Facebook is not a common carrier.

I find the irony in conservatives who cried about Bill Maher on ABC and got him cancelled are upset at all perceived slights against them.  Conservatives are the master of the victim card. 

Bill Maher was cancelled because the show ran its course and got stale. Yes, his HBO show is based on the same format, but caters to more of a niche audience (HBO subscribers).

Bill Maher was cancelled because the show ran its course and got stale. Yes, his HBO show is based on the same format, but caters to more of a niche audience (HBO subscribers).

 

You are selectively remembering what happened.  ABC caved to pressure from conservatives.  The pressure started from Press Secretary Ari Fleisher.  This was in the you  can't criticize the president in the time of war days. 

Here is some more information on the Algorithm change at Facebook.  You will many news sites of all political stripes and mainstream sites will lose some traffic. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2018/03/06/facebooks-latest-algorithm-change-here-are-the-news-sites-that-stand-to-lose-the-most/#1aeb655b34ec

it was partially coincidental. ABC was already In talks to develop Kimmel around that time.

it was partially coincidental. ABC was already In talks to develop Kimmel around that time.

 

So we are to accept that something s coincidental when it happens to one thing but it can;t be coincidental on another.  What's the difference here?  Why is congress wasting time playing the conservative victim card with Zuck instead of hammering him for data breaches.  Maybe because Ted Cruz doesn't want to open the Cambridge Analytica can of worms. 

ABC was always lagging The Late Show and Tonight show and was looking for something to compete in that block. This plan was underway before the whole Ari Fleisher thing surfaced.

Are you saying that Facebook is a common carrier?

 

No, it isn't.  And rereading that, I definitely went too far in making that comparison.  An ISP would be, or could be, a common carrier, but Facebook is not an ISP.

 

Nevertheless, I personally think Republicans have minimal room to complain about private companies favoring certain content on the Internet when they're not even willing to commit to mandating nondiscrimination in the treatment of package traffic.  Of course, as I noted in my earlier post, DMCA is still on the books and I'm not sure how far that could go in dissuading user-generated-content sites like Facebook from censoring or preferring certain content based on its political or social viewpoint.  But as I understand it, that's more about protection from copyright infringement suits, whereas much of the news and opinion pieces that are circulated on Facebook are perfectly legal to circulate in that fashion anyway, at least as an initial matter, so I'm not sure what DMCA would do to dissuade Facebook from simply pigeonholing views that they don't want to reach a wider audience.

ABC was always lagging The Late Show and Tonight show and was looking for something to compete in that block. This plan was underway before the whole Ari Fleisher thing surfaced.

 

So you will concede that conservatives have engaged in "bullying" and censoring behavior.  Whether it was the reason for cancelation could be debated.  The sane logic would apply to facebook.  It could be a coincidence that Diamond and Silk was purged just as Zuckerbergtestified to.

Are you saying that Facebook is a common carrier?

 

No, it isn't.  And rereading that, I definitely went too far in making that comparison.  An ISP would be, or could be, a common carrier, but Facebook is not an ISP.

 

Nevertheless, I personally think Republicans have minimal room to complain about private companies favoring certain content on the Internet when they're not even willing to commit to mandating nondiscrimination in the treatment of package traffic.  Of course, as I noted in my earlier post, DMCA is still on the books and I'm not sure how far that could go in dissuading user-generated-content sites like Facebook from censoring or preferring certain content based on its political or social viewpoint.  But as I understand it, that's more about protection from copyright infringement suits, whereas much of the news and opinion pieces that are circulated on Facebook are perfectly legal to circulate in that fashion anyway, at least as an initial matter, so I'm not sure what DMCA would do to dissuade Facebook from simply pigeonholing views that they don't want to reach a wider audience.

