Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Says it Will Now Block White-Nationalist, White-Separatist Posts (washingtonpost.com)
Facebook will begin banning posts, photos and other content that reference white nationalism and white separatism, revising its rules in response to criticism that a loophole had allowed racism to thrive on its platform. From a report: Previously, Facebook only had prohibited users from sharing messages that glorified white supremacy -- a rhetorical discrepancy, in the eyes of civil rights advocates, who argued that white nationalism, supremacy and separatism are indistinguishable and that the policy undermined the tech giant's stepped-up efforts to combat hate speech online. Facebook now agrees with that analysis, [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source] according to people who've been briefed on the decision. The new policy also applies to Instagram. The rise and spread of white nationalism on Facebook were thrown into sharp relief in the wake of the deadly neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, when self-avowed white nationalists used the social networking site as an organizing tool.
Don't worry, it's only being used against people who disagree with us
blocking/not making meaningless Facebook announcements
;)
Just my 2 cents
banning posts, photos and other content that reference white nationalism and white separatism
The bigger problem is who will judge what is a "reference" to white nationalism and white separatism? What about someone speaking out against such things, are they referencing it? What happens when the words become banned and people just move on to new ones; do we ban those to? When will it stop?
Seriously, stop trying to be thought police and address the real issues. You know, like why are people even talking about nationalism and separatism in the first place. How about we rationally talk about why people are upset and what can be done about it rather than just outright ban everything.
It's only Facebook. If their service censors stuff you want to read just use a different one. Twitter, Gab and 4/8chan all allow this kind of content. Twitter does as long as you don't call for violence or harass people, the others don't even care about that.
What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So are the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam going to be censored, too?
Also not blocked: Black supremacist separatists such as the Nation of Islam?
Hispanic supremacist murderers such as La Raza?
Nope, only whites are to be suppressed. Only whites need more "diversity". Africa is for Africans, Asia is for Asians, but no where is to be a white homeland, die whitie die.
What about Black separatists? Native Indian separatists? How about Pro Islamic Sharia groups? Pro Israel? Extreme right Christians? Who decides what is allowed? This is a very slippery slope. Either you support freedom of speech and freedom of religion, or you don't.
Like nazis, yeah.
Everything , and I mean everything on the internet is basically a simulacrum of the real world. /Uber will probably be regulated like regular taxis, because of issues that occurred in Taxis over time
And in these areas, they eventually run into the same problems that occurred in the real world, and will probably arrive at similar solutions.
AirBNB will probably be regulated like regular hotels, because of issues that occurred in hotels over time
Lyft
And Facebook / et al will probably end up being regulated like any town square: meaning right now, this pronouncement is the stab at forbidding harmful thought by dictators, which eventually in the US led to the First Amendment to the Constitution. You can't make the world a better place by simply banning bad things. You need to fight them with good ideas.
Dont use the #learntocode hashtag on twitter or instaban
What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
My communications teacher from 10th grade is on there.
And she is a dominatrix.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Is this like how because showering doesn't remove every single piece of dirt and bacteria on your body, you just stopped doing it?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Just wondering
Louis Farrakhan smiles, because his personal flavor of race-baiting social media use will continue undisturbed. Likewise with anti-Semitic posts from US congressional representatives, and the usual anti-the-other-guy screeds from untold numbers of tribal grievance groups. But as long as this one type of post is suppressed, we're good. Jussie Smullet and his supporters can continue to spew race-bating nonsense about a fictional event with no consequence, FB will guarantee that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, how does this work?
Because from all I can tell, Facebook (and others) are now choosing to block things that enough people outcry about or are in the news about. Racism, anti-vax, how do they choose?
What principle is being followed here? Or do you just have to get something in the news for long enough for it to be blocked? Is that an acceptable way of deciding?
How does this work for important but not-national-attentionworthy topics that are similarly violent / untruthful? In other countries?
>What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
Because it has a large captive audience of people who just want to say hi to grandma and look at baby pictures and stuff. Nobody needs to go to gab to catch up with fam.
