5 ms·

That's not censorship. It's Fb's and other social media's desperate attempt to appease new government to prevent strong legislation, such as being held liable f

That's not censorship. It's Fb's and other social media's desperate attempt to appease new government to prevent strong legislation, such as being held liable for their user's content, forced real names, regulation, and breakup.

mirashii 6y ago
> social media's desperate attempt to appease new government to prevent strong legislation, such as being held liable for their user's content That's an interesting hypothesis, but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's the current administration that's been calling for the repeal of Section 230, which is what would make platforms liable for their user's content.
- tylerhou 6y ago
  Dems have been calling for the repeal/replace/amendment of Section 230 because they believe that 230 shields social media platforms from too much liability. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkeamz/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-combat-misinformation-could-help-ruin-the-internet https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkeamz/elizabeth-warrens-pla...
- nicwolff 6y ago
  Trump and the GOP would never actually have repealed 230, it was just a stalking-horse. The social media companies started shutting Trump down literally hours after it became apparent that the Senate committees that can regulate them will soon be chaired by Democrats.
  - bduerst 6y ago
    Coincidentally, it was also the same day insurrectionists invaded the nation's capitol, after using social media to coordinate the violent attack. "Stop the Steal" is one of their rallying cries.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
lancesells 6y ago
Yes, the question really is are they liable for the violence that's produced through their algorithms?
- XorNot 6y ago
  Or you know, as US based companies with large US citizen workforces and executives, they possibly have some actual strong opinions about a despotic regime taking over their country.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    Facebook has actively known they were inciting extremism on both sides forever. They do it on purpose to make more money. If Zuckerberg does care, it's apparently not very much and only to save himself from jail or the chopping block.
  - tannhaeuser 6y ago
    That would've been plausible until before last Wednesday. But, considering the only rational explanation for those events seems a plan to apply the provisions of the Insurrection Act to prevent the act of formal election, waiting until after the failure of such plan seems opportunistic and not supportive of your interpretation.
- phs318u 6y ago
  > the violence that's produced through their algorithms I'm sorry, but please justify or rephrase this. People chose to do violent things. Social media may indeed be an accelerant, but someone kept providing fuel and someone was asking "my kingdom for a match!" (or more accurately, "a match for my kingdom!"). And in response, a large number were prepared to provide matches and light fires.
- aeortiz 6y ago
  The day they replaced our time-based feeds to display more ads via algorithms, the clock started ticking...the alarm is now ringing.
panny 6y ago
Tell me that when Facebook goes back and removes all the "russiagate" conspiracy theories.

mirashii 6y ago

> social media's desperate attempt to appease new government to prevent strong legislation, such as being held liable for their user's content That's an interesting hypothesis, but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's the current administration that's been calling for the repeal of Section 230, which is what would make platforms liable for their user's content.

tylerhou 6y ago
Dems have been calling for the repeal/replace/amendment of Section 230 because they believe that 230 shields social media platforms from too much liability. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkeamz/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-combat-misinformation-could-help-ruin-the-internet https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkeamz/elizabeth-warrens-pla...
nicwolff 6y ago
Trump and the GOP would never actually have repealed 230, it was just a stalking-horse. The social media companies started shutting Trump down literally hours after it became apparent that the Senate committees that can regulate them will soon be chaired by Democrats.
- bduerst 6y ago
  Coincidentally, it was also the same day insurrectionists invaded the nation's capitol, after using social media to coordinate the violent attack. "Stop the Steal" is one of their rallying cries.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

lancesells 6y ago

Yes, the question really is are they liable for the violence that's produced through their algorithms?

XorNot 6y ago
Or you know, as US based companies with large US citizen workforces and executives, they possibly have some actual strong opinions about a despotic regime taking over their country.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  Facebook has actively known they were inciting extremism on both sides forever. They do it on purpose to make more money. If Zuckerberg does care, it's apparently not very much and only to save himself from jail or the chopping block.
- tannhaeuser 6y ago
  That would've been plausible until before last Wednesday. But, considering the only rational explanation for those events seems a plan to apply the provisions of the Insurrection Act to prevent the act of formal election, waiting until after the failure of such plan seems opportunistic and not supportive of your interpretation.
phs318u 6y ago
> the violence that's produced through their algorithms I'm sorry, but please justify or rephrase this. People chose to do violent things. Social media may indeed be an accelerant, but someone kept providing fuel and someone was asking "my kingdom for a match!" (or more accurately, "a match for my kingdom!"). And in response, a large number were prepared to provide matches and light fires.
aeortiz 6y ago
The day they replaced our time-based feeds to display more ads via algorithms, the clock started ticking...the alarm is now ringing.

panny 6y ago

Tell me that when Facebook goes back and removes all the "russiagate" conspiracy theories.