 

Facebook is not a common carrier, but maybe we need to think about regulating it more like one, since much of the communication that used to happen on other, more "open" platforms is now happening on a single platform controlled by a single entity. There used to be a variety of forums, run by different people/companies, where people would discuss different topics, but most of these no longer exist. Somehow UrbanOhio and other urbanism/transportation/development-focused forums are an exception to this rule and continue to thrive. But other forums I previously used have all shut down and moved over to Facebook groups. We used to have a rich ecosystem where people could publish blogs using the platform of their choice, and subscribe to blogs using the reader of their choice. Everything was compatible and interoperable. Now people aren't starting blogs or using feed readers, they are just publishing their posts on Facebook or Twitter.

ABC was always lagging The Late Show and Tonight show and was looking for something to compete in that block. This plan was underway before the whole Ari Fleisher thing surfaced.

 

So you will concede that conservatives have engaged in "bullying" and censoring behavior.  Whether it was the reason for cancelation could be debated.  The sane logic would apply to facebook.  It could be a coincidence that Diamond and Silk was purged just as Zuckerbergtestified to.

 

 

Maybe they were downloading warez or asking people if they wanna cyber

Are you saying that Facebook is a common carrier?

 

No, it isn't.  And rereading that, I definitely went too far in making that comparison.  An ISP would be, or could be, a common carrier, but Facebook is not an ISP.

 

Nevertheless, I personally think Republicans have minimal room to complain about private companies favoring certain content on the Internet when they're not even willing to commit to mandating nondiscrimination in the treatment of package traffic.  Of course, as I noted in my earlier post, DMCA is still on the books and I'm not sure how far that could go in dissuading user-generated-content sites like Facebook from censoring or preferring certain content based on its political or social viewpoint.  But as I understand it, that's more about protection from copyright infringement suits, whereas much of the news and opinion pieces that are circulated on Facebook are perfectly legal to circulate in that fashion anyway, at least as an initial matter, so I'm not sure what DMCA would do to dissuade Facebook from simply pigeonholing views that they don't want to reach a wider audience.

 

Facebook is not a common carrier, but maybe we need to think about regulating it more like one, since much of the communication that used to happen on other, more "open" platforms is now happening on a single platform controlled by a single entity. There used to be a variety of forums, run by different people/companies, where people would discuss different topics, but most of these no longer exist. Somehow UrbanOhio and other urbanism/transportation/development-focused forums are an exception to this rule and continue to thrive. But other forums I previously used have all shut down and moved over to Facebook groups. We used to have a rich ecosystem where people could publish blogs using the platform of their choice, and subscribe to blogs using the reader of their choice. Everything was compatible and interoperable. Now people aren't starting blogs or using feed readers, they are just publishing their posts on Facebook or Twitter.

 

Facebook groups are practically useless for properly organized technical discussion but great for rollin' coal and swapping broken lawnmowers.

 

Facebook groups are practically useless for properly organized technical discussion but great for rollin' coal and swapping broken lawnmowers.

 

Facebook group message boards circa 2008 were incredibly intuitive. I maintain they were the best forums I've ever used. Another discussion to say the easy-to-follow discourse is why they got rid of it; but when they did trash the format sometime in 2009, I think, I deleted my account and have not returned.

Are you saying that Facebook is a common carrier?

 

No, it isn't.  And rereading that, I definitely went too far in making that comparison.  An ISP would be, or could be, a common carrier, but Facebook is not an ISP.

 

Nevertheless, I personally think Republicans have minimal room to complain about private companies favoring certain content on the Internet when they're not even willing to commit to mandating nondiscrimination in the treatment of package traffic.  Of course, as I noted in my earlier post, DMCA is still on the books and I'm not sure how far that could go in dissuading user-generated-content sites like Facebook from censoring or preferring certain content based on its political or social viewpoint.  But as I understand it, that's more about protection from copyright infringement suits, whereas much of the news and opinion pieces that are circulated on Facebook are perfectly legal to circulate in that fashion anyway, at least as an initial matter, so I'm not sure what DMCA would do to dissuade Facebook from simply pigeonholing views that they don't want to reach a wider audience.