Plus they have gone out of their way to make their "NEWS" stream addictive so it's a lightning rod for people who want to "fight the good fight" in the comments section so they can enjoy a nice righteous anger high and pat themselves on the back for saving the world.
Plus facebook represents easy access to the dumbest americans. The sorts of people who would have had 5 stars on yahoo answers or who would have punched in their credit card details into adult friend finder.
They don't use those sites now they're all on facebook and the russian trolls throw desperate shit fits if anyone does anything that could limit their access to the dipshit boomer uncles of america.
Use #learntosheetrock instead. Most journalists are incapable of learning to code.
While I applaud so-called 'white nationalists' (unsophisticated ignorant racist dirtbags, really) being smacked down at every opportunity, the undeniable fact of the matter is that the only way some site like Facebook can effectively enforce policies like this is by having human moderators vet every single post that's made, and that's unsustainable; they have to pay these people, which means selling more and more of people's personal data, which is more and more a violation of people's privacy, which of course is wrong. Facebook and all so-called 'social media' is doomed, and I will not be sad to see it go, and the sooner it dies the better off Humanity will be.
It's only Facebook. If their service censors stuff you want to read just use a different one. Twitter, Gab and 4/8chan all allow this kind of content. Twitter does as long as you don't call for violence or harass people, the others don't even care about that.
What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
Yeah, I mean it's not like all the major platforms and payment processors will get together and ... oh wait.
That's the point.
It's all about sweeping stuff under the carpet, while giving em ammo to grow the thing even more until the carpet reach the roof
What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
The problem is that Facebook is not doing this by their own volition. They are being pressured into it under threat of government action. So this is basically backhanded censorship.
Many people will accept this because they are, after all, a basket of deplorables. But the whacko right has raised serious issues in the past, such as their outrage about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those government actions were shocking, and absolutely should not have happened in a free and just society. Everything the whackos claimed in their conspiracy theories turned out to be true, as the leaked tapes revealed, with lying and felony obstruction of justice going at least as far as Janet Reno.
Of course, no one was brought to justice for these crimes. Who is going to arrest the attorney general? But at least we know what happened. In our new world of corporation-enforced censorship, next time we may not.
Sounds pretty racist to me for Facebook to be paying so much attention to white people.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Those are different kinds of outlets not alternatives. What is special about Facebook is that everyone is on it and it has achieved a sort of monopoly status. At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier. What you are saying amounts to "you can still protest, you are just required to do it in dark alleyways."
So long as Facebook also censors minority, female, and LGBT empowerment messages I don't see a problem. Really, anything encouraging people to collaborate and identify with or against others on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is safe to move out of the public space altogether. Cherrypicking which to move into the shadows and which to spotlight is a problem.
yet black nationalists and hispanic nationals are still goof right???? double standards much?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
All the other ones except the ones I just mentioned.
I kinda agree about payment processors though, gonna have to go back to mailed in cash/cheque donations or bitcoin.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
...I'd ban ANY sort of nationalist/separatist posts that rise to the level of hate speech or inciting violence, REGARDLESS of the skin color they're promoting.
But what do I know?
-Styopa
This year. Next year, who knows?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
I'm guessing it's the 2.32 billion monthly active users.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier.
No, sorry, common carrier is for the service provider. Facebook is a content provider and messaging board that has no control of your internet connection. There is no reason to regulate content. Let facebook do what it wants. There's more than one channel.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's only Facebook.
Where do you draw your "only X" line? Does it even exist or are you unreservedly for censorship?
And take notice of which sites are currently under attack by TPTB. It's most of the ones you list above. They HATE free speech, so they'll attempt to shut you down by linking someone or some group that the general public hates (or has been programmed to hate) to the forum and use that to get an upstream service pulled that renders the site unusable or unprofitable, and effectively shut down.
