[Drlee]

I think a lot of older people may not understand or appreciate that for many people, especially younger millenials, things like Facebook and Skype have almost completely supplanted previous forms of communication such as telephone lines.

Nice try sport. Older people have embraced Facebook, Skype and Twitter with a vengeance. The majority of people over 50 use Facebook. But I note your vain attempt to make that argument.

You might note that Facebook is aware of another statistic. The more educated one is the more likely he/she is to use Facebook.

You say you are in little danger of being banned. Google IP address.

It isn't just about business though. It's a bad political decision.

The only politics they are interested in is any that may regulate them. Despite what Zukerberg might say, Facebook is not inviting government intervention. He sees, and he may be right, a democratic landslide in 2020. If it happens he will be in their cross hairs big time. He also knows that republican politicians see those very same young Facebook users you mention as the enemy. They are not happy about its political utility. So Facebook is walking a tight wire.

You are frightened that you might lose your access to your friends? Then lets call Facebook what it is and regulate it so you can't. You will no doubt have to pay for it and that will drop millions from the service but what the hell. Then, because it is a public utility ban all manner of content that is not fit for a government regulated media and away we go. Facebook was not conceived of to act as a political platform. Why not go back to its original purpose....pics of the kids, cute puppies and undirected advertising.

[maz]

I am surprised that my friends on the right are whining about free enterprise. I thought they were capitalists and free enterprise people. I certainly am. Let's look at the truth.

Since Trump has taken office they have gutted environmental regulation to support....business.

They have started a trade war with about everyone to support....business.

They have revoked net neutrality. Why? To allow ISP's the ability to monetize access to content.

But along comes perhaps the greatest American success story. Facebook. A dorm room project wisely grown to an international behemoth. Like google, a potential kingmaker as has never before been seen. And what happens to these snowflake whiners? The guy who owns most of it and controls all of it decides he wants to run it his way and they have a shit fit. The very same people who hollered at the top of their lungs about forcing some poor schmuck baker to make a wedding cake because it violated his free speech rights and the right to not offend his beliefs at his business go utterly apoplectic at the notion that Zukerberg might do the same thing.

You were making a fairly decent argument and I was actually agreeing with some it; especially when you noted the hypocrisy of conservatives even though the statement was a blanket generalization.

Here is what I have to say to all of the right wingers who are mad because Facebook and others are taking down their agent provocateurs: Fuck off. You are roasting on a fire that you built. You had every opportunity to follow the democrats who wanted to regulate these companies. You had every opportunity to back net neutrality. But your bought-and-paid-for politicians didn't do it. Why? Because they are taking money from the big cable companies. That's why. And shit flows down hill.

You do realize that you said to Verv that he wouldn't want to be held to some of his opinions from 10 years ago, yet you are holding conservatives to their positions as if people can't change their views on things.

I've seen the right change their views on a ton of stuff since the Iraq war days. Why can't some of them maybe change their positions on regulation? And I'm not even saying that knee-jerk government regulation is necessarily the answer here either.

Also, you think that people should be punished and censored for not supporting some other totally unrelated government law or policy?

What do I want? For now nothing. I want my fellow conservatives to stop listening to the likes of Alex Jones and start learning about how to govern a diverse and free country. I want these paid shit throwers silenced. I want the racist, misogynist, mostly unintelligent drones who are passing for conservative these days to have to don their robes and meet around the campfire in order to have their need for hate stoked.

Ain't free speech and private ownership a bitch? But hey. Conservatives believe in hands-off of business. So have fun suckers.

Now you're just being unnecessarily rude and nasty. Here's were you showed your hand; the argument you use to back up your authoritarian views of public speech is not a very coherent argument and it is really just about censoring people you don't like.

I'm not on Facebook, but I do use Twitter and participate in Discus and other article comment sections and they all have a "block" or "mute" function. I'm pretty sure Facebook has a similar feature for preventing you from seeing people's content who you disagree with. No one is forcing you or anyone else to listen to Alex Jones or Laura Loomer.

