8 ms·

I don't really know much about US politics, but could this recent attack on Facebook be a political move and a power grab? Attack FB so they block certain group

I don't really know much about US politics, but could this recent attack on Facebook be a political move and a power grab? Attack FB so they block certain groups / certain topics and promote what the regulators want? I listened to the whistle-blower's testimony and I didn't hear any reasonable solutions (in my opinion at least; I am a software developer myself). Also, it seems there might be some regulations imposed. Doesn't Facebook actually want that? More regulations = more difficult to implement a new competing service.

wonderwonder 5y ago
Its US politics so it means nothing will be done and its just a chance for politicians to grandstand in front of an audience and pretend to be lecturing the big bad tech company. Its just theater.
dustintrex 5y ago
Stratechery makes a pretty solid argument that the calls for regulating "fake news" in general and Facebook in particular is a Democratic reaction to getting outfoxed by Trump's use of social media in 2016: https://stratechery.com/2021/facebook-political-problems/ https://stratechery.com/2021/facebook-political-problems/
- MadeThisToReply 5y ago
  Do you think the Democratic Party will ever admit that they lost in 2016 not because of "misinformation" or "fake news" or Russian interference or any of the other nefarious conspiracy theories they've promulgated, but because they put forward a terrible, unlikable candidate whom no-one was enthusiastic about and who offered nothing but sanctimony and a continuation of the failing status quo? Maybe it's not Facebook's fault?
  - dustintrex 5y ago
    That's basically what the Stratechery story above argues as well, but the key is that makes Facebook a convenient whipping boy that both sides can hate.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
bjt2n3904 5y ago
It absolutely can be, and I think it is. The left has blamed the election of Trump on Facebook, chiefly for spreading "misinformation". Facebook should have responded to this charge by asserting they are not arbiters of truth, but they happily took up that mantle. But it's not enough, and it never will be. The goal is to regulate Facebook into oblivion. Others may disagree with my assessment of motivation. Plenty other "reasons" exist, all revolving around the specter of "misinformation". See for yourself, the recent bad press about negative impact on children is just the cherry on top. All of this falls when the standard is personal responsibility. You should decide what is trustworthy, or misleading. You should decide how much time you (and your children) spend on social media. But the going mantra is that this freedom is "harmful", and must be regulated. That's the end game, and your assessment is dead on.
- MadeThisToReply 5y ago
  > The goal is to regulate Facebook into oblivion. No, the goal is to regulate Facebook so that the Democratic party controls what you are and aren't allowed to see on Facebook. It's entirely about power and control and anything else is just lies and distortion.
hunterb123 5y ago
Yes it is and yes they do.
throwaway20875 5y ago
It's a political move and power grab.
jwond 5y ago
Glenn Greenwald wrote an article arguing that yes, it is a power grab. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-want-to https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-...
- Bhilai 5y ago
  Glenn Greenwood in my opinion is not a neutral party here. In recent times he clearly has chosen sides.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    One fundamental precept of rational thought is that arguments speak for themselves. Claims exist independently of their speakers. You can't rebut an argument by suggesting that the person who made the argument has "chosen sides" or has any other characteristic whatsoever. You have to address the content of the argument itself. The human is irrelevant. Everyone should read Greenwald's article. He makes a good case.
    - JasonFruit 5y ago
      I can't imagine that the people downvoting this comment would do so if they saw it in a politically neutral context. It's completely uncontroversial in what it said: arguments can be evaluated without regard to who is making them. This is middle-school citizenship class stuff. We really are blinded by our politics these days.
  - _bfhp 5y ago
    I apologize for OP, let's all stick to unbiased, objective reporting like the New York "Enhanced Interrogation" Times in the future
  - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
    You know what, I'm willing to take you up on the offer of "eliminate all biased media".
djur 5y ago
A lot of people in this thread are casting political attacks on Facebook as a Democratic thing, so I'll just point out that conservative Republican Senator Josh Hawley has been attacking Facebook for years, including proposals to strip them of Section 230 protection and to allow people to sue them in federal court for "harmful content". https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-demands-answers-facebook-over-censorship-hunter-biden-article https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-demands-answers-faceboo... https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6950261/Limiting-Section-230-Immunity-to-Good-Samaritans.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6950261/Limiting-Sect... https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21074054/federal-big-tech-tort-act-text.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21074054/federal-big-...
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Your very first link is Hawley sending a letter because Facebook censored a Hunter Ukraine story. Republicans are pissed because of the censorship (the big ones being lab leak and Hunter Biden's laptop, but there are smaller things all the time, 15 days bans for sharing a story the narrative doesn't agree with). There's a good argument to make if FB wants to act like the arbiter of truth, the "truth" they choose should be legally liable. Democrats are pissed because FB doesn't go far enough or something. They want ALL conservative media off the site. Democrats want to amplify that censorship, Republicans don't want any censorship. Who is on the right side?
  - Loughla 5y ago
    You're painting with too broad of a brush here, I think. In general, saying 'all' about anything tends to make that statement false at some point. It's easy to knock down a straw-man, I guess is my point.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      My point is it's clearly a party issue to censor conservatives in the D party. The only issue R's have with FB is the censorship itself. Does that clear things up or do you have any questions?

