4 ms·

Facebook has 2.7 billion users or 34% of world population. Out of interest, I'm curious to know if, given that they are in effect, judge and jury on their own p

Facebook has 2.7 billion users or 34% of world population. Out of interest, I'm curious to know if, given that they are in effect, judge and jury on their own private platform, there is any % level of penetration at which you might change your view? It appears you'd set no limit at all.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
> given that they are in effect, judge and jury on their own private platform You say this like it's some weird, bizarre thing. Who else should be judge and jury by default on a private platform? Should there be some government committee any time a new social media company starts up? In any case, to answer your question: if the issue is that they've become too powerful, and there's a reasonable case to make there, then I'd say the answer is to either break them up or support alternatives, not have the government barge in and micromanage how they run the particulars of their business. I don't think there's some obvious right answer for "how tightly should a social networking company restrict what people say", so the best possible answer from a societal level is to help choices flourish and let consumers choose. Every platform has some 'censorship' -- even Parler banned porn, and got rid of left wing 'trolls'. The only real way around it is to not have a platform so much as a protocol, like email.
- adolph 6y ago
  > private platform From where does the idea of “private” come? Is it to distinguish its controllers from that which is government controlled?
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    That's the normal use of 'private' in this context, yes.
- geoduck14 6y ago
  You can actually sue in court (in America) if a business kicks you out for protected reasons. So we don't need a governmental committee- we have the courts to arbitrate our cases for us.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Politicians aren't a protected class under US discrimination laws. A politician banned from Facebook would generally have no legal grounds to sue.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    And you think courts should be arbitrating every time some internet message board bans someone for posting porn or spam or a swastika? Because that's the implication of what you're saying here: let's let courts handle it. Is this a serious suggestion? The courts are already overwhelmed, packed full of cases. And you want to throw potentially millions of minor cases where someone's mad about getting banned for flaming some other user onto their docket?

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> given that they are in effect, judge and jury on their own private platform You say this like it's some weird, bizarre thing. Who else should be judge and jury by default on a private platform? Should there be some government committee any time a new social media company starts up? In any case, to answer your question: if the issue is that they've become too powerful, and there's a reasonable case to make there, then I'd say the answer is to either break them up or support alternatives, not have the government barge in and micromanage how they run the particulars of their business. I don't think there's some obvious right answer for "how tightly should a social networking company restrict what people say", so the best possible answer from a societal level is to help choices flourish and let consumers choose. Every platform has some 'censorship' -- even Parler banned porn, and got rid of left wing 'trolls'. The only real way around it is to not have a platform so much as a protocol, like email.

adolph 6y ago
> private platform From where does the idea of “private” come? Is it to distinguish its controllers from that which is government controlled?
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  That's the normal use of 'private' in this context, yes.
geoduck14 6y ago
You can actually sue in court (in America) if a business kicks you out for protected reasons. So we don't need a governmental committee- we have the courts to arbitrate our cases for us.
- nradov 6y ago
  Politicians aren't a protected class under US discrimination laws. A politician banned from Facebook would generally have no legal grounds to sue.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  And you think courts should be arbitrating every time some internet message board bans someone for posting porn or spam or a swastika? Because that's the implication of what you're saying here: let's let courts handle it. Is this a serious suggestion? The courts are already overwhelmed, packed full of cases. And you want to throw potentially millions of minor cases where someone's mad about getting banned for flaming some other user onto their docket?