[Red_Army]

I think @Hong Wu is Jacob Wohl, prove me wrong.

[Drlee]

I'm not on Facebook, but I do use Twitter and participate in Discus and other article comment sections and they all have a "block" or "mute" function. I'm pretty sure Facebook has a similar feature for preventing you from seeing people's content who you disagree with. No one is forcing you or anyone else to listen to Alex Jones or Laura Loomer.

I am not concerned about what I see. I am concerned about what others who appear to be unable to filter see. There were all to many people who actually believe that President Obama is a Muslim and that he was born in Kenya. Why? Because the morons who forwarded this nonsense were given equal credence in media.

The internet is wonderful in that it allows us access to information that could not even have been imagined in my youth. But the purpose of journalism was once to filter these sources and give the people something resembling the truth. No longer. People are exposed to "news" that is not journalism but rather a deliberate distortion. So how powerful is misinformation?

Sen Al Franken was elected by 331 votes. A single malevolent poster with time and a modem could well have posted enough disinformation to sway the election the other way. Had this happened, this bad actor, with a laptop and a grudge could have stopped the Affordable Care act all by herself. This is not good.

So when I see Facebook and others pushing us toward regulation or at least trying to ameliorate this situation I am all for them.

Does my anger show through? I hope so. I am a republican who does not like what has happened to his party. Never mind the so-called liberals. Mind those of us in the conservative camp who are looking for moderate candidates because of what is happening in the name of conservatism.

You do realize that you said to Verv that he wouldn't want to be held to some of his opinions from 10 years ago, yet you are holding conservatives to their positions as if people can't change their views on things.

Yes. And the tone of my post is an attempt to get them to do just that.

[blackjack21]

Facebook is an entertainment company that is privately owned. It is not a public utility.

Facebook is publicly traded. They use the facilities of public capital markets, and that imposes requirements on them. Government has plenary authority to regulate commerce, and they may do so in these types of cases in the not too distant future.

(1) Free association. It's my private property and whatever I say goes.

That's the problem when the company is publicly traded. If you own a share of facebook, you are being denied the use of your own property. Simultaneously, management is violating its obligation to maximize shareholder value. That was a key argument in the civil rights cases in the past when grocers might discriminate against blacks, for example.

Should Mark Zuckerberg be required by law to allow people to essentially spend his money on things he dislikes or politically opposes?

It's not all his money. He's the largest single shareholder, but Facebook is publicly traded. Should shareholders forego profitable opportunities--as YouTube has--because management has a political agenda that disagrees with the profit opportunity? That violates management's obligation to maximize shareholder value in publicly traded companies. These companies are getting ripe for shareholder lawsuits--particularly Google as it has lost $70B in market cap largely on the success of their algorithm changes squelching their more popular, but politically disfavored content.

And what happens to these snowflake whiners? The guy who owns most of it and controls all of it decides he wants to run it his way and they have a shit fit.

Facebook sold its data to Cambridge Analytica, and arguably gave Trump an edge in the 2016 election. Hillary supporters through a fit and Facebook was hauled before Congress. Zuckerberg is taking his cues from political actors. It won't matter though. Trump is probably going to win again. If Hillary had as much politically biased media supporting her and still lost, censorship will only damage Facebook's bottom line while Trump forges on. Look at what happened to Google's stock after posting YouTube's losses...

The very same people who hollered at the top of their lungs about forcing some poor schmuck baker to make a wedding cake because it violated his free speech rights and the right to not offend his beliefs at his business go utterly apoplectic at the notion that Zukerberg might do the same thing.

A bakery is typically a sole-prop operation or in federal law terms has fewer than 25 shareholders. Facebook is publicly traded on NYSE and NASDAQ. Zuckerberg doesn't own Facebook outright.

Your example of banning Trump's Twitter which would presumably cut him off from communicating unfiltered to his followers is also pretty flawed for lots of reasons that I don't think need elaborating.

Twitter would sign its own death warrant if they did that. Trump is literally keeping them alive. I would like to see Trump switch to minds.com. Let Twitter implode.