wonderwonder 5y ago

Its US politics so it means nothing will be done and its just a chance for politicians to grandstand in front of an audience and pretend to be lecturing the big bad tech company. Its just theater.

dustintrex 5y ago

Stratechery makes a pretty solid argument that the calls for regulating "fake news" in general and Facebook in particular is a Democratic reaction to getting outfoxed by Trump's use of social media in 2016: https://stratechery.com/2021/facebook-political-problems/ https://stratechery.com/2021/facebook-political-problems/

MadeThisToReply 5y ago
Do you think the Democratic Party will ever admit that they lost in 2016 not because of "misinformation" or "fake news" or Russian interference or any of the other nefarious conspiracy theories they've promulgated, but because they put forward a terrible, unlikable candidate whom no-one was enthusiastic about and who offered nothing but sanctimony and a continuation of the failing status quo? Maybe it's not Facebook's fault?
- dustintrex 5y ago
  That's basically what the Stratechery story above argues as well, but the key is that makes Facebook a convenient whipping boy that both sides can hate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

bjt2n3904 5y ago

It absolutely can be, and I think it is. The left has blamed the election of Trump on Facebook, chiefly for spreading "misinformation". Facebook should have responded to this charge by asserting they are not arbiters of truth, but they happily took up that mantle. But it's not enough, and it never will be. The goal is to regulate Facebook into oblivion. Others may disagree with my assessment of motivation. Plenty other "reasons" exist, all revolving around the specter of "misinformation". See for yourself, the recent bad press about negative impact on children is just the cherry on top. All of this falls when the standard is personal responsibility. You should decide what is trustworthy, or misleading. You should decide how much time you (and your children) spend on social media. But the going mantra is that this freedom is "harmful", and must be regulated. That's the end game, and your assessment is dead on.

MadeThisToReply 5y ago
> The goal is to regulate Facebook into oblivion. No, the goal is to regulate Facebook so that the Democratic party controls what you are and aren't allowed to see on Facebook. It's entirely about power and control and anything else is just lies and distortion.

hunterb123 5y ago

Yes it is and yes they do.

throwaway20875 5y ago

It's a political move and power grab.

jwond 5y ago

Glenn Greenwald wrote an article arguing that yes, it is a power grab. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-want-to https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-...

Bhilai 5y ago
Glenn Greenwood in my opinion is not a neutral party here. In recent times he clearly has chosen sides.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  One fundamental precept of rational thought is that arguments speak for themselves. Claims exist independently of their speakers. You can't rebut an argument by suggesting that the person who made the argument has "chosen sides" or has any other characteristic whatsoever. You have to address the content of the argument itself. The human is irrelevant. Everyone should read Greenwald's article. He makes a good case.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    I can't imagine that the people downvoting this comment would do so if they saw it in a politically neutral context. It's completely uncontroversial in what it said: arguments can be evaluated without regard to who is making them. This is middle-school citizenship class stuff. We really are blinded by our politics these days.
- _bfhp 5y ago
  I apologize for OP, let's all stick to unbiased, objective reporting like the New York "Enhanced Interrogation" Times in the future
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
  You know what, I'm willing to take you up on the offer of "eliminate all biased media".

djur 5y ago

A lot of people in this thread are casting political attacks on Facebook as a Democratic thing, so I'll just point out that conservative Republican Senator Josh Hawley has been attacking Facebook for years, including proposals to strip them of Section 230 protection and to allow people to sue them in federal court for "harmful content". https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-demands-answers-facebook-over-censorship-hunter-biden-article https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-demands-answers-faceboo... https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6950261/Limiting-Section-230-Immunity-to-Good-Samaritans.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6950261/Limiting-Sect... https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21074054/federal-big-tech-tort-act-text.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21074054/federal-big-...

hunterb123 5y ago
Your very first link is Hawley sending a letter because Facebook censored a Hunter Ukraine story. Republicans are pissed because of the censorship (the big ones being lab leak and Hunter Biden's laptop, but there are smaller things all the time, 15 days bans for sharing a story the narrative doesn't agree with). There's a good argument to make if FB wants to act like the arbiter of truth, the "truth" they choose should be legally liable. Democrats are pissed because FB doesn't go far enough or something. They want ALL conservative media off the site. Democrats want to amplify that censorship, Republicans don't want any censorship. Who is on the right side?
- Loughla 5y ago
  You're painting with too broad of a brush here, I think. In general, saying 'all' about anything tends to make that statement false at some point. It's easy to knock down a straw-man, I guess is my point.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    My point is it's clearly a party issue to censor conservatives in the D party. The only issue R's have with FB is the censorship itself. Does that clear things up or do you have any questions?