Any time you have someone screeching for censorship, you're dealing with authoritarians. Beware. They don't care about you or your rights. They just want power and your freedoms are in the way.
Freedom must always be fought for.
Right. All the anti Semitic, anti Christian, black power posts are just fine.
And don't forget: Jews are allowed to want and have their own nation with laws enforcing their majority. If whitey tries that, hoo-boy! We gotta shut that shit down!
really, defending pedophiles?
ok anon... keep hiding behind your screen
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Homophobia, unhinged insults, desire to murder people based on your own prejudice... You appear to be acting like a nazi.
But don't kill yourself. Even idiots are allowed to live.
free speech is free speech and if you can't handle a few guys sticking their dicks in kids then what else won't you be able to handle? how else will you crack down on freedom?
But that's false you double idiot. People in China is allowed to earn money by working for companies, they are allowed to start companies producing and selling goods and services to others. They aren't owned by the government.
That's what free speech is about. You don't have to listen to them but let them talk with other adults about their fucked up fantasies.
"No, sorry, common carrier is for the service provider."
Hence why I didn't say Facebook IS a common carrier. I spoke to what we should do, not what we currently do.
At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier. The content on their platform is generated by users and not FB, Facebook does not generate content they are a service provider who transmits it. They serve the same function as an ISP but with an additional layer of abstraction. Much like a VPN rides atop your internet connection.
"There's more than one channel."
Do you understand the word "monopoly?"
I don't care how you feel or what you believe about any topic. We need to get back in touch with freedom of the press and everyones right to their own soap box. The whole public laws vs corporation perogitive is an end run around free speech. It like a few monopolistic printing press making companies conspiring to only sell to people that hold their own viewpoints.
If you hold a close to monopolistic power position as relates media you should not be able to refuse people their soap boxes. If you want to editorialize then you get out your own soap box... you don't knock the other guy off his.
Link, or it didn't happen.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
you mean the one where
No, I'm pretty sure he means the one where a white nationalist named James Fields drove his car thru a crowd and killed a woman---a woman who had never even seen or spoken to him.
If I recall, he got a life sentence for that.
then some fat cunt had a heart attack?
Wow, the alt-right will say just about anything... except the truth, won't they.
I'd be very surprised if this is true, because Facebook hasn't shown any sign of caring about government action before, even assuming anyone's coming up with realistic threats.
The more likely reason is that Facebook is starting to lose advertisers. I can see the same thing happening to Twitter and YouTube too in time.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Show me a true no censorship platform and I'll accept your premise.
There is always a line. What matters is we have a range of platforms with different lines and people can choose the one they want.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is an outrageous slur. There are HUNDREDS, possibly even THOUSANDS, of Republicans who are not white nationalists or white supremacists or in any way supportive of fascist or fascism-adjacent ideologies.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So long as Facebook also censors minority, female, and LGBT empowerment messages I don't see a problem.
You really don't see the difference between hate speech from groups seeking to commit genocide and "LGBT empowerment message"? Well I guess right wingers aren't known to be the smartest.
"Who decides what is allowed?"
The person who owns the computer it's on, that's who.
I don't respond to AC's.
>What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
Their clout and the size of their userbase. Twitter and facebook are mainstream. They're cited and linked to on CNN/Fox/MSNBC.
Any other dumb questions?
Question everything
The problem is that their advertisers don't want their brands to show up on "Jim Bob's MAGA White People are the Best" Facebook page. So yes, they are fixing the problem. Were you trying to be sarcastic?
I don't respond to AC's.
To be fair, "left wingers" have a history of not being able to tell the difference between groups seeking to commit genocide and groups that are against affirmative action or for enforcing our immigration process, so I can see where the confusion is coming from.
The problem is that their advertisers don't want their brands to show up on "Jim Bob's MAGA White People are the Best" Facebook page. So yes, they are fixing the problem. Were you trying to be sarcastic?
Jim Bob buys stuff too. Why would you think advertisers wouldn't want their ads to appear in his newsfeed?