She advocated a ride sharing alternative to Uber that "did not employ Muslims". So she is a bigot and airs that bigotry publically.

Yes, but your ideas of bigotry are so 20th century. I just returned from the UAE. They have pink taxi cabs that are just for women and have women drivers so that women do not have to be escorted by men they do not know. It's brilliant. You have to hand it to Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

I am concerned about what others who appear to be unable to filter see.

So you don't believe in freedom ultimately. Why don't you say that more often?

Sen Al Franken was elected by 331 votes.

After he lost the first round and they "found" a few more votes for him.

I am a republican who does not like what has happened to his party.

So why not change parties? Why do you maintain this slavish devotion to the Republican party? It makes no sense.

[Hong Wu]

There's another new thing called Parler which has opened up. It's pretty similar to Gab in execution but has more of a focus on news stories.

Another source of the issue is that if Facebook had started out saying "Bush supporters not welcome on this platform" it never would have become the primary means of communication for a generation of westerners. They changed their attitude after they had been broadly adopted which was foul play even if it may not be illegal.

[Red_Army]

Nothing is more pathetic than people who control every level of American politics crying like newborn babies about how oppressed they are. Twitter and facebook and every other capitalist tech conglomerate decides some weird 1984 censorship that occasionally stops the Owen Benjamins and Alex Jones's from reaching children with nonsense, but the dummies on the right don't blame capitalism. Instead they see a "left-wing" bias in the system that every lefty constantly decries. I guess it would be cool to see rightwingers angry at capitalism silencing them if it wasn't laying the foundations of fascism.

[SolarCross]

Nothing is more pathetic than people who control every level of American politics crying like newborn babies about how oppressed they are. Twitter and facebook and every other capitalist tech conglomerate decides some weird 1984 censorship that occasionally stops the Owen Benjamins and Alex Jones's from reaching children with nonsense, but the dummies on the right don't blame capitalism. Instead they see a "left-wing" bias in the system that every lefty constantly decries. I guess it would be cool to see rightwingers angry at capitalism silencing them if it wasn't laying the foundations of fascism.

Without private enterprise we wouldn't have the platforms at all. USSR banned fax machines so they would hardly allow social media. Don't forget number 6 of the communist manifesto:

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

---

Part of the problem actually is the left because the left don't believe in freedom of speech so they are far more likely to report content they don't like. Whereas non-lefts will usually not bother. Platform managers just need to take that into account and automate bias mitigation. Maybe user accounts reporting could be weighted for frequency of use. The more often one reports content the less the reports are valued in determining whether the reports cause content dropping or banning. It is just spam management at the end of the day.

[Red_Army]

@SolarCross How can you pretend to love the free market and it's dictates while simultaneously whining about it's censorship? At least I have the consistency of disliking capitalism for what it is. You just pretend to love it while bitching about how this time it wasn't exactly right.

[Drlee]

It's not all his money. He's the largest single shareholder, but Facebook is publicly traded. Should shareholders forego profitable opportunities--as YouTube has--because management has a political agenda that disagrees with the profit opportunity? That violates management's obligation to maximize shareholder value in publicly traded companies. These companies are getting ripe for shareholder lawsuits--particularly Google as it has lost $70B in market cap largely on the success of their algorithm changes squelching their more popular, but politically disfavored content.

Rather than address all of your argument about Facebook being publically traded I will simply say this. Your mistake lies in the assumption that these changes are harmful to the bottom line. I think that they aren't. Two reasons:

Facebook is trying to get out in front of a problem that could severely damage the company. They have been hauled before congress and threatened from both sides. They have to appease one of those sides to survive as they are. They have done the calculus and determined that it is the democrat side that presents the most danger because of the possibility that they might win the presidency next time with the regulatory power that involves. They KNOW that the country is demographically moving left. The future lies in that direction almost inevitably. So this is just a good business decision. The see it as doing exactly what you say...maximizing shareholder value.

