Social Media Censorship

[razz]

I am a little confused about the role of the term 'publisher.' Is it not simply the conveyance? The contents in the conveying tool reflect the bias of those who placed them.
Are FB etc., deciding that the loads are unacceptable for transporting or are misusing the conveyance's purpose.

[iris lilies]

I think Williamsmith is saying just the opposite, as am I. Publishers have a point of view--of course they do. That's why I used the twin examples of Mother Jones and The National Review. And everyone knows that even news sources that are supposed to be unbiased are not. All news is curated and edited to fit a particular bias or agenda.

Ok, I agree with all of this.

so what is this thread arguing, then?

[iris lilies]

I am a little confused about the role of the term 'publisher.' Is it not simply the conveyance? The contents in the conveying tool reflect the bias of those who placed them.
Are FB etc., deciding that the loads are unacceptable for transporting or are misusing the conveyance's purpose.

Publishers “place” content. FB chooses which content to place. FB is a publisher.

[Williamsmith]

Publishers “place” content. FB chooses which content to place. FB is a publisher.

This OP is arguing that Zuckerberg’s Facebook is not simply a platform that acts as an unbiased conduit for ideas, news and information......as he makes pains to claim. And that Facebook is just the most prominent example of tech industries monopoly on speech control. That this condition has not been achieved through the fair competition of what capitalistic minded free marketers have in mind when they defend the , “let the market find its own winners and losers.”

Facebook and a few others determine the news that billions of world residents consume every day and more importantly...what they will not see. It swallows up potential competitors to protect its market share and expand it. It results in less choice, a less diverse banquet if you will, to choose from and quashes innovation. Technology tracks our every key stroke and sells that information to the highest bidder so that we become saturated with a bland pablum of gruel rather than a healthy diet of truly stimulating thoughts and ideas.

And because they hide behind the “platform”moniker......they profit as a result of deception.....not competition. And so, they should be broken up into smaller diverse companies for the good of our society. But not handed over to government.

We should all pay attention to what happened to Jones and Ron Paul and realize the kind of power being demonstrated here.

[jp1]

If I recall correctly the fairness doctrine was done away with by the FCC during the Reagan administration. If people care what Jones says they can still go to infowars.com and read all about it. There's been no time in history where a crackpot like him had such an easy and cheap ability to spout whatever he feels like spouting about to as wide of an audience as is interested. To expect facebook or youtube or anyone else to have to provide him a free platform for his nonsense is ridiculous.

[Williamsmith]

As long as you are consistent and won’t complain should someone you approve of experiences the same treatment.....I’m good with it. But as for me, I would prefer to be my own filter rather than leave it up to whomever or whatever.

[jp1]

Well, with the end of net neutrality one doesnt know. But for now we can all go looking for, or posting on our own web site, whatever viewpoint we want. When comcast or at&t starts blocking sites they dont like then i’ll get concerned.

[iris lilies]

If I recall correctly the fairness doctrine was done away with by the FCC during the Reagan administration. If people care what Jones says they can still go to infowars.com and read all about it. There's been no time in history where a crackpot like him had such an easy and cheap ability to spout whatever he feels like spouting about to as wide of an audience as is interested. To expect facebook or youtube or anyone else to have to provide him a free platform for his nonsense is ridiculous.

To the bold:
i dont think so. Your statement seems to me to be awfully self imoortant about our time in history. We just arent that special here in 2018.

I dont see this as being much different from any other crackpot who has grabbed the ear of the media.

I remember all of the breathless news coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church to whip up our outrage, and look how that calmed down. The Church has been pretty much hobbled by clever words and analysis in the public square.

I think it s better for societyto get the stink out in the open, and the turn it over and face it up to the sun.

[jp1]

My point wasnt that there are more crackpots today ir that they are any crackier than the crackpots of days gone by. What i was trying to say is simply that it’s way cheaper and easier to put up a website and have the ability to reach anyone with an internet connection, compared to 20 years and further ago when the ability to reach a mass audience was dependant on either buying a printing oress and a lot of ink and paper or doing something that the media found noteworthy enough to report on.

[LDAHL]

Every advance carries the crackpots along with the rest of us. I’m inclined to think that is on balance a good thing, although it’s true that the infoweb makes it easier to find and share ideas with like-minded addlepates. It also makes it easier to delude oneself that something is a thing when it probably isn’t a thing. If you devote enough time and effort to searching out examples of white squirrels or homicidal policemen, you might eventually come to the incorrect conclusion that we are overrun with white squirrels or homicidal policemen.

But overall the many benefits of the new technology are not offset by the augmented crackpottery it enables. I have little sympathy for the various internet vigilantes who want to shame, regulate or otherwise silence people they dislike.