22 ms·

> The simple fact that 40 states are getting involved just says Facebook is guilty until proven innocent at this point This is a matter of civil law -- the bur

> The simple fact that 40 states are getting involved just says Facebook is guilty until proven innocent at this point This is a matter of civil law -- the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities (more likely than not that the allegations are true) rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal law.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Which is why they're screwed. You can't tell me nobody is walking in that case without an opinion against them at this point. Zuckerberg has enough influence still to alter the way Facebook operates and every time he's been subpoenaed by congress to testify defending Facebook, he gives backhanded do-nothing corporate speak. He continually let his lower level managers police conservative voices (it's entirely irrelevant whether they were legitimate or not) and thusly garnered a lot of hate and people who are spiteful enough to write to their politicians. On top of that they along with Twitter have actively tried silencing conservative voices and politicians. Now a lot of these state governments had enough and they're going to reign in big tech. These major companies have just gone too far. They shot themselves in the foot when they didn't bother to self regulate in a way that could appease both sides fairly. They tried running it like a typical corporate business when it's not that. They've been in the media too much and their name is constantly plastered with a negative connotation. They did this to themselves and they deserve ever ounce of dissolution they get.
- dismantlethesun 6y ago
  I don't think there is a way for the industry to self regulate censorship (for lack of a better word) on a broad scale. They can do like MPAA and refuse to rate certain content, but that's only if the number of producer is small versus the general population, and everyone is forced to go through the same pipeline to reach wide distribution. However with Facebook, the number of producers is more than 2 billion people; and mires them in laws and customs of every country in the world. They can't self-regulate because they are trying to control a number of people many orders of magnitude greater than their own internal manpower. Governments can only control so many people at once because: (a) they are unbound by privacy requirements, and know your real name, history, and physical location (b) they can dictate punishments at will until you comply; ranging from fines to jail time to gag orders to physical penalties like whipping So now the ball is right back where it should be: in the hands of government. Are the Proud Boys a white-nationalist terrorist group or merely an ethnocentric all-boys political action club? That's something the U.S. government should decide on its own, the U.K. government should decide on its own, and so on. Facebook is in no position to figure out if people opining about election fraud are conspiracy theorists, foreign agents, or dangerously close to sedition. That kind of deep investigative work is the role of government.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Which is why they're screwed. You can't tell me nobody is walking in that case without an opinion against them at this point. Zuckerberg has enough influence still to alter the way Facebook operates and every time he's been subpoenaed by congress to testify defending Facebook, he gives backhanded do-nothing corporate speak. He continually let his lower level managers police conservative voices (it's entirely irrelevant whether they were legitimate or not) and thusly garnered a lot of hate and people who are spiteful enough to write to their politicians. On top of that they along with Twitter have actively tried silencing conservative voices and politicians. Now a lot of these state governments had enough and they're going to reign in big tech. These major companies have just gone too far. They shot themselves in the foot when they didn't bother to self regulate in a way that could appease both sides fairly. They tried running it like a typical corporate business when it's not that. They've been in the media too much and their name is constantly plastered with a negative connotation. They did this to themselves and they deserve ever ounce of dissolution they get.

dismantlethesun 6y ago
I don't think there is a way for the industry to self regulate censorship (for lack of a better word) on a broad scale. They can do like MPAA and refuse to rate certain content, but that's only if the number of producer is small versus the general population, and everyone is forced to go through the same pipeline to reach wide distribution. However with Facebook, the number of producers is more than 2 billion people; and mires them in laws and customs of every country in the world. They can't self-regulate because they are trying to control a number of people many orders of magnitude greater than their own internal manpower. Governments can only control so many people at once because: (a) they are unbound by privacy requirements, and know your real name, history, and physical location (b) they can dictate punishments at will until you comply; ranging from fines to jail time to gag orders to physical penalties like whipping So now the ball is right back where it should be: in the hands of government. Are the Proud Boys a white-nationalist terrorist group or merely an ethnocentric all-boys political action club? That's something the U.S. government should decide on its own, the U.K. government should decide on its own, and so on. Facebook is in no position to figure out if people opining about election fraud are conspiracy theorists, foreign agents, or dangerously close to sedition. That kind of deep investigative work is the role of government.