Second. They have chosen easy targets to see what they can do in this regard. Louis Farrakhan and Alex Jones are easy targets. Their pronouncements are so outrageous that defending in court the decision to turn them off would not challenge a first year law student. And this is the problem with the Republican strategy that is coming home to roost. They have relied on these outrageous outliers to carry water for them by uniting the idiot fringe and turning them into a voting block.

Alex Jones relies on social media for all of his fame. Without these platforms he is going to take a serious financial hit. Where will he go for an audience? The answer is nowhere. Here's why.

One of the factors in Google and other search engine optimization is the number of hits one gets on social media. That is why almost every company has a Facebook page and a twitter account that is actively worked. I have them for my consulting business. Being banned not only hits your audience directly it also hits your search engine placement for important search terms other than your name. And sometimes even that. Do a google search and see how frequently the facebook page of a company outranks the company page itself. It is really quite remarkable.

So I see any attempt to challenge these decisions in court failing miserably outside of the most liberal courts. The funny aspect of this is that Alex Jones might be well advised, if he is to try to sue, to sue in the 9th Circuit. The problem for the court is one of judicial activism. Short of declaring these entities public utilities through an almost unthinkable act of judicial activism the courts must conclude that they do not have a dog in the fight.

[SolarCross]

How can you pretend to love the free market and it's dictates while simultaneously whining about it's censorship? At least I have the consistency of disliking capitalism for what it is. You just pretend to love it while bitching about how this time it wasn't exactly right.

That question makes no sense. If platform A does some kind of censorship presumably to please some of its customers (leftists) then other customers who prefer less censorship will become a viable market for another platform (minds, gab or vid.me or whatever). Capitalism at least has a solution to the problem, while socialism is the problem.

[maz]

I am not concerned about what I see. I am concerned about what others who appear to be unable to filter see. There were all to many people who actually believe that President Obama is a Muslim and that he was born in Kenya. Why? Because the morons who forwarded this nonsense were given equal credence in media.

Ah, I see now. I'm guessing that you're just upset that conservatives are rejecting the do nothing moderate conservatives, RINO's if you will, and are using social media to change the narrative to something that you see is threatening.

This threatens you and threatens how you believe politics in the US should work, so you support banning all people from social media who's views fall outside of your political views.

You still haven't made any other argument other than "social media websites can ban who they want at anytime, plus something something, and I support banning people I disagree with."

Insofar as the Obama birtherism stuff, before Facebook got big, I received a ton of unsolicited email/forwards from anti-Obama forwards by all kinds people I was associated with. It's technically not spam because these are people from my social life and email contact lists. Most of it was so ridiculous that I stopped even reading the emails and just started deleting them.

Would you suggest that email services should ban people who send controversial or even false political emails? Email is far more direct that a social media post.

How far do want to go with this? Should banks ban their customers from using their checking, savings and credit services? Because there's been a few cases of that happening too. Maybe getting a home loan because they don't have the correct political opinion.

So when I see Facebook and others pushing us toward regulation or at least trying to ameliorate this situation I am all for them.I am a republican who does not like what has happened to his party. Never mind the so-called liberals. Mind those of us in the conservative camp who are looking for moderate candidates because of what is happening in the name of conservatism.

Exactly what conservative party are you referring to? Because the conservative party that I remember had the mantra of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

When did the conservative party become "I disapprove of what you say, so I support corporations colluding with non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups shutting you down so you can't compete with me in the marketplace of ideas?"

[ThirdTerm]

This is fake news. Twitter hasn’t banned James Woods. Paul Watson still has his own YouTube channel despite a Facebook ban. Facebook first banned Russia-linked accounts and it moved on to pro-Russian users. Probably the FBI intervened.

[Victoribus Spolia]

How can you pretend to love the free market and it's dictates while simultaneously whining about it's censorship? At least I have the consistency of disliking capitalism for what it is. You just pretend to love it while bitching about how this time it wasn't exactly right.

There is nothing free market about monopolies that could not exist without the state. Without patent law and copyright law, twitter, facebook, and youtube would not be what they are today, not even close.

There is nothing free market about social media companies colluding with leftist politicians.