This is an outrageous slur. There are HUNDREDS, possibly even THOUSANDS, of Republicans who are not white nationalists or white supremacists or in any way supportive of fascist or fascism-adjacent ideologies.
That's true, they might be just confused!
Do you understand the word "monopoly?"
Yes, and Facebook isn't one. Your ISP, on the other hand, might be. Facebook isn't needed to connect. It is only one channel.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I don't know of any sort of major advertiser that wants to be associated with that sort of stuff. That's the right wing sites just have ads for fake drugs, gun safes, and other such nonsense. It's not worth alienating 80-90% of your customer base to try to pander to 5%.
I don't respond to AC's.
Change the name to a family friendly sounding:
Lightly Pigmented Nonconformists
or
The Society of Achromatic Volunteers
Oh no! Your right to say whatever you want on somebody else's network and transfer money on somebody else's system is being trampled! Somebody call the Supreme Court!
I don't respond to AC's.
Probably because there appears to be a lot of overlap.
My sig doesn't address Anons, sigs aren't visible to them.
I don't know of any sort of major advertiser that wants to be associated with that sort of stuff. That's the right wing sites just have ads for fake drugs, gun safes, and other such nonsense. It's not worth alienating 80-90% of your customer base to try to pander to 5%.
Fair enough. Now tell me, how does anyone but Facebook, me, and the advertiser know what shows up in my newsfeed? Hint: advertisements don't show up in a user's profile page (what I believe used to be referred to as the user's "wall" or "Facebook page").
Yeah, as long as we can still have black separatist groups like the black Panthers, we're cool. Don't mind the double standard.
White supremacy, black power, and gay pride all amount to the same thing. Each is a population divided with prejudicial and militant subcultures. Because we're all the same and a % of any group of people are bigots. What, because a person has brown skin instead of white, they are immune to bigotry and a desire for power? Stupid thinking like that is the human condition. The U.S. will be predominantly non-white within a century at this rate. The public spectacle of 1% of the remaining white population saying stupid shit is nothing more than a distraction while the magician pockets everyone's coins and further consolidates wealth and power. White supremacists can't afford to pay Facebook because they have no true power; that's why they get shut off. You don't see Facebook shutting down the paid propoganda which is the marketing engine of the corporate and private elite. Their agendas play loud and clear everywhere and shape what you think toward their goals: consumption, debt, economic slavery. Who has hurt all Americans more? White Supremacists, an anemic population that is generally demonized by everyone and has little power, or Corporate America. Which phrase is in common use. Corporate America or White Supremacist America? Which has done more damage? Which is more accepted? Which isn't censored and which is advertised to you every minute of every day.
The men with the funny hats are coming.
Wake up. Time to go.
4/8chan all allow this kind of content.
My grandpa prefers less gay porn with his racist reading material.
...and you've been fantasizing about being forced to lick her leg veins?
Your attempt at justification makes no sense. Just because absurd extreme of something is unlikely to exist or even be desirable doesn't mean that censorious thugs you cheer on are in any way benign or excusable. Do you by any chance think they stop at censoring only Nazis or are you cynically consider yourself too far down the list to be affected?
This will do a good job of solving one problem. I suspect though that it will lead to a much more serious ones - which we will no longer be able to discuss on public forums.
I wish more people would remember that homosexuality, non-Christianity, pacifists, and women's rights at one time were considered deeply offensive by a majority of the population. I don't know what standard to use to allow one type of offensive speech to be banned, but not another. (Remember that pro-gay speech was once considered dangerous because of the harm to our children).
Re "that makes it so special?" :)
That governments use it?
The utility like size, ubiquity and nature of the services?
Once a service gets that big and that useful the idea that's its a "US" utility gets accepted.
The "US" freedom of speech and freedom after speech is fully protected
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Plasma is sterile upon donation.
It's all the other stuff you accidentally donate that's not sterile.
Oh no! Your right to say whatever you want on somebody else's network and transfer money on somebody else's system is being trampled! Somebody call the Supreme Court!
