3 ms·
Good point. There should definetly be a requirement for a large mass of users. Because otherwise FB, Tweeter and Google can push their views. So a "must be a
by MrSlovenia 7y ago
Good point.
There should definetly be a requirement for a large mass of users.
Because otherwise FB, Tweeter and Google can push their views.
So a "must be a large social network or forum" must be a requirement in this law.
If Tweeter, Google or FB tried to push their agenda they could do it easily. Obviously fringe/small forums must be exempt.
- IgorPartola 7y agoExcept we know exactly why Trump is looking to do this: truth hurts and people saying the truth about him is painful for him. He wants the Fox and Breitbart perspective to be given equal weight as if it is worthy of the attention. It isn’t. Google for example has shown time and time again that they do not prioritize a specific political point of view.
- z9e 7y agoYou don't think this has anything to do with the plethora of suggestions that Twitter and YouTube apparently suppress conservative views?
- IgorPartola 7y agoI think it has to do with it 100%. I don’t believe it’s true, but I do believe it has to do with those rumors.
- harimau777 7y agoMy understanding is that the opposite is often true. That is: social media companies do not implement algorithms designed to take down racist content because it would take down content posted by many conservative politicians.
- espeed 7y agoThings change. Fox is not the same.
- root_axis 7y agoIt is their prerogative to push an agenda. It is not illegal to create an organization or business that pushes a political agenda - in fact, many do.