[annatar1914]

There is nothing free market about monopolies that could not exist without the state. Without patent law and copyright law, twitter, facebook, and youtube would not be what they are today, not even close.

There is nothing free market about social media companies colluding with leftist politicians.

I guess for me that's the truly disgusting part; that the wicked Rich cannot succeed without the powers of the State in a free market, by force and fraud, because the Rich cannot be thrifty or honest or fair dealing, intelligent or industrious or good... But instead beat out their competitors and screw over customers and employees by actions sanctioned by graft and corruption, by bribery and blackmail of the politicians.

Good to see you my friend

[SolarCross]

There is nothing free market about monopolies that could not exist without the state. Without patent law and copyright law, twitter, facebook, and youtube would not be what they are today, not even close.

There is nothing free market about social media companies colluding with leftist politicians.

A few friendly quibbles:

None of them are actual monopolies and for the most part those companies are peeing all over copyright law by allowing the mass violation of copyright by their userbase and they don't really have anything to do with patent law.

As for collusion, it is all a bit more complicated than "colluding with leftist politicians":

1. A vocal and active minority of their userbase are leftists of some sort or another. Leftists who are trigger happy with any kind of report misconduct functions. Non-leftists don't tend to get offended so easily and generally have a good vibe about live and let live and letting people say what they like. So the userbase itself has a leftist bias towards actively banning non-leftists.

2. A lot of their staff come from colleges since tech companies need / want tertiary educated staff. As it is currently those colleges are hotbeds of trashy leftist radical crap. Hardly anyone who slogs it through a college education doesn't end up drinking some of the neo-marxist koolaid on the way. On the day to day level it is down to these ideologically warped staff to arbitrate after the algorithms have done their work.

3. The politicians have the power to rip these companies up and shred them to pieces, to the extent they do anything to please politicians can be seen quite nakedly as a matter of self-preservation. Just the same as a shop keeper would prostrate himself in terror before the local mafia (or end up dead). And they have more to fear from leftist politicians than non-leftist politicians because while non-leftists could also rip them up they tend not to think they should do stuff like that while the leftist politicians want to rip them up for no reason at all. Hence why they should try to please leftists more than non-leftist politicians.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@SolarCross How can you pretend to love the free market and it's dictates while simultaneously whining about it's censorship? At least I have the consistency of disliking capitalism for what it is. You just pretend to love it while bitching about how this time it wasn't exactly right.

I always feel that arguments like this, which I come across quite a bit, completely miss the point. "Whining" or, more neutrally, criticism of market participants is a necessary and vital part of the operation of markets. You might as well point and laugh at anybody who writes a negative review about any product/company.

The only situation I can see where you'd have a point is if a free market fundamentalist called for government regulation of social media.

[Drlee]

OK Maz. Let's start with noting that you are incapable of arguing my points so you have to attack me directly. Ineptly but directly.

Ah, I see now. I'm guessing that you're just upset that conservatives are rejecting the do nothing moderate conservatives, RINO's if you will, and are using social media to change the narrative to something that you see is threatening.

You guess wrong. And if you read my post you would know this.

This threatens you and threatens how you believe politics in the US should work, so you support banning all people from social media who's views fall outside of your political views.

Nonsense. Not even a good try. I advocate banning people who are deliberately posting as truth things are are demonstrably and obviously untrue

You still haven't made any other argument other than "social media websites can ban who they want at anytime, plus something something, and I support banning people I disagree with."

How far did you get in school. Let me use very little words and an example.

Social media websites are private property. They can ban whomever they like for any or no reason at all. That should be simple enough even for you to understand. Here is an example.

My front yard is there for all to see. That does not mean that you can plant a political sign in my yard without my permission. But I can plant one. See how easy that is?

Now you said I support banning people with whom I disagree. I am glad when my political opponents are banned. It is convenient for me. I see the danger in it. But hey. I am a conservative. We believe in private property rights. Zuckerburg can ban anyone he wishes to ban.

Democrats may disagree even though it is convenient for them to ignore it just now. You may wish to disagree. If you do please tell me which government agency you would prefer enforces a government effort to apply free speech rights on private property. Maybe justice through criminal law? You decide.

