4 ms·
Far better* than the alternative, a transparent process to decide what is acceptable content on social media that is managed by the government, you know, democr
by riazrizvi 7y ago
Far better* than the alternative, a transparent process to decide what is acceptable content on social media that is managed by the government, you know, democratically. At least this way Facebook owns the process from the get go, it’s the purest form of ‘regulatory capture’.
Just imagine if technology companies had to adhere to publishing standard like broadcasters and journalists do, because of regulations. All that money from conspiracy theory political ads targeting niche social groups would evaporate. Social media platforms would be far less political influence.
*For Facebook.
- gonational 7y agoIn the United States of America we already have something like this, it’s called the 1st Amendment in the Constitution. Since Facebook enjoys the privilege of being classified as a “public square”, they do not have the legal right to censor content at all, unless the content is illegal (threats, etc.). This is not currently being enforced. Imagine being so oppressed that your ego feels the need to down-vote this comment :(
- riazrizvi 7y ago1. We also have a Federal Communication Commission which regulates to prevent information broadcasters from abusing their power. 2. > Imagine being so oppressed that your ego feels the need to down-vote this comment :( I don't have the ability to downvote replies. I notice too that your comment has not been edited, so you must have written it at the same time you originally posted before anyone could have upvoted or downvoted you. Why don't you do a quick edit, for appearances sake...