Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
raBBit

Facebook, Twitter purge more independent media accounts

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Which political party wants corporations to have nearly monopolistic/oligopolistic power over individual consumers/users?

 

I don’t know perhaps you could make a list...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Which political party wants corporations to have nearly monopolistic/oligopolistic power over individual consumers/users?

 

That would be both, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is pretty settled on this. 1st amendment applies to govt action. Facebook, Twitter, Fox News, Breitbart etc can censor and restrict whatever they want.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it runs afoul of the first amendment isn't the only thing worth considering or discussing. If social media sites are increasingly where people are getting their information, and there's only a few really big players, how those players can control and shape information is an important issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Whether it runs afoul of the first amendment isn't the only thing worth considering or discussing. If social media sites are increasingly where people are getting their information, and there's only a few really big players, how those players can control and shape information is an important issue.

Couldnt the same be said about tv or previously radio/newspapers?

Letting the govt pick and choose sides with the media is an extremely dangerous road and one Im not going to support. If facebook, twitter, over step their bounds, someone needs to come in and create a competitor. 

Do you really trust the govt to be fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it could. And for decades, we had the fairness doctrine for FCC licensed broadcasters.

rabbit didn't bring up government intervention. He posted a story about facebook and twitter purging accounts, both left and right. How facebook and twitter (and youtube and others) will handle information is a worthwhile discussion whether or not "what the government ought to do about it" is central to it.

We can come up with other worrying trends in social media (of course mine are going to be from the left viewpoint), here are a couple:

You can't just up and start a viable competitor in the social media landscape, either. Many have tried and failed. There's huge barriers to entry there in gaining critical mass to be relevant and worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is what do you think should be done to a private entity that is enforcing its own terms of service?

Im not saying I agree with Facebook, just what do you think is the answer here besides for govt intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, raBBit said:

 

 

Do we know why they were taken out? They all seem like pretty ridiculous sites, but I don't see anything in a quick Google search that suggests they were dangerous or aggressive. The reasons are key here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NorthSideSox72 said:

Do we know why they were taken out? They all seem like pretty ridiculous sites, but I don't see anything in a quick Google search that suggests they were dangerous or aggressive. The reasons are key here.

 

Allegedly for violating FB's spam policies or multi-account policies, but those seem to be vague and applied arbitrarily. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/11/facebook-purged-over-accounts-pages-pushing-political-messages-profit/?utm_term=.efebe078fbe9

here's a partially compiled list

https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/facebook-purge-list-deleted-accounts/

 

some of these seem like trash literal fake news pages, but then they're also shutting down police accountability and other organizing pages too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook can do this of course, but I'm not a fan. I'd rather, if Facebook is concerned about Fake News, if they provided some tools to users that evaluated sites based on objective factoring data about their content. Put a little rating box on their page or something, with where they are on scales for fake news etc. But cutting them off seems like a terrible idea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

The legal issue isn't really in question. I'm just curious what the reasons were for ending the groups entirely.

 

Both Twitter and Facebook have been booting independent media sites from their platforms in groups. It is coordinated as the sites have been doing it on the same day. I only knew the Free Thought Project from those sites and they weren't anything that needed to be banned.

This guise of "fake news" is a ploy to eliminate any dissent of the mainstream media. We're going to end up in a situation where a significant world changing news event (economy collapse, riots, attack, etc.) happens and the only information for public consumption will be large corporate media companies in cahoots with the government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Trump comes out in support of FB and Twitter's actions. Maybe that way the public will be willing to fight for the freedom of speech and the protection of media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Whether it runs afoul of the first amendment isn't the only thing worth considering or discussing. If social media sites are increasingly where people are getting their information, and there's only a few really big players, how those players can control and shape information is an important issue.

!!!!!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, raBBit said:

I hope Trump comes out in support of FB and Twitter's actions. Maybe that way the public will be willing to fight for the freedom of speech and the protection of media.

Nobody has a right to use facebook or twitter.

Last I checked the current position is that the media is the enemy of the people. If you want to start fighting for freedom of speech and press, the place to start is attacking our current administration.

It probably would do the world good to stop being so reliant on facebook, twitter, etc. Maybe this will create some incentive to create new platforms for discussion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Last I checked the current position is that the media is the enemy of the people. If you want to start fighting for freedom of speech and press, the place to start is attacking our current administration.

