Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Decides Which Killings We're Allowed to See
Minutes after a police shooting took place in the Falcon Heights suburbs of Minnesota, a Facebook Live video was published on the social juggernaut website. The death of Philando Castile, 32, was documented in harrowing detail thanks to the live streaming tool offered by the social media giant. The 10-minute video was streamed via smartphone by a woman identified in media reports as Diamond Reynolds. She narrates the video with a mix of eerie calm and anguish. The video was removed from Facebook due to, as company says, a "technical glitch." The video has since been restored, but with a "Warning -- Graphic Video," disclaimer. Motherboard notes that Facebook has become the de-facto platform for such controversial videos, and that there's a pattern in these so called glitches -- as they happen very often time after a questionable content is streamed. This makes one wonder whether it is up to Facebook to decide which kind of controversial videos one should be able to watch The publication writes: As Facebook continues to build out its Live video platform, the world's most popular social network has become the de-facto choice for important, breaking, and controversial videos. Several times, Facebook has blocked political or newsworthy content only to later say that the removal was a "technical glitch" or an "error." Nearly two-thirds of Americans get their news from social media, and two thirds of Facebook users say they use the site to get news. If Facebook is going to become the middleman that delivers the world's most popular news events to the masses, technical glitches and erroneous content removals could be devastating to information dissemination efforts. More importantly, Facebook has become the self-appointed gatekeeper for what is acceptable content to show the public, which is an incredibly important and powerful position to be in. By censoring anything, Facebook has created the expectation that there are rules for using its platform (most would agree that some rules are necessary). But because the public relies on the website so much, Facebook's rules and judgments have an outsized impact on public debate.
It's the all-purpose solution to every complaint. Also, I'm sure Facebook supports this sort of regulation elsewhere. Why not apply it where it's needed most?
Facebook's US user-base is about 160 Million, and the US Population is about 300 Million. So over half of the US population is on Facebook, and once you remove children too young for it it becomes ever so much easier to account for those who don't have Facebook like myself. That should be considered to be most of the US internet, and I don't so much care for the usage outside for that given this topic is a US issue not a Europe, or Asia issue. Given the Size, and function of Facebook perhaps its time to consider weather or not it should fall under the FCC Broadcast Ownership Laws meant to stop a single entity from gaining this level of control over the general population. Sure their servers and private owner ship just like a newspaper. If it's so much "Just Like A Newspaper" then treat them like it legally.
And that's why they left facebook, to live in their bubble. AT least you seem to get it, you need to take the time to delve into both sides to get any type of insight. If you are a "liberal" or "progressive" which I can't ignore the fact that you are using as derogatory terms, you need to take in as much from the other side as possible. If you are a conservative or whatever term you want to toss out, you need to listen to what's coming from the liberal side too, because both groups are living in a confirmation bias bubble. Being mostly in the middle I've noticed a trend. Inventing bullshit arguments and creating strawmen.... from both sides. It's funny though because you attempted to trash on AK, but you ignored the fact that you, yourself, posted this: "No doubt that was the goal of progressives all along, or anyway delights them." So who is living in the fantasy bubble? The people using facebook, the people who left, or the dude who thinks this was all a huge "progressive" conspiracy?