalist creation is an appropriate one to monitor discourse that verges not on right to free speech, but social winnowing of appropriate (truthful?) and inappropriate (blatant, seditious lies or fabrications?) That this would be private sector (albeit corporation as citizen) acting responsible in consort with its subscribers (other like-minded citizens?)? I think we get into murky waters when we expect to truth to emerge from the loudest or from vote taking on the facts by subscribers.
I have many objections to Facebook that begin with their business model of monetization of promoting speech that inflames peoples worst emotions and total disregard of personal information and an individual's right to protect that information. However, that does not change my views on their right as a private enterprise to regulate speech on their platform with regard to the first amendment. Do I believe they should be more responsible? Certainly, but that is my effort to exercise moral suasion and argue that they act no illegally but in a morally reprehensible fashion. Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.
'Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.' Bruce this is the time! The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is an agency of the Department of Commerce. 'It serves as the President's principal adviser on telecommunications policies pertaining to the United States' economic and technological advancement and to regulation of the telecommunications industry.' (Wiki) I do not know if the Department of Commerce could be the trigger. Last October, 2020, the 'landmark internet law — Section 230 — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms' was to be addressed. 'Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for years to reform this law, arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become. That’s why the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning.' (Vox, Oct 28, 2020). Bruce, please note that both parties have wanted to reform this law for years and still have not. There is a law, so where's the way?
I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the speech of the platform but rather those who speak on the platform. Would you sue the owner of a stage or theatre for the speech of someone who rents the theatre and its stage? It is a different matter when it is a newspaper or other media where it is the speech of the media or journal owner. The problem with social media is the anonymity and false personas of the speakers making it impossible to identify who is responsible. Let everyone who wishes to speak on those platforms be required to both identify and authenticate themselves and allow for those real identities to be disclosed and held responsible for their speech. I am all for that. They can still be free under the first amendment to speak falsehoods and misinformation, the first amendment does not prevent that. But at least we can hold them accountable for their speech. And, if in fact, they do render slander or libel, incite or threaten violence, they can be held accountable for that as well.
In saying this is not the time or place for this discussion, I was referring only to Dr. Richardson's wonderful forum, which I am loath to monopolize to discuss a topic she did not bring up. Her own thoughts and words are far more important than mine.
Bruce, I will address a serious example of this in comment tomorrow or early next week. Your discussion of this big problem with other subscribers was of great interest to me. There will be more. Thank you.
Perhaps, but one could also argue that society would not be better served by ten morally reprehensible enterprises, than simply one. As I have stated already I have strong objections to Facebook's monetization of inflaming peoples' worst emotions and fears, let alone their shameless allowing promotion of disinformation. But that is a morality question, not a legal issue. I do not believe the government should regulate a private enterprise's right to determine what is published on their platform so long as it does not violate the legal issues I have already discussed. I may abhor what they publish and promote, but I will defend their right to make those decisions. That is why I am an ACLU member and supporter.
Should the government determine for a variety of very legitimate reasons they are behaving in an anti-competitive, monopolistic fashion, wrongly suppressing competition - which may very well be true. Then let them be held responsible for that under the commercial laws regulating such behavior. That has nothing to do with what they choose or not to publish on their platform. That is about their commercial behavior in the marketplace.
That I agree with. The special exemption extended to internet-resident social platforms from which newspapers and other journalism are not exempt is unreasonable. They are publishers of information just as are others. One alternative might be to allow those who use such platforms to disseminate disinformation to be held responsible. This would require relinquishing the anonymity generally afforded on the internet, which I believe is part of the problem. If you wish to step forward and speak, identify and authenticate yourself. By not requiring this identification and authentication on, for the purposes of this discussion, social media, it makes it possible to attain anonymity and thus avoid being held responsible. Let everyone who chooses to speak thus be required to identify and authenticate themselves and thus be available to be held accountable for what they choose to speak. I am all in favor of that.
Note: This is holding the "speaker" accountable, not the platform used for the speech. But it does make the speaker identifiable and accountable. Having said this, I still abhor Facebook for many other reasons I have already stated. It is a cesspool of disinformation and abhorrent swampy creatures, many with no morals or redeeming qualities whatsoever. Facebook's monetization of promoting peoples' worst emotions and fears is, in my view, a pretty shabby business model.
Individual responsibility and accountability for sure. And, if these public platforms for exchange of ideas are to become a public good, as were utilities at one time, then might we hope for some protections for the larger good where the presumption is that something like truth or an ethical responsibility can, hopefully be shared by platforms and subscribers? Maybe more competition might lead to greater protections of freedom of speech versus say a license to shout fire online with abandon.
I'm in favor of a social media colossus regulating or even banning speech, when that speech incites insurrection and treason. That's why 1/45 has been banned repeatedly from Twitter and FB, not because of his political views as Trumpskyites falsely claim. There's also a campaign to ban him from YouTube. That is fine with me.
I agree. I also think the elephant in the room is that with 2.7 billion users it would be literally impossible for Facebook to monitor every post for violations.
Maybe. Social media defies all previous attempts to corral the flow of information. I'm not at all sure the structures exist to do moderation at that scale. Even if you broke FB into ten separate companies, each would still have an unmanageable number of people posting. I truly believe it's the dilemma of our age, particularly considering their responsibility for the spread of disinformation.
Does this then suggest to you that Facebook's action as a publicly traded capitalist creation is an appropriate one to monitor discourse that verges not on right to free speech, but social winnowing of appropriate (truthful?) and inappropriate (blatant, seditious lies or fabrications?) That this would be private sector (albeit corporation as citizen) acting responsible in consort with its subscribers (other like-minded citizens?)? I think we get into murky waters when we expect to truth to emerge from the loudest or from vote taking on the facts by subscribers.