Why do these items register to you as mutually exclusive? When you look at it from a biased lens you may see it that way but there are no rules to if you support one group you need to equally support other group. Nobody is working to ruin the mainstream media's platform. We do, however, have multiple tech giants from one extremist corner of California making coordinated, significant efforts to thwart independent media and prop up mainstream media.

Besides, there's no shortage of people defending the corporate, mainstream media because they are anti-Trump. You can defend the billion dollar corporations who do their work for intelligence agencies, influence and ad rev. They do need a lot of defending after their horrific track record and their place in rationalizing and supporting endless American military conflicts and government coups that have resulted in the millions of civilian deaths and the loss of any stability in the Middle East. I'll defend the little guys working for nothing more than their fire for journalism and justice who can't afford much of anything and have lost their platforms to defend themselves. The people who you know, actually question the government narrative and speak on the issues that the corporate media won't touch due to cowardice and advertisers. 

Edited by raBBit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Why do these items register to you as mutually exclusive? When you look at it from a biased lens you may see it that way but there are no rules to if you support one group you need to equally support other group. Nobody is working to ruin the mainstream media's platform. We do, however, have multiple tech giants from one extremist corner of California making coordinated, significant efforts to thwart independent media and prop up mainstream media.

Besides, there's no shortage of people defending the corporate, mainstream media because they are anti-Trump. You can defend the billion dollar corporations who do their work for intelligence agencies, influence and ad rev. They do need a lot of defending after their horrific track record and their place in rationalizing and supporting endless American military conflicts and government coups that have resulted in the millions of civilian deaths and the loss of any stability in the Middle East. I'll defend the little guys working for nothing more than their fire for journalism and justice who can't afford much of anything and have lost their platforms to defend themselves. The people who you know, actually question the government narrative and speak on the issues that the corporate media won't touch due to cowardice and advertisers. 

My lens isnt biased. Facebook and Twitter are private corporations. When you use their service you agree to their terms. They are the judge, jury and executioner of their platform.  

The people that Facebook and Twitter have shut down, should find a new medium to express their ideas. Relying on a company to be fair is a fools errand. There is nothing that stops them from creating their own website, hosting their own platform etc. Facebook/twitter makes it easier, but they cant stop these people outside of their own platform.

Your bias seeps through in your posts. Who cares if they are from California or whatever. The same rules should apply to corporations despite their locations. If anything Twitter and Facebook gave a bunch of people an outlet for a long time and didnt do the bullshit youd expect out huge companies who answer to shareholders. But everyone had to know that was coming to an end after 2016.

It wont be as easy as going on Facebook or Twitter for the little guys. But when you play in someone elses sandbox, you are subject to their rules. I think its time people started to make their own sandboxes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Both Twitter and Facebook have been booting independent media sites from their platforms in groups. It is coordinated as the sites have been doing it on the same day. I only knew the Free Thought Project from those sites and they weren't anything that needed to be banned.

This guise of "fake news" is a ploy to eliminate any dissent of the mainstream media. We're going to end up in a situation where a significant world changing news event (economy collapse, riots, attack, etc.) happens and the only information for public consumption will be large corporate media companies in cahoots with the government. 

I agree that keeping those channels more open, even to garbagy content, is important. The bolded sentence I don't agree with as these sites all appear to, indeed, be garbage, so this isn't "dissent" as much as ranting. But even that should be allowed to keep ranting, as far as I am concerned. I agree generally with you and SS and others saying this is a problem. Not a legal one, but an ethical one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

My lens isnt biased. Facebook and Twitter are private corporations. When you use their service you agree to their terms. They are the judge, jury and executioner of their platform.  

The people that Facebook and Twitter have shut down, should find a new medium to express their ideas. Relying on a company to be fair is a fools errand. There is nothing that stops them from creating their own website, hosting their own platform etc. Facebook/twitter makes it easier, but they cant stop these people outside of their own platform.

Your bias seeps through in your posts. Who cares if they are from California or whatever. The same rules should apply to corporations despite their locations. If anything Twitter and Facebook gave a bunch of people an outlet for a long time and didnt do the bullshit youd expect out huge companies who answer to shareholders. But everyone had to know that was coming to an end after 2016.