 

If I were a Facebook stockholder, I'd be considering a different sort of lawsuit because if either their snooping or their politically biased enforcement tactics trigger any kind of a  mass exodus, they lose what distinguishes them:  the breadth of their user base.  It's a place where you can find everyone from the prom queen of your HS graduating class to one of your favorite smartass political bloggers that makes you feel liberal by comparison.  Okay, same person for me, but....

 

There's been buzz about MeWe on the right but it's nowhere close to intuitive and few people are there yet.  Facebook's huge advantage is numbers.

Are you saying that Facebook is a common carrier?

 

No, it isn't.  And rereading that, I definitely went too far in making that comparison.  An ISP would be, or could be, a common carrier, but Facebook is not an ISP.

 

Nevertheless, I personally think Republicans have minimal room to complain about private companies favoring certain content on the Internet when they're not even willing to commit to mandating nondiscrimination in the treatment of package traffic.  Of course, as I noted in my earlier post, DMCA is still on the books and I'm not sure how far that could go in dissuading user-generated-content sites like Facebook from censoring or preferring certain content based on its political or social viewpoint.  But as I understand it, that's more about protection from copyright infringement suits, whereas much of the news and opinion pieces that are circulated on Facebook are perfectly legal to circulate in that fashion anyway, at least as an initial matter, so I'm not sure what DMCA would do to dissuade Facebook from simply pigeonholing views that they don't want to reach a wider audience.

 

If I were a Facebook stockholder, I'd be considering a different sort of lawsuit because if either their snooping or their politically biased enforcement tactics trigger any kind of a  mass exodus, they lose what distinguishes them:  the breadth of their user base.  It's a place where you can find everyone from the prom queen of your HS graduating class to one of your favorite smartass political bloggers that makes you feel liberal by comparison.  Okay, same person for me, but....

 

 

AOL was the same way, yet nobody was able to sue them and nobody helped them out. If you want to mitigate downside risk invest in the bond market instead of the stock market.

Interest thread on Fake News purveyors Diamond and Silk.  They were paid by the Trump campaign to spread fake news.  Isn't this the very thing we want Zuckerberg to end?

https://mobile.twitter.com/kazweida/status/984122726024593408

 

I am shocked. I was totally fooled by Diamond and Silk's claim that they were just "two black chicks down with politics." I never would have suspected they were part of a GOP astroturfing campaign.

^ They were self made and independently famous long before that single, small payment from the Trump campaign. It's no surprise the Trump campaign would want to consult with two famous, powerful, successful, creative, black, female Trump supporters - the campaign should be thankful they charged such a fair and low price for their consulting!

 

If they would have been a full on Trump campaign surrogate, they would have been paid a lot more than $600 each. That works out to pennies per hour.

^ no comment on them spreading fake news and conspiracies?

oops! it seems someone is lying

 

Mark Zuckerberg Claims Facebook Didn’t Have Special Alliance With Obama Campaign

NATIONAL  ASHLEY RAE GOLDENBERG  APR 11, 2018  |  5:44PM    WASHINGTON, DC

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2018/04/11/mark-zuckerberg-claims-facebook-didnt-have-special-alliance-with-obama-campaign/

 

While testifying in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the former Obama campaign staffer who claimed the company allowed the Obama campaign to do things “they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side” was lying.

 

Majority Whip Steve Scalise asked Zuckerberg about remarks made Carol Davidsen on the 2012 presidential election.

 

In a series of tweets, Davidsen, the former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America claimed Facebook knew — and approved of — the Obama campaign using data from Facebook users. She said “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” Davidsen also said they received approval from Facebook because they “were on our side.” Confusingly, she also said she was “100% positive that Facebook activity recruits and staffs people that are on the other side.”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/life-news/

 

Home » Life News

Life News

*Voting Polls do not affect MBFC bias ratings

 

Share:

Life News - Right BiasRIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

 

N

^this will help simplify it for you

 

^ Only people who gets their news from bias sources believes that giving a campaign explicit permission to access your data for campaign purposes is the same thing as what CA did.  Nice whataboutism though. 

