Facebook prepared for unrest after the election

[libertysnake]

It's kind of ironic that the platform which, willingly or not, facilitates the eco chambers that give rise to unrest, is trying to control unrest.

Also, while I understand the sentiment, I also feel this is the road to hell -- paved with (maybe) good intentions. Just because disagreement could lead to violence, doesn't mean it's ethical to quell opinions in the hope that it stops violence. It doesn't invalidate the view that might be leading to anger, and anger then leading to violence.

Let's say, for example, I personally think Affirmative Action is discrimination and racism (it is.) Just because that view may be shared with someone who is a violent extremist, doesn't mean I personally feel that violence is a necessary reaction to Affirmative Action being a policy (and I don't feel violence is the answer.)

While Facebook has been quite "vague" about when this would be deployed, my concern is that it'll likely be used to quell anything that may inflame people. Regular opinions might be removed or flagged on the grounds it triggers someone to become violent. While they're a private company and entitled to remove whatever they like, I wouldn't personally find it ethical to remove free speech just because it's a convenient means towards keeping the populace calm.

WSJ News Exclusive | Facebook Prepares Measures for Possible Election Unrest

The emergency measures, originally designed for countries facing mass ethnic or political bloodshed, include slowing the spread of viral content and lowering the bar for suppressing potentially inflammatory posts.

www.wsj.com

 

[Cooolone]

Well... It'll just be the fact checkers on steroids! But the funny thing is only that which "THEY" believe to be truth will filter through!

Any filtering, censorship, steering... Is dangerous!

But here's my take, they know of Trump wins, he's going to be coming hard after them, CNN and the likes! Wasn't a proposal already made to limit the electronic media outlets insulation from being culpable in the information they allow to pass through their servers? Yep... If you can sue Gun Manufacturers, you bet your buttons that social media isn't going to be safe from our litigious society either!

 

[libertysnake]

Yep... If you can sue Gun Manufacturers, you bet your buttons that social media isn't going to be safe from our litigious society either!

I feel like the better option is to find a way to overturn the ability to sue gun manufacturers frivolously, rather than continue down a road that leaves everyone without their rights.

 

[masterswimmer]

While Facebook has been quite "vague" about when this would be deployed, my concern is that it'll likely be used to quell anything that may inflame people. Regular opinions might be removed or flagged on the grounds it triggers someone to become violent. While they're a private company and entitled to remove whatever they like, I wouldn't personally find it ethical to remove free speech just because it's a convenient means towards keeping the populace calm.

WSJ News Exclusive | Facebook Prepares Measures for Possible Election Unrest

The emergency measures, originally designed for countries facing mass ethnic or political bloodshed, include slowing the spread of viral content and lowering the bar for suppressing potentially inflammatory posts.

www.wsj.com

FakeBook is actually a publicly held company. They are not a private company. However, if you own enough shares of common stock you obviously have the ability to control the vote/direction of the company.

 

[spat]

FakeBook is actually a publicly held company. They are not a private company. However, if you own enough shares of common stock you obviously have the ability to control the vote/direction of the company.

Publicly held != public.

Public means it is owned by the public collectively (i.e. government owned)

Publicly held means it can be (partially) owned by any member of the public who wants to individually.


There are a lot of things that are permissible from a publicly held company that would be downright illegal for a truly public one.

 

[Criticalt]

I feel like the better option is to find a way to overturn the ability to sue gun manufacturers frivolously, rather than continue down a road that leaves everyone without their rights.

The gun thing is really not applicable here.
Facebook needs to decide if they are a platform or a publisher.
A platform must allow all opinions, no matter how controversial and cannot be sued for anything someone posts. They must allow Nazis and Skinheads and Transsexuals.....to givetheir opinions no matter how hateful.
A publisher can edit and censor what they want because they can be held accountable for what is posted.....slander, bullying....
Facebook claims they are a platform but they act as a publisher.
The problem is that there are legal and monetary advantages to being a platform which FB takes advantage of wrongly because they are clearly a publisher with their censorship and editing.

 

[spat]

I feel like the better option is to find a way to overturn the ability to sue gun manufacturers frivolously, rather than continue down a road that leaves everyone without their rights.

The right answer is to reform the tort system so that nobody needs protection.

The gun manufacturer carve out always rubbed me the wrong way. It is a band aid. Tort reform is the only real solution.

The "platform" exception in sec 230 is necessary, but it needs proper definition, what exists now is completely unworkable.

And even *with* the current exceptions I think there is room to successfully sue them over their censorship.

The NY post hunter Biden story would be a good example. Twitter is calling them liars and crooks quite publicly. These are actions of Twitter itself, not some random people using their server, so their "platform" exception should not apply, even with the current language.