It wont be as easy as going on Facebook or Twitter for the little guys. But when you play in someone elses sandbox, you are subject to their rules. I think its time people started to make their own sandboxes. 

 

This. 

No one is obligated to listen to your crap, let alone to host it.  Freedom of Speech is a governmental guarantee, not a private one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:

My lens isnt biased. Facebook and Twitter are private corporations. When you use their service you agree to their terms. They are the judge, jury and executioner of their platform.  

The people that Facebook and Twitter have shut down, should find a new medium to express their ideas. Relying on a company to be fair is a fools errand. There is nothing that stops them from creating their own website, hosting their own platform etc. Facebook/twitter makes it easier, but they cant stop these people outside of their own platform.

Your bias seeps through in your posts. Who cares if they are from California or whatever. The same rules should apply to corporations despite their locations. If anything Twitter and Facebook gave a bunch of people an outlet for a long time and didnt do the bullshit youd expect out huge companies who answer to shareholders. But everyone had to know that was coming to an end after 2016.

It wont be as easy as going on Facebook or Twitter for the little guys. But when you play in someone elses sandbox, you are subject to their rules. I think its time people started to make their own sandboxes. 

 

Your view is entirely biased. I speak out for the little guys and you're asking why I don't also speak out for the reprehensible mainstream media corporations. I am not speaking out for them because they are a bane of society. I am not speaking out for them because they are not being attacked. In fact, they are benefiting from this. So aside from them being the beneficiaries from this, they are irrelevant, so why bring them up?

I understand they are private companies. I am interested in the idea of making them public utilities. Given the way technology has changed I think the efforts to protect freedom of speech have to change as well. I understand private business rights and I am in favor of them. There is an issue when the private companies that have become mediums for spreading information have stifled free thought and alternative media because the same people being targeted don't have a medium in place to talk about their inequity.

My bias is that I believe in freedom of speech and think it is important. So if that's seeping out of my posts I am making my point. I care if they are from one radical town in California. You might be okay with a few billionaires working with the intelligence agencies shaping the way Americans think and eliminating alternative opinions. I am not okay with that.  

I am enjoying watching Facebook die. They asked me to take pictures of my home last month. They are a sick, invasive company and a major force in the fight to end all privacy for Americans. 

Time will tell who was right to defend these few consolidating corporations  who are attacking free thought and eliminating personal privacy and who was right to speak out against what is happening underneath our nose. I pity the day where Ill be able to say I told you so. 

Edited by raBBit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

This. 

No one is obligated to listen to your crap, let alone to host it.  Freedom of Speech is a governmental guarantee, not a private one.

No one is arguing otherwise. Bad people operate within the law all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I agree that keeping those channels more open, even to garbagy content, is important. The bolded sentence I don't agree with as these sites all appear to, indeed, be garbage, so this isn't "dissent" as much as ranting. But even that should be allowed to keep ranting, as far as I am concerned. I agree generally with you and SS and others saying this is a problem. Not a legal one, but an ethical one.

 

You didn't bold anything but regardless, thank you for understanding the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, raBBit said:

Why do these items register to you as mutually exclusive? When you look at it from a biased lens you may see it that way but there are no rules to if you support one group you need to equally support other group. Nobody is working to ruin the mainstream media's platform. We do, however, have multiple tech giants from one extremist corner of California making coordinated, significant efforts to thwart independent media and prop up mainstream media.

Besides, there's no shortage of people defending the corporate, mainstream media because they are anti-Trump. You can defend the billion dollar corporations who do their work for intelligence agencies, influence and ad rev. They do need a lot of defending after their horrific track record and their place in rationalizing and supporting endless American military conflicts and government coups that have resulted in the millions of civilian deaths and the loss of any stability in the Middle East. I'll defend the little guys working for nothing more than their fire for journalism and justice who can't afford much of anything and have lost their platforms to defend themselves. The people who you know, actually question the government narrative and speak on the issues that the corporate media won't touch due to cowardice and advertisers. 

No different from Koch Brothers and their presence in mostly conservative/red states...whose electoral votes overvalue their much smaller populations.

 

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×