4 ms·
> By refusing to stay out of politics, the company is building the case for its own breakup. Wouldn’t this be an unconstitutional basis for breaking up a compa
by bhupy 7y ago
> By refusing to stay out of politics, the company is building the case for its own breakup.
Wouldn’t this be an unconstitutional basis for breaking up a company?
A popular jab at Zuck/FB is that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations, but only to the government.
Once a government decides that Facebook’s maximally permissive view on speech/ads is unacceptable, and goes on to pursue punitive action against it, isn’t that within the realm of the sort of government action that the First Amendment prohibits? How is that any different from the government applying punitive action against CNN or the NYTimes for publishing ads it deems dangerous/unacceptable?
- buboard 7y ago> By refusing to stay out of politics, NYTimes is building the case for its own breakup. Now, THAT would be unconstitutional!
- Gibbon1 7y ago> Wouldn’t this be an unconstitutional basis for breaking up a company? Smells like to me that everyone knows Zuckerburg knowingly took money to run targeted campaign ads from foreigners. Which is both criminal and pierces the corporate veil. If the next government can prove it in court they can kill Facebook. And the stockholders can claw back all of Zuckerburgs wealth.
- bhupy 7y agoThat wasn't the argument made in this article. It would be extremely difficult to prove that Zuck knowingly took money to run targeted campaign ads from foreigners, so that's probably not an option.
- Gibbon1 7y ago> That wasn't the argument made in this article. Who cares. Zuckerburg is being told by basically everyone to 'cool it' in all sorts of ways without actually talking about the actual reason. If he keeps doubling down it's going to end badly for him.
- jfnixon 7y agoYeah, after all mob rule > rule of law, at least nowadays.