 

[spat]

The gun thing is really not applicable here.
Facebook needs to decide if they are a platform or a publisher.
A platform must allow all opinions, no matter how controversial and cannot be sued for anything someone posts. They must allow Nazis and Skinheads and Transsexuals.....to givetheir opinions no matter how hateful.
A publisher can edit and censor what they want because they can be held accountable for what is posted.....slander, bullying....
Facebook claims they are a platform but they act as a publisher.
The problem is that there are legal and monetary advantages to being a platform which FB takes advantage of wrongly because they are clearly a publisher with their censorship and editing.

Whatever they do to fix the sec 230 mess, we need to keep in mind that we do not want to strip all protection from moderated services.

Whatever solution you are considering, imagine how it would effect this site.

We want moderators to have the ability to stop trolls and spammers. If they have to sacrifice their sec 230 protection to do that they would have to shut down the site.

 

[Acer-m14]

suing gun manufacturer .. should be from the owner of said gun .. it blew up in your hand or something like that . a defective product ...
if it blew up while you were committing a crime .. sorry you loose ..

 

[Cooolone]

My point was the erosion of long standing legal precedent that insulated manufacturers, etc., of it's products use! This is and will disappear with the Newton Families lawsuit against gun manufacturers for the death caused by the product. It is irrelevant any other contributing causes... The lawsuit should not have been allowed to proceed. But here we are!

So auto manufacturers advertising their 700HP beasts will undoubtedly be liable for any injuries sustained by owners or others. They may then even be culpable for speeding tickets .. not sure how they've escaped this forever other than it creates a revenue stream that can't be interrupted. Tobacco will be back on the hot seat... McDonalds will be class actioned by the collective overweight! Etc., Etc...

My post was not specific to Gun Manufacturers, but the unfolding disintegration of long standing legal precedent to favor the contemporary social upheaval, ie, legislating from the bench!



Carry on!

 

[Criticalt]

Whatever they do to fix the sec 230 mess, we need to keep in mind that we do not want to strip all protection from moderated services.

Whatever solution you are considering, imagine how it would effect this site.

We want moderators to have the ability to stop trolls and spammers. If they have to sacrifice their sec 230 protection to do that they would have to shut down the site.

They just need to obey the current law.
Them ACTING like a platform while using laws for a PUBLISHER is where they should be fixed.
Even as a platform they can control spam and illegal activity but they cant delete LEGAL opinions they dont agree with.

 

[spat]

They just need to obey the current law.
Them ACTING like a platform while using laws for a PUBLISHER is where they should be fixed.
Even as a platform they can control spam and illegal activity but they cant delete LEGAL opinions they dont agree with.

Well, spam and trolling are very difficult to define legally.

Which means a lot of censorship can fall under those umbrellas.

And what might be trolling on one site might not be on another.

Half our best political posts would qualify as trolling if they were posted to democrat underground for instance.

 

[Criticalt]

Well, spam and trolling are very difficult to define legally.

Which means a lot of censorship can fall under those umbrellas.

And what might be trolling on one site might not be on another.

Half our best political posts would qualify as trolling if they were posted to democrat underground for instance.

I believe there are ways to filter spam out and the illegal stuff is legal to delete.
I totally agree with your "slippery slope" thing but these big tech companies are knowingly using the system in the wrong way.
Claiming they are a platform means Trump cannot sue them for a member commiting slander. If they were forced to identify as a publisher, like they are acting like, Trump could sue the for allowing slander.
They cant have their cake and eat it too.
Even if they were fair with their censorship it would be wrong.
But, right now you can call Trump a rapist all day long on FB but if you say Obama was born in Kenya, you can be banned......even though neither are based in truth.

 

[SonOfSun]

Half our best political posts would qualify as trolling if they were posted to democrat underground for instance.

I come here for that reason, well that and I support the idea of the 2nd.

 

[spat]

I believe there are ways to filter spam out and the illegal stuff is legal to delete.
I totally agree with your "slippery slope" thing but these big tech companies are knowingly using the system in the wrong way.
Claiming they are a platform means Trump cannot sue them for a member commiting slander. If they were forced to identify as a publisher, like they are acting like, Trump could sue the for allowing slander.
They cant have their cake and eat it too.
Even if they were fair with their censorship it would be wrong.
But, right now you can call Trump a rapist all day long on FB but if you say Obama was born in Kenya, you can be banned......even though neither are based in truth.

Certainly spam and trolls can be managed.

But my point was that an unscrupulous provider can engage in pretty heavy censorship and just claim they are managing their spam and troll problem.

That's essentially what FB and Twitter are doing now.

What we've currently got with the Sec 230 exemption is obviously terrible and there is a lot that can be done to fix it.

But what a "good" solution looks like is very hard to pin down once you have to supply the details.

 

[masterswimmer]

I come here for that reason, well that and I support the idea of the 2nd.

See, the difference is, the powers that be on this site allow you to troll the way you do. If any of us were to go onto the dem underground site we'd be perma

It's amazing how little tolerance those who preach tolerance actually have.

