3 ms·

> lead to a Congressional investigation. That really seems like "abridging the freedom of speech" to me. Constitutional conservatives sure love pushing the lim

by guelo 10y ago

> lead to a Congressional investigation. That really seems like "abridging the freedom of speech" to me. Constitutional conservatives sure love pushing the limits of the constitution when it inconveniences them. But, you know, the election is over so now that the right has total control we must all put aside our differences and work together.

WillPostForFood 10y ago
It is kind of Orwellian to claim an investigation of suppression of speech is "abridging the freedom of speech." Nonetheless, it isn't the government's business, what Facebook does with its feed, and constitutional conservatives should recognize that. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279498-some-conservatives-uneasy-about-facebook-inquiry-from-congress http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279498-some-conservativ...
- r00fus 10y ago
  The original "bias squad" was not a first amendment issue. Facebook isn't the government (despite their incredible reach).
  - weberc2 10y ago
    I think if they control 60% of the news pipeline (and climbing), they're categorically different. The U.S. government regularly investigates similarly large entities.
    - caseysoftware 10y ago
      Facebook, et al, campaigned to have internet access be considered a utility instead of a luxury. The UN is pushing it as a human right. If you follow that line of reasoning, the companies who run the pipes and control the flow of information aren't just companies playing favorites. They're potentially influencing - if not outright regulating - human rights worldwide.. which means they should have a much higher level of scrutiny. And they walked right into that one.
- lerpa 10y ago
  You don't have freedom of speech in Facebook, if Facebook doesn't want you to, it's their platform... They may lose credibility doing that, and would be a worse place to discuss things, but that is up them unless you have some kind of contract with them that makes you entitled to something else. That for me is the main problem, people just want to trust stuff blindly and get all jived up when that doesn't work. You're mad at your own stupidity folks.

by guelo 10y ago

WillPostForFood 10y ago

It is kind of Orwellian to claim an investigation of suppression of speech is "abridging the freedom of speech." Nonetheless, it isn't the government's business, what Facebook does with its feed, and constitutional conservatives should recognize that. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279498-some-conservatives-uneasy-about-facebook-inquiry-from-congress http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279498-some-conservativ...

r00fus 10y ago
The original "bias squad" was not a first amendment issue. Facebook isn't the government (despite their incredible reach).
- weberc2 10y ago
  I think if they control 60% of the news pipeline (and climbing), they're categorically different. The U.S. government regularly investigates similarly large entities.
  - caseysoftware 10y ago
    Facebook, et al, campaigned to have internet access be considered a utility instead of a luxury. The UN is pushing it as a human right. If you follow that line of reasoning, the companies who run the pipes and control the flow of information aren't just companies playing favorites. They're potentially influencing - if not outright regulating - human rights worldwide.. which means they should have a much higher level of scrutiny. And they walked right into that one.
lerpa 10y ago
You don't have freedom of speech in Facebook, if Facebook doesn't want you to, it's their platform... They may lose credibility doing that, and would be a worse place to discuss things, but that is up them unless you have some kind of contract with them that makes you entitled to something else. That for me is the main problem, people just want to trust stuff blindly and get all jived up when that doesn't work. You're mad at your own stupidity folks.