There is no principled argument for censorship.
Only arguments from power.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
None of what is being described is censorship.
I don't respond to AC's.
None of what is being described is censorship.
Just because the censorship is being performed by a private entity does not make it not-censorship.
There's a good argument to be made that companies like Twitter/FB/YT are public spaces and should be prohibited from censoring anything that is not illegal in the US.
During "Occupy Wallstreet" Zuccotti Park was prohibited from kicking the protesters out even though Zuccotti Park is privately owned because it was considered a public space. Seeing as a small handful of Silicon Valley megacorps control upwards of 90% of human online communications, there's an even stronger case for declaring them public spaces and therefor prohibited from infringing on 1st Amendment rights.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
No it's not only Facebook you fucking retard.
Also Facebook and Google combined is just about everything.
No. Like nationalists. Which isn't the same thing.
Also why should white people be forced to have their nations and societies drenched in unwanted people or their problems?
Don't complain when some individual goes with the only option.
The problem with all you retards is that if it was your shit which wasn't allowed it wouldn't be as fun would it?
Just because you don't care or even like it doesn't make it right.
It is snd you post AC.
Why not ban liberals and globalists from spreading their destructive propaganda? Or.. you know.. THAT people.
Superstition is stupid. But yeah libtards are stupid to. "Equal value" is so fucking stupid. It's a lie and communist propaganda.
True. The only reason they want to destroy our nations is to steal as much as possible.
Ok, ok, calm down now. Nobody has to re-invent the wheel, once invented everybody benefits. So I'm sure even they could have purchased the bike as most bikes aren't that expensive. There are also bike auctions where cities sell abandoned bikes, usually for as little as $10.
As for two people "stealing" a bike, maybe the owner had a problem with the bike. Then he left it somewhere where it would be safe and got help from a friend to get the bike home. Did you stop and ask them if they needed help? Or did we just assume they were up to no good?
See people, when we make assumptions we project our fears on other people. Maybe it is you who would have taken someones bike? These are good discussions and I think we are getting close to the heart of your problems. Lets talk about your desire to prevent stealing. Did people take things from you? Things your felt you earned? Did it make you angry? Do you want other people to hurt because they hurt you?
We have to let go of this pain and hurt or we can never heal.
No, it should go the other way -- government should apologize to the park for trampling their constitutional right to decide what activities are allowed on their own property.
Stop shilling for ethnic conflict.
Yes, you. Think about the implicit logical implications of SJ theory about collective justice between generations on an ethnic basis.
Punch a nazi, win a prize!
Don't worry, it's only being used against people who disagree with us
Facebook has a long history of censoring stuff they simply don't like regardless of it actually being against any law or not.
Their rules on "hate speech" is a dozen lines but accounts for a huge amount of blocking/removal. In particular they don't like uncomfortable facts, like the massive over-representation of Muslims living in the west within certain crime areas, like violence, robbery, domestic violence, rape and fraud. Just mention this and you're likely to be penalized. I got hit by replying to someone complaining that yet another crime show had Muslims as terrorists, that it simply reflected reality where most terror acts in the last couple of decades were perpetrated by Muslims. Just in the last 30 days there were 111 Islamic attacks in 20 countries, in which 611 people were killed and 728 injured. In the same time period only 1 attack was perpetrated by a non-Muslim and that was the attack in Christchurch that left 50 dead and a similar number injured. Source: https://www.thereligionofpeace...
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
That's...not how it works.
Ezekiel 23:20
That evil bastard creator's chosen people.
That's like saying ISP isn't a monopoly because the internet is just one channel, you could always mail a letter or pick up a phone. Or isn't a monopoly because you could always start your own internet. Facebook and some of their other apps like Instagram, FB messenger, are required to connect to that network which everyone is on.
Ummm our grandfathers faught in WW2 Killing Nazi faggots. It's a proud American tradition.