 

[tirwin1]

Well, spam and trolling are very difficult to define legally.

Which means a lot of censorship can fall under those umbrellas.

And what might be trolling on one site might not be on another.

Half our best political posts would qualify as trolling if they were posted to democrat underground for instance.

Practically any sane comment would be classified as trolling on that site.

 

[Jmac00]

FakeBook is actually a publicly held company. They are not a private company. However, if you own enough shares of common stock you obviously have the ability to control the vote/direction of the company.

actually, they are a PUBLICALLY TRADED company, they are still privately owned.

Last week I was banned for 72 hours (and they count every minutes) for " your post did not meet our community standards on bullying and harassment, you are banned for three days"

However, Marky fuckerberg has never shown me WHAT post was banned? they refuse to show me or tell what post it was. So the only conclusion I can come to is I embarrassed a liberal and Marky Fuckerberg didn't like that.

 

[Jmac00]

Right now, FB is a "platform" for ideas and discussions and to talk to friends.

However, if they continue their suppression of speech, CONGRESS and the FCC may get involved and change the FB status to *PUBLISHER*. If that happens, FB will no longer be allowed to squelch posts they don't agree with. It will open Marky Fuckerberg to FIRST AMENDMENT law suites. His "platform" stock will tank.

 

[spat]

Right now, FB is a "platform" for ideas and discussions and to talk to friends.

However, if they continue their suppression of speech, CONGRESS and the FCC may get involved and change the FB status to *PUBLISHER*. If that happens, FB will no longer be allowed to squelch posts they don't agree with. It will open Marky Fuckerberg to FIRST AMENDMENT law suites. His "platform" stock will tank.

Actually it's the opposite.

A platform is supposed to be just a public utility for exchange of information. That absolves them of responsibility for the content in the same way fedex isn’t guilty of drug possession when soneone tries to ship some coke.

But, if they *do* start acting like a publisher and exercise editorial control over the content, then they become responsible for all of it.

Suddenly they would be open to lawsuits for every libelous post anyone made on their site.

Just like fedex would be guilty if they were *knowingly* shipping illegal drugs.

 

[masterswimmer]

actually, they are a PUBLICALLY TRADED company, they are still privately owned.

Last week I was banned for 72 hours (and they count every minutes) for " your post did not meet our community standards on bullying and harassment, you are banned for three days"

However, Marky fuckerberg has never shown me WHAT post was banned? they refuse to show me or tell what post it was. So the only conclusion I can come to is I embarrassed a liberal and Marky Fuckerberg didn't like that.

You are correct, they are a publicly traded company. However, what they are trading is shares of stock that represent ownership that anyone can buy. That is a publicly owned company. They are not privately owned.

Here's a fair example for comparison. For a long time, many years ago (think 1980's - 1990's), UPS was a privately held company that offered shares of common stock only to their employees. Those shares had to be sold back to the company when an employee changed jobs (willingly or via termination). That was a privately held company. In 1999 they went public with an Initial Public Offering (IPO). A different class of stock was offered (class B) for non employees. UPS was no longer a privately held company.

Once a company offers their stock through an IPO they are no longer privately held, ie: FB. The original founder/owner can easily maintain control through percentage of shares owned, but that doesn't make it a privately owned company.

 

[spat]

You are correct, they are a publicly traded company. However, what they are trading is shares of stock that represent ownership that anyone can buy. That is a publicly owned company. They are not privately owned.

Here's a fair example for comparison. For a long time, many years ago (think 1980's - 1990's), UPS was a privately held company that offered shares of common stock only to their employees. Those shares had to be sold back to the company when an employee changed jobs (willingly or via termination). That was a privately held company. In 1999 they went public with an Initial Public Offering (IPO). A different class of stock was offered (class B) for non employees. UPS was no longer a privately held company.

Once a company offers their stock through an IPO they are no longer privately held, ie: FB. The original founder/owner can easily maintain control through percentage of shares owned, but that doesn't make it a privately owned company.

They are owned by their shareholders.

They are not owned by the public at large.

Just because anyone *can* be a shareholder does not mean that everyone is.

 

[masterswimmer]

They are owned by their shareholders.

They are not owned by the public at large.

Just because anyone *can* be a shareholder does not mean that everyone is.

Exactly. That's the difference between a publicly traded company and a publicly owned company, ie: MTA.

A publicly traded company is still not a privately owned company which I thought I made clear in my post. Apparently not though

 

[technicalgadget]

Right now, FB is a "platform" for ideas and discussions and to talk to friends.

Facebook is actually more than that. Facebook is modern society's greatest invention. It is a tool, designed to penetrate peoples closed lives. Never before did we have a willing, open, context for people to delve into your personal life, your closest circle of friends, your family, your children, you ideologies, your faith, your home, all for without even having to ask you for them for a large percentage of the population.

Make no mistake, there is zero privacy with using Facebook. It allows others, an unprecedented look into your personal lives.