Facebook previously allowed any app to get "friends of friends" data via their API. Then FB changed the policy and now only allow researchers to get that data, but not private companies or individuals. That's why CA is in trouble. A researcher used Facebook's API to get that data and then sold it to CA.

 

FB is an advertising company and they had people embedded inside of every campaign, Republican and Democrat, in order to...sell them more ads.

FB is an advertising company and they had people embedded inside of every campaign, Republican and Democrat, in order to...sell them more ads.

 

People would enjoy Facebook a lot more if paid political material were prohibited and viral materials were nipped at the bud.  It would hurt Facebook's revenues short-term but might set it up for long-term success.  Right now people don't like getting on there and seeing relatives and old family friends getting in inane political arguments. 

 

The relative lack of political material on Instagram explains part of its success. 

 

 

 

Yes, Facebook would be deeply, deeply disappointed if all of its user base set up Instagram accounts and started using that platform more ...

oops! it seems someone is lying

 

Your "news" "sources", as usual.

Yes, Facebook would be deeply, deeply disappointed if all of its user base set up Instagram accounts and started using that platform more ...

 

That's what I did. I'm having way more fun and activities on IG than AOL because I don't have to deal with crap.

Yes, Facebook would be deeply, deeply disappointed if all of its user base set up Instagram accounts and started using that platform more ...

 

They're not going to be able to make as much money from Instagram as from Facebook unless they ruin it like they ruined Facebook back around 2007. 

 

 

Yes, Facebook would be deeply, deeply disappointed if all of its user base set up Instagram accounts and started using that platform more ...

 

That's what I did. I'm having way more fun and activities on IG than AOL because I don't have to deal with crap.

 

Instagram is owned by Facebook.

Right, I almost look at IG as an unlike hedge for Facebook in that they are very different culturally.

I just downloaded my file this morning. It's totally different than other people have reported. Sure my ad file has a bunch of things I didn't think I was engaged with but nothing else is all that creepy. It's mostly my page and messages. Anyone who has unfriended me does not appear. Also, users that have deleted the site don't appear. No texts, no contacts, none of that.

 

The difference, I think, is that I have never downloaded the Facebook app (or Messenger) and have never given them my phone number. Apps don't have the privacy restrictions that websites do. I have accessed Facebook several times from my phone, but it was through the mobile web interface.

Facebook must be getting worried. I just opened the Facebook app and got presented with this "poll".

Perhaps becoming more publicly self-aware than worried.

This is awful. Facebook gave private user data to Russian internet company https://t.co/FOxbmPm01y, which is subject to Russia’s SORM-2 data collection system. That means Russia’s intelligence services now have access to all that data, legally (in Russia). https://t.co/H0PjxvFwTF

Zuckerburg says Facebook isn't going to shut down pages that intentionally share false and harmful conspiracy theories, such as Holocaust denial, because, "I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, 'We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.'"

 

Zuckerburg doesn't seem to understand that by refusing to "take someone off the platform" he is an active participant in providing them with a platform. It is incredibly insulting for him to even suggest that Holocaust deniers are simply "getting things wrong". There is a huge difference between making a mistake and accidentally sharing a fake news story; and intentionally propagating demonstrably false conspiracy theories in an attempt to misinform, rile up your base, and incite violence against specific groups. There is no doubt that Holocaust deniers are antisemitic and spread theses conspiracy theories to propagate antisemitism. There is no legitimate "debate" about whether the Holocaust occurred.

 

 

Zuckerberg: Let me give you an example of where we would take it down. In Myanmar or Sri Lanka, where there’s a history of sectarian violence, similar to the tradition in the U.S. where you can’t go into a movie theater and yell “Fire!” because that creates an imminent harm.

 

The principles that we have on what we remove from the service are: If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform. There’s a lot of categories of that that we can get into, but then there’s broad debate.

 

Swisher: Okay. “Sandy Hook didn’t happen” is not a debate. It is false. You can’t just take that down?