I have many objections to Facebook that begin with their business model of monetization of promoting speech that inflames peoples worst emotions and total disregard of personal information and an individual's right to protect that information. However, that does not change my views on their right as a private enterprise to regulate speech on their platform with regard to the first amendment. Do I believe they should be more responsible? Certainly, but that is my effort to exercise moral suasion and argue that they act no illegally but in a morally reprehensible fashion. Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.
'Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.' Bruce this is the time! The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is an agency of the Department of Commerce. 'It serves as the President's principal adviser on telecommunications policies pertaining to the United States' economic and technological advancement and to regulation of the telecommunications industry.' (Wiki) I do not know if the Department of Commerce could be the trigger. Last October, 2020, the 'landmark internet law — Section 230 — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms' was to be addressed. 'Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for years to reform this law, arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become. That’s why the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning.' (Vox, Oct 28, 2020). Bruce, please note that both parties have wanted to reform this law for years and still have not. There is a law, so where's the way?
I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the speech of the platform but rather those who speak on the platform. Would you sue the owner of a stage or theatre for the speech of someone who rents the theatre and its stage? It is a different matter when it is a newspaper or other media where it is the speech of the media or journal owner. The problem with social media is the anonymity and false personas of the speakers making it impossible to identify who is responsible. Let everyone who wishes to speak on those platforms be required to both identify and authenticate themselves and allow for those real identities to be disclosed and held responsible for their speech. I am all for that. They can still be free under the first amendment to speak falsehoods and misinformation, the first amendment does not prevent that. But at least we can hold them accountable for their speech. And, if in fact, they do render slander or libel, incite or threaten violence, they can be held accountable for that as well.
In saying this is not the time or place for this discussion, I was referring only to Dr. Richardson's wonderful forum, which I am loath to monopolize to discuss a topic she did not bring up. Her own thoughts and words are far more important than mine.
Bruce, I will address a serious example of this in comment tomorrow or early next week. Your discussion of this big problem with other subscribers was of great interest to me. There will be more. Thank you.
What FB needs is a lot more competition and competition rules that prevent it undermining that competition.
Perhaps, but one could also argue that society would not be better served by ten morally reprehensible enterprises, than simply one. As I have stated already I have strong objections to Facebook's monetization of inflaming peoples' worst emotions and fears, let alone their shameless allowing promotion of disinformation. But that is a morality question, not a legal issue. I do not believe the government should regulate a private enterprise's right to determine what is published on their platform so long as it does not violate the legal issues I have already discussed. I may abhor what they publish and promote, but I will defend their right to make those decisions. That is why I am an ACLU member and supporter.
Should the government determine for a variety of very legitimate reasons they are behaving in an anti-competitive, monopolistic fashion, wrongly suppressing competition - which may very well be true. Then let them be held responsible for that under the commercial laws regulating such behavior. That has nothing to do with what they choose or not to publish on their platform. That is about their commercial behavior in the marketplace.
Let them be made responsible then for the content found on their pages just as other media are open to be sued for damages by all and sundry.
That I agree with. The special exemption extended to internet-resident social platforms from which newspapers and other journalism are not exempt is unreasonable. They are publishers of information just as are others. One alternative might be to allow those who use such platforms to disseminate disinformation to be held responsible. This would require relinquishing the anonymity generally afforded on the internet, which I believe is part of the problem. If you wish to step forward and speak, identify and authenticate yourself. By not requiring this identification and authentication on, for the purposes of this discussion, social media, it makes it possible to attain anonymity and thus avoid being held responsible. Let everyone who chooses to speak thus be required to identify and authenticate themselves and thus be available to be held accountable for what they choose to speak. I am all in favor of that.
Note: This is holding the "speaker" accountable, not the platform used for the speech. But it does make the speaker identifiable and accountable. Having said this, I still abhor Facebook for many other reasons I have already stated. It is a cesspool of disinformation and abhorrent swampy creatures, many with no morals or redeeming qualities whatsoever. Facebook's monetization of promoting peoples' worst emotions and fears is, in my view, a pretty shabby business model.
Individual responsibility and accountability for sure. And, if these public platforms for exchange of ideas are to become a public good, as were utilities at one time, then might we hope for some protections for the larger good where the presumption is that something like truth or an ethical responsibility can, hopefully be shared by platforms and subscribers? Maybe more competition might lead to greater protections of freedom of speech versus say a license to shout fire online with abandon.
I agree. ✊ raising fist for social justice and responsible speech
It's impossible, though. Facebook can't monitor that many posts. It is the overriding dilemma of social media.
I'm in favor of a social media colossus regulating or even banning speech, when that speech incites insurrection and treason. That's why 1/45 has been banned repeatedly from Twitter and FB, not because of his political views as Trumpskyites falsely claim. There's also a campaign to ban him from YouTube. That is fine with me.
I agree. I also think the elephant in the room is that with 2.7 billion users it would be literally impossible for Facebook to monitor every post for violations.
Time for regulation and competition to cut them down to a "manageable size" so that they can take that responsibilty.
Maybe. Social media defies all previous attempts to corral the flow of information. I'm not at all sure the structures exist to do moderation at that scale. Even if you broke FB into ten separate companies, each would still have an unmanageable number of people posting. I truly believe it's the dilemma of our age, particularly considering their responsibility for the spread of disinformation.
https://www.omnicoreagency.com/facebook-statistics/