They did it once. Do it again now and then have another clean up in 50/60 years THEN you can call it a tradition. Like spring cleaning, but for nazis XD
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
There's a good argument to be made that companies like Twitter/FB/YT are public spaces
What's that argument? I don't use any of those things, and I can communicate freely with anybody I want to.
Also, these aren't communication platforms, they're advertising platforms.
I don't respond to AC's.
I think the problem is that if you check out a "Whites are Better than Other Races" Facebook page, for whatever reason, and you see an ad on there for some big company, that doesn't look too good for that company. Not a lot of people do, but I, and some other people I know are careful to spend our money only with companies that spend their money responsibly. I have spent money advertising on Facebook in the past, but I've stopped doing so and won't do it again until they clean up their act (which I know isn't likely). I know that there are legitimate, non-racist customers that I'm missing by not advertising on Facebook, but to me, not spending money to organizations that directly cause this sort of stuff is more important to me than finding more customers.
I don't respond to AC's.
What's that argument?
You mean that you don't consider the fact that they control the vast majority of online communications sufficient? Wow.
Well for one, the POTUS uses Twitter and the courts have already said that he can't block anyone as the court ruled that it was a citizen's right to publicly petition the government and those in it with grievances and legally treated Twitter as a public space in that regard.
Things like Twitter shadow-bans and outright bans for purely political and non-illegal speech infringes on citizens' 1st-A rights to petition those in government, particularly when a small handful of Silicon Valley companies control ~90% of online human communication.
If Trump can't block anyone on Twitter because it's their right to voice their concerns to government, the reverse should also be true and citizens should not have that right removed by a third party private entity for politically-incorrect speech when they have committed no crime under US law.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
No, the ISP might be a monopoly if there is only one to choose from. Facebook is not an ISP, and it sure as hell isn't the internet.. You can connect to the internet without them. It is a single channel on the internet. Just like HBO is a single channel on your cable. It doesn't matter how many people are watching. You got this entirely wrong.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
but this is concerning because it used to be said that "the Internet views censorship as damage to the Network and routes around it." Now, TPTHB view censorship as a feature of the Network and embrace the power of networking effects to that end (See: Google Dragonfly in China, multiple social network sites banning, shadow-banning, "de-boosting", de-platforming or otherwise engaging in censorship of voices that don't conform to the worldview embraced by Silicon Valley).
What's Twitter? Is that like one of those SF flashpans that was going to be sold for zilche and then the buyer pushed the deal off the table? Those guys should learn to code real fast.
Punching a nazi is its own prize! XD
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Facebook is not an ISP, and it sure as hell isn't the internet.. You can connect to the internet without them."
Strawman. Saying something has an abstract logical similarity to something is not saying it is that thing and is not refuted or logically refuted by pointing out it isn't that thing.
You can't connect to facebooks social network which has a monopoly level market penetration. Competition would be myspace and google +, google + is defunct and myspace is effectively non-existent.
"It is a single channel on the internet. Just like HBO is a single channel on your cable. It doesn't matter how many people are watching. You got this entirely wrong."
By that logic no internet based service will ever be a monopoly. I suppose you maintain Microsoft did not have a desktop monopoly because other programs existed or that IE didn't have monopoly browser share at one point. In both cases other mega entities have slowly over time nipped away market share with some level of success but that doesn't mean they weren't monopolies anymore than the eventual fall of Rome changes the fact that it had the power to abuse a massive empire at it's peak or that the British did not have an empire to abuse at one point. If a competitor can't enter the market and compete on more or less even terms they have a monopoly, not an illegal monopoly but a monopoly. If they are using that monopoly to promote or demote other things than their monopoly at their discretion that becomes abusive and potentially illegal.
You mean that you don't consider the fact that they control the vast majority of online communications sufficient? Wow.
They don't control anything. People (namely, dumb people) choose to use these advertising platforms for communication. Email is 100% open. Anybody on the planet can set up a web page. Nobdyd is forced to use any of these platforms. I communicate with nobody on these platforms, and I do more things in my life than most people do.
