- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Facebook Co-Founder Says Social Networks to Face More Regulation
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:01 pm to Nguyener
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:01 pm to Nguyener
quote:
I do not mean any offense, but your analogy is ignorant and nonsensical.
I just fail to see why the distinction matters.
That's like you telling me one person has different rights than another. If companies have the same free speech rights as people under existing caselaw (Hobby Lobby and the gay dildo cakes come to mind), then why does it matter how much or little content they produce?
1
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:03 pm to Nguyener
quote:
Those are treated differently. They do not currently have liability for the content on their platforms. However, if they stop being a free platform and become a content promoter or news organization then they deserve to lose that privilege as a consequence of their free decision
All that gets tossed out the window when their users explicitly agree to TOS, aside from their legal rights to post whatever content they please on their servers.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:03 pm to NYNolaguy1
Will regulation be similar to self manipulation?
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:04 pm to gamatt53
You need to go back and look at the responses.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:08 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
That's like you telling me one person has different rights than another. If companies have the same free speech rights as people under existing caselaw (Hobby Lobby and the gay dildo cakes come to mind), then why does it matter how much or little content they produce?
Because different industries have different standards.
If the New York Times publishes a slanderous article they share responsibility for it because as a content promoter it is their job to vet content before it is published.
If someone posts a slanderous article on Facebook, they do not share any responsibility because they operate as an open platform that does not vet or promote content based on politics.
If Facebook begins to operate as a content publisher rather than open platform then it subjugates itself to those laws.
Does that seem reasonable?
As for your analogy, journalism and restaurants have diffent sets of regulations and for good reason.
No one needs to protect a citizen from something written on a cake.
If a bakery bakes a cake that says "private citizen x" is a murderer no one cares because it is on a cake.
If a national news syndication ran a knowingly untrue story destroying a citizens life then that citizen is entitled to recovery under laws like slander and libel.
Does that make sense?
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
All that gets tossed out the window when their users explicitly agree to TOS
The Facebook terms of service says they have the right to promote or silence content based on their own arbitrary political bias without notice to either the consumer or content provider? Can you show me where exactly that is in the ToS?
quote:
their legal rights to post whatever content they please on their servers.
You do not have the legal right to post slander or libel on your news website.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:17 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Yet those same people also often favor heavy regulation of facebook, twitter, etc.
I dont really care but why should social media platforms be exempt from regulation? Many businesses have to deal with a bunch of government regulation bullshite.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:22 pm to Nguyener
quote:
You do not have the legal right to post slander or libel on your news website.
Intent can be a funny thing to prove, especially when prosecuting reporters.
quote:
The Facebook terms of service says they have the right to promote or silence content based on their own arbitrary political bias without notice to either the consumer or content provider? Can you show me where exactly that is in the ToS?
This is facebooks verbiage
quote:
Combat harmful conduct and protect and support our community:
People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others, and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action - for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account, or contacting law enforcement. We share data with other Facebook Companies when we detect misuse or harmful conduct by someone using one of our Products.
Please note it is their judgement of that, not the users that triggers removal.
This is Twitters
quote:
We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment. Information regarding specific policies and the process for reporting or appealing violations can be found in our Help Center
Again its their judgement. And they are completely within their rights to enforce their rules as they see fit.
I would hope I dont need to explain this further to small govt conservatives on why this is a good thing.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:24 pm to Ollieoxenfree99
quote:
Did FB, Twitter, or Google provide any services to the US govt, receive any money from the govt in the form of tax breaks, or compensation for services?
If the answer is yes, slap on the sanctions. They cannot he allowed to sway public opinion via censorship of one side.
Everyone gets "tax breaks" from the government, so everyone should be insanely regulated? Insane.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:24 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
I dont really care but why should social media platforms be exempt from regulation?
Actually I argued that if ISPs are subject to heavy regulation so should tech companies.
That said I see regulations as a bad thing. Free market will always win over a regulated one.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:28 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Let the great triggering begin
I think this your base principle...your only principle.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:31 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Again its their judgement. And they are completely within their rights to enforce their rules as they see fit.
I agree. But their terms of service should explicitly state that they have the right to discriminate against content based on political bias and they should not be able to classify or call themselves social media. They should have to call themselves news outlets. And they should be forced to share liability for the content posted on their platforms as is the current law of the land.
It would be hard to prove a blanket shadow ban on conservative content and users satisfies "Combat harmful conduct".
quote:
I would hope I dont need to explain this further to small govt conservatives on why this is a good thing.
I have already said multiple times that Facebook and Twitter do not necessitate increased government power but I have no problem classifying them into existing regulatory structures if they choose to take on that classification via their freely held private decisions.
I think social media as a whole is one of the most unimportant and unbelievably stupid and worthless aspects of our current society.
Facebook and Twitter could vanish from existence tomorrow and in less than a week no one would even notice they were gone because they serve no necessary or important purpose in anyone's lives
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:31 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Actually I argued that if ISPs are subject to heavy regulation so should tech companies.
I cannot understand this argument. Please expound.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:32 pm to cwill
quote:
think this your base principle...your only principle.
Speak English please
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:33 pm to Nguyener
quote:
If the New York Times publishes a slanderous article they share responsibility for it because as a content promoter it is their job to vet content before it is published.
If someone posts a slanderous article on Facebook, they do not share any responsibility because they operate as an open platform that does not vet or promote content based on politics.
Facebook is a news aggregator, not a content producer. No one actually writes articles for facebook the same way as Buzzfeed/Rolling Stone writes Adult Fiction, or the NYT writes Sedition.
quote:
No one needs to protect a citizen from something written on a cake.
Lets change that slightly to
quote:
No one needs to protect a citizen from something written.
Thats a deeper question- one that you seem to think citizens need to be protected from company censored speech. Personally I think its a bad day whenever the govt tries to protect anything. Instead you should focusing on how to open up competition to all sides of the political spectrum.
quote:
If a national news syndication ran a knowingly untrue story destroying a citizens life then that citizen is entitled to recovery under laws like slander and libel.
Defamation and libel laws are notoriously hard to prove, especially given the mens rea requirements most states have.
This post was edited on 9/6/18 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:37 pm to Nguyener
quote:
I cannot understand this argument. Please expound
I said this in reference to Net Neutrality. If ISP's are more or less free of regulation via the abolition of Net Neutrality, then conservatives should have no issue with not regulating tech companies.
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:38 pm to NYNolaguy1
The pretzels people will twist themselves into whenever violating their principles hurts the other team...
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:39 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Facebook is a news aggregator, not a content producer
If they choose to promote or silence content based on their own arbitrary political bias then they move from aggregator to producer. That is my stance.
quote:
you seem to think citizens need to be protected from company censored speech.
No. I think that certain remedies should be afforded to citizens should a company go to far. Currently Facebook and Twitter are shielded from those remedies under false pretense.
quote:
Defamation and libel laws are notoriously hard to prove
I do not care how hard they are to prove. You should have the right to try to prove them. Do you understand?
quote:
Personally I think its a bad day whenever the govt tries to protect anything
I do not understand what this statement means.
This post was edited on 9/6/18 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:41 pm to Nguyener
Or you could just not use FB?
Posted on 9/6/18 at 3:43 pm to Nguyener
quote:It's a dumb one
If they choose to promote or silence content based on their own arbitrary political bias then they move from aggregator to producer. That is my stance.
But even if it was true, there would be no reason to regulate it
Should Infowars be regulated and forced to play my "Farrakhan for President!" video? They're a content producer..
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News