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 m…
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.
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.