 

Zuckerberg: I agree that it is false.

 

I also think that going to someone who is a victim of Sandy Hook and telling them, “Hey, no, you’re a liar” — that is harassment, and we actually will take that down. But overall, let’s take this whole closer to home…

 

I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened. I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong, but I think—

 

Swisher: In the case of the Holocaust deniers, they might be, but go ahead.

 

Zuckerberg: It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”

I think they're trying to strike a balance where they let just enough of that crap on before people abandon the place for somewhere else, like the rapid departure of people from trashy Myspace to the original Facebook.  At some point it's going to be pathetic to have a Facebook account, and there's no coming back from that. 

"Face E. Book's: Where a Nut Can Be a Nut"

Social media platforms shouldn't treat their content any differently than phone companies or any other common carrier. Their job is to transmit speech from one point to another, not police the content of that speech. Hopefully we'll get there some day. Imagine the outrage if Verizon dropped your call if you used certain words.

Facebook is not a common carrier.

^Yeah but Facebook, etc., is more like a combination of a phone and traditional TV/Radio.  Each had a ton of content and language restrictions until the rise of cable tv and satellite/internet radio. 

 

I was just thinking...it took a law to get cigarette ads off of TV.  To my knowledge Facebook, etc., has never had them, but I don't believe that there is a law banning them (or is there?). 

I think cigarette advertising is banned in all media.

Facebook is not a common carrier.

 

I didn't say they were. I said they shouldn't treat content differently than common carriers. I see now that sentence can be read in two ways.

 

IMO this topic is related to net neutrality and the growing belief that access to the internet is a "human right." If we're going to have discussions about those topics, we need to have discussions about free speech on the internet.

net neutrality is a different topic. facebook is a specific website which can and should control content as they see fit.

I think cigarette advertising is banned in all media.

 

 

They still advertise in magazines with over 1,000,000/mo in circulation -- which is very few these days.

net neutrality is a different topic. facebook is a specific website which can and should control content as they see fit.

 

the newspaper should print every letter I send them and TV should have me appear on camera any time I ask

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Zuckerburg is a free speech warrior.  He doesn't want to remove Nazi propaganda from his site because it gets a lot of clicks from stupid people which makes money for him.

Social media platforms shouldn't treat their content any differently than phone companies or any other common carrier. Their job is to transmit speech from one point to another, not police the content of that speech. Hopefully we'll get there some day. Imagine the outrage if Verizon dropped your call if you used certain words.

 

IMO this topic is related to net neutrality and the growing belief that access to the internet is a "human right." If we're going to have discussions about those topics, we need to have discussions about free speech on the internet.

 

You are mixing your metaphors.

 

In your example you are implying that Verizon, as a common carrier, should not be able to monitor your calls and drop the connection based on the content of the call. This idea is similar to net neutrality. Your ISP should not be blocking or slowing your access to certain websites for any reason — either because they disagree with those sites politically and want to block them, or because they want to charge users extra for access to them. ISPs should act like "dumb pipes" and not discriminate against the content that flows through them.

 

Facebook is not an ISP. The concept of "net neutrality" does not apply to Facebook or other social networks. Facebook is free to make any rules they want about what content is and is not acceptable to distribute on their website. And those rules would not be blocking anyone's "free speech" or other "human rights".

 

If you want to distribute material that Facebook deems inappropriate for their website, you are free to create your own website on another service or even run your own web server in your own house to host your website.

If you want to distribute material that Facebook deems inappropriate for their website, you are free to create your own website on another service or even run your own web server in your own house to host your website.

 

The suggestion that 'if you don't like current social media networks you could start your own' is tantamount to the suggestion that 'if you don't like your ISP you could start your own.' Even Google was unable to create a successful social network, despite billions of dollars in capital. In terms of communication via the internet, the largest social media networks (and search engines, for that matter) are equally important players as the ISPs. Any content rules that apply to the latter should apply to the former.