4 ms·

Come on guys! Do you think he’d say - “yes, we can influence an election”? It’s like digging your own grave :-)

ddingus 6y ago
Rough place to be. Point well established.
loceng 6y ago
He could but it'd require a backbone and willingness to defend and take a stand for the Constitution - and reminding people that Facebook is private property, and people are still free on the United States to say whatever the fuck they want on the internet - like in their own house, and how in your own house you decide what guests you want in or who you'd consider to be trespassing; I certainly wouldn't tolerate someone being racist in my house, especially not if there were younger, developing, easily influenced minds present as well.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Well, that view is correct, and I agree with it having said, "there is no free speech on the Internet", it being a peer system where people carry your speech for their reasons whatever they are, here and elsewhere many times. Earlier on, competition was robust. Today however... We are at a point where the big players overlap with the public interest. There needs to be a protected public square, and it needs to be relevant. The private houses garnered the public trust and are leveraging it for money. I am not speaking to that other than the public appears to find that equitable. Now, these moves to censor and manage the political dialog have broken that trust, and with that goes the loss of perception of equity, or value. That could be a very costly and litigious change of opinion. And here we are today, beginning to see that change play out. Frankly, being a product vs a platform is a part of that discussion. Partisan politics is another concern. People are talking about how say, FB aligns with the right, Twitter with the left, and so on. I submit that won't work and either we make it work and honor the Constitution and the idea of free speech, or we lose that idea and or see growing conflict that adds value to no one.

Rough place to be. Point well established.

He could but it'd require a backbone and willingness to defend and take a stand for the Constitution - and reminding people that Facebook is private property, and people are still free on the United States to say whatever the fuck they want on the internet - like in their own house, and how in your own house you decide what guests you want in or who you'd consider to be trespassing; I certainly wouldn't tolerate someone being racist in my house, especially not if there were younger, developing, easily influenced minds present as well.

ddingus 6y ago
Well, that view is correct, and I agree with it having said, "there is no free speech on the Internet", it being a peer system where people carry your speech for their reasons whatever they are, here and elsewhere many times. Earlier on, competition was robust. Today however... We are at a point where the big players overlap with the public interest. There needs to be a protected public square, and it needs to be relevant. The private houses garnered the public trust and are leveraging it for money. I am not speaking to that other than the public appears to find that equitable. Now, these moves to censor and manage the political dialog have broken that trust, and with that goes the loss of perception of equity, or value. That could be a very costly and litigious change of opinion. And here we are today, beginning to see that change play out. Frankly, being a product vs a platform is a part of that discussion. Partisan politics is another concern. People are talking about how say, FB aligns with the right, Twitter with the left, and so on. I submit that won't work and either we make it work and honor the Constitution and the idea of free speech, or we lose that idea and or see growing conflict that adds value to no one.