It sounds like you're proposing a new sort of law where the government dictates speech by private corporations. What you're proposing is literally the antithesis to free speech.
I don't respond to AC's.
Um, I'm not the one complaining about facebook. They can put into the pipeline anything they want.
All I want is an open unfiltered connection that allows me to compete if the desire arises. The devil is the ISP
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
*sigh* You are being obtuse, but, whatever, you win the internet.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sorry, ignore that post. This threaded shit is confusing...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No, that is what you are doing. This has nothing to do with ISPs okay, I regret having mentioned common carrier but it seemed like a simple enough concept to express as a generic concept.
Someone functioning as a generic relay of communications between users who shouldn't be inspecting, manipulating, or filtering them and also shouldn't be responsible for them because they also don't create them. That is what FB is. The Facebook network which underlays the Facebook website and messenger and instagram is nothing but a layer 5 or 7 (pick your model) network and that network has no real competition and nearly 100% market penetration which makes it a monopoly. It has been used to push new applications of FB such as FB messenger and Instagram.
Their size does matter. FB is not like HBO vs Showtime, HBO and Showtime are just alternative broadcast channels. They don't have monopolies, they COULD have monopolies if they controlled their market, they could be illegal monopolies if they were monopolies that utilized their market penetration to make new products successful. What is a normal and acceptable business practice stops being one when you are a monopoly.
A monopoly is certainly a business success but not all business successes are monopolies. FB does not have any competitors and has near 100% control of its market. It's only initial competitor was myspace, FB was basically a myspace clone to begin with. Later google attempted to compete with it via google+ and found the monopoly unassailable. It has leveraged that to catapult instagram and FB messenger vs their competitors which do exist and that is illegal. It isn't illegal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to leverage it to prevent competition or promote new products.
People who don't believe in monopolies and didn't think Microsoft had them need not bother commenting, we've all heard you opinions before. Your opinion is basically that monopolies are just someone being successful and someone theoretically could beat them eventually. Got it, good to know. Not really relevant. By your logic only a perpetual monopoly would be a monopoly and as yet our species has yet to encounter anything that theoretically lasts forever.
You cannot apply common carrier regulations to a content provider! It has no monopoly over anything but its own website and its affiliates. This is not the railroad or AT&T or Standard Oil. You're just being silly. In fact I don't like where you're going with it. You're trying to defend censorship and official control of content, and to hell with that!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"You're trying to defend censorship"
*scratches head* This entire sub-thread is a debate in which you ultimately are defending FB censorship and arguing they have a right to censor. How is that ME defending censorship? A common carrier isn't allowed to manipulate content or they expose themselves to liability for it that is the opposite of control and/or censorship! Corporate actions are not free speech and blocking their interests is not censorship.
"You cannot apply common carrier regulations to a content provider!"
Please define THEIR content. FB relays content, they don't provide content. Netflix is a content provider, FB provides no content they provide a network (which is not just a website, their website hooks into it but their other applications and even third party applications integrate as well.
"It has no monopoly over anything but its own website and its affiliates."
In what was is that different than the original AT&T which had no monopoly except over its own telecommunications network? What did the railroad have a monopoly over other than its own rails?
AT&T and the railroads had a monopoly over the medium, competition was blocked, either through legislation or plain old shakedown and extortion. Facebook has a monopoly over its channel. Only the ISP can regulate what channels you can see. Facebook can't do that. You just not making any sense. Any attempt to regulate a content provider's channel is censorship.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Bingo!. That's how the right did it in the 80's. Go after advertiser and sponsors.
White-separatists, as in Catalonia, Spain?
The FB network IS a medium unto itself. It's like a highway system, they provide the roads but do not provide the cars (the content). Facebook is NOT a content provider.
It is but one lane on the highway... Until they can restrict your access to the internet, you still don't have a case for regulating them. If they want to put up their own wire or satellite, then we have to make them share, and nothing but share.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”