Insofar as the Obama birtherism stuff, before Facebook got big, I received a ton of unsolicited email/forwards from anti-Obama forwards by all kinds people I was associated with. It's technically not spam because these are people from my social life and email contact lists. Most of it was so ridiculous that I stopped even reading the emails and just started deleting them.

Good for you. Millions of people did not and believe it was the truth. Donald Trump, for example, said it was the truth that Obama was born overseas.

Would you suggest that email services should ban people who send controversial or even false political emails? Email is far more direct that a social media post.

Poor question. Do you see why? It is two completely different questions. Let me fix it for you so that you can understand why.

Would you suggest that email services should ban people who send controversial political emails?

Of course not. All politics is controversial.

Would you suggest that email services should ban people who send false political emails?

Sometimes. It depends on the damage.

But emails are something else by nature from social media. We are not talking about emails. In my perfect world, service providers would not be allowed to read emails and the would be encrypted by law.

How far do want to go with this? Should banks ban their customers from using their checking, savings and credit services? Because there's been a few cases of that happening too. Maybe getting a home loan because they don't have the correct political opinion.

Strawman much?

Exactly what conservative party are you referring to?

I did not refer to a conservative party. I referred to republicans whose party has been taken so far from classic conservatism as to be unrecognizable. The party of Abraham Lincoln, MLK, Nixon and Buckley would never countenance the big spending, racist, misogynist anti voting rights crap that are the hallmarks of today's republican party. I refuse to allow the party that created the greatest deficit in the history of the country and which openly opposes the right for all people to vote to call itself conservative. It is not. I would not object to their calling themselves corporatist, fascist or nationalist. Which they are. But there are quite a few people like me who think that the party can be reigned in and returned to the path of something like American conservatism.

Because the conservative party that I remember had the mantra of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Empty words. The republican party, until recently, never would have stood for a KKK member speaking at its convention. And if I owned facebook I would not let him/her speak on my property either.

You see Maz. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. I am sure you are fine with the Koch brothers spending a billion dollars of their property buying elections and politicians. Is that the free speech you would die to defend? Not I. But when Zuckerberg does it you whine like a bitch and wax philosophical about free speech. Take your pick sport. Which is it? Regulate the money out of elections or shut up.

When did the conservative party become "I disapprove of what you say, so I support corporations colluding with non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups shutting you down so you can't compete with me in the marketplace of ideas?"

Marketplace of ideas? Every penny of corporate money spent on politicians is designed to bury one idea and put forward another idea. In fact that is true when you give a candidate for Mayor $5.00. You you know full well that you are enabling the forwarding of your notion of truth at the expense of someone else's. So get over your false expressions of outrage. This is how the game is played. Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. I'll call your Koch brothers and raise you Google and Facebook.

[Sivad]

Debate: Constitutional Free Speech Principles Can Save Social Media Companies From Themselves

How should the world’s largest social media companies respond to a pernicious online climate, including hate speech and false content posted by users? For some, the answer is clear: take the fake and offensive content down. But for others, censorship – even by a private company – is dangerous in a time when digital platforms have become the new public square and many Americans cite Facebook and Twitter as their primary news sources. Should First Amendment doctrine govern free speech online? Or are new, more internationally focused speech policies better equipped to handle the modern challenges of regulating content and speech in the digital era?

For the Motion:
David French − Senior Writer, National Review
Corynne McSherry − Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Against the Motion:
Nathaniel Persily − Professor, Stanford Law
Marietje Schaake − Dutch Politician & Member, European Parliament

[Rugoz]

If Facebook wants to filter out "fake news" and "hate speech", fair enough, but it should be optional. If "filters on" is the default, users should be informed of the option to turn filters off.

Obviously it is up to the government to enforce this.

Without patent law and copyright law, twitter, facebook, and youtube would not be what they are today, not even close.

Eh what? That makes no sense whatsoever. Rather the opposite. Those companies are de facto monopolies because of network effects.