4 ms·

The premise is that the advertisers are pulling out bc they are disappointed with Facebook's relative lack of policing speech

• ashtonkem 6y ago
  Yes, it’s Facebooks right to run their site as they see fit, and it’s the right of all consumers and companies to associate with Facebook or not based on their own feelings about Facebook. End consumers are also free to express their opinions about Facebook, Verizon, and their relative agreements or lack thereof. The marketplace of ideas is a pretty messy place.
  • asah 6y ago
    Sounds good until those consumers form echo chambers that amplify crazy crap and then elect Actually Crazy people (on the left and right). Then it's time for some guard rails.
    • ashtonkem 6y ago
      How Facebook was used against American elections would not work if American democracy was healthy. And of course, once actual crazy people control the government, who is going to install and maintain the guard rails?
      • partiallypro 6y ago
        There is no real evidence that the Russian campaign on Facebook was effective at all in 2016. I believe the entire campaign wasn't necessarily to effect the outcome, but to sow doubt on the outcome. Putin just wanted chaos. The real poll shift came when Comey made his statement on the Clinton email server within weeks of the election. I'm 100% in favor of Facebook policing things like the "Plandemic" nonsense, but that's not what these companies are asking for. They are essentially asking for a partisan tilt to the platform...when the platform itself (imo) should strive to be a neutral party.
        • ashtonkem 6y ago
          Alas, how do you define neutrality? What happens if Plandemic hypothetically becomes associated with a partisan party? How can Facebook be neutral there? I agree they should try to be neutral, but I don’t know if neutrality is even possible in a lot of cases.