The Social Media Problem

[JohnDB]

I'm starting this thread to discuss the issues that have come to light recently with Twitter and Facebook.

It's distracting the focus of other subjects...so I'm creating this thread to discuss the publishing/platform issues around this thing.

The CEO's of both companies are to appear before the Senate Judiciary council today in their misdeeds.

 

[lforrest]

Section 230 must have been intended to facilitate a business model for a tech company to host content, without being personally liable for that content.

But increasing burdens have been placed on these companies over time to moderate the content of users, which requires they hire people for those positions. They needed staff to handle copywrite claims. And more to uphold decency on their platform. Then they needed more to counter cyber bullying. So here we are, these staff have been given too much power.

But does selectively removing content or banning people they see as undesirable constitute publishing? They are not actually producing anything on an actionable level, and as an independent entity and non-essential service have a right to ban whoever they want so long as it doesn't run afoul of descriminatiion laws. There are no laws I am aware of in the US about discriminating based on political party. They are creating an overall political lean to the platform with this.

So I don't think section 230 reform is the solution. We need something more fundamental from the legislature.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I'm starting this thread to discuss the issues that have come to light recently with Twitter and Facebook.

It's distracting the focus of other subjects...so I'm creating this thread to discuss the publishing/platform issues around this thing.

The CEO's of both companies are to appear before the Senate Judiciary council today in their misdeeds.

Good topic! I'll be interested to hear what everyone has to say.

 

[Base12]

Something to consider...

"Social media as a public utility is a theory postulating that social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, Instagram, Tumblr, Snapchat etc.) are essential public services that should be regulated by the government, in a manner similar to how electric and phone utilities are typically government regulated."

"It is based on the notion that social media platforms have monopoly power and broad social influence."

Social media as a public utility - Wikipedia

 

[April_Rose]

I'm confused, not really in on what's going on or what this thread is talking about. :

 

[JohnDB]

The basic question boils down to "What are public decency standards?"

The standards for say Brazil or France or Iran are not the same as for Canada or America.
But they all have access to the same platform.

And how exactly do you regulate such things?

That famous line "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it" is not a solution to the problem. But that's the system they have been using.

Then there's the problem with automated advertising purchases.

Advertising on Social Media is very inexpensive. You provide the slides and money and the system automatically inserts them where they should go.

Problem is that hate groups and scammers gain all sorts publicity and dollars from these ads before they get caught and removed.

 

[April_Rose]

So then what exactly are they trying to advertise?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I copied and pasted this article from SocialMediaHQ.com that explains the problem. Kind of a Social Media Dilemma for Dummies guide.


If Social Media Companies Are Publishers and Not Platforms, That Changes Everything
July 31, 2020 by Christian Zilles

The ongoing debate over whether social media companies like Facebook and Twitter should be considered platforms or publishers is really starting to heat up. In fact, things are getting so hot that the White House has stepped into the middle of the debate, suggesting that the time has finally come for companies like Facebook and Twitter to admit that they are really publishers hiding behind all the legal protections granted to them as platforms.

In short, if Facebook or Twitter is going to be making editorial decisions about what appears on their platforms, then they are really acting as publishers. If they are making decisions about censoring certain types of content, banning certain individuals from their platforms, or somehow throttling or blocking certain types of content by using algorithms, then they are no different from traditional publishers like newspapers or magazines.

Publisher vs. platform
The difference between “platform” and “publisher” might sound like semantics, or a bunch of techno mumbo-jumbo, but it actually carries huge legal implications for companies like Facebook and Twitter. You see, as a “platform,” these social media giants can hide behind all the legal protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They can’t be sued, for example, if any slanderous content appears on their website.

While tech companies still have a responsibility of care and duty to remove any content that violates federal criminal laws, they can’t be held be responsible if some crazy guy or gal starts spreading misinformation or trafficking in conspiracy theories. However, POOF! All of the legal protections are removed once they are considered to be publishers and not platforms.

Examples of publishers and platforms
The easiest way to think about this dichotomy is by thinking about newspaper companies like the New York Times or Philadelphia Inquirer. These companies make editorial decisions about what news to publish, have editorial boards, publish op-ed pieces, and make every effort possible to fact-check (and fact-check again) every single thing they publish. If they publish a slanderous or defamatory article about a high-profile individual, they can expect to be sued in court.

Now, think about companies like Verizon, AT&T or Comcast. These are platforms, in that they primarily serve to facilitate communication and distribute information. They can’t “ban” you from using their services, even if you are trafficking in all kinds of conspiracy theories. If you want to talk about “false flag” conspiracy events with your crazy uncle on the phone, nobody is going to block or throttle that conversation. You won’t get a letter from AT&T saying that you are no longer a customer.

So is Facebook a publisher or platform?
Using the analogies above, social media companies are basically saying that they are acting much more like Comcast than the Philadelphia Inquirer. As a result, they should be afforded all the legal protections of Section 230. But that doesn’t really hold water, when you consider that Mark Zuckerberg has even admitted that Facebook sometimes acts as BOTH a platform and publisher. And, as numerous U.S. politicians have pointed out, Facebook has a notable bias towards liberal, left wing and Democrat-friendly political ideologies, as well as a notable bias against conservative, right wing and Republican-friendly political ideologies. In this regard, Facebook is much like the Philadelphia Inquirer deciding to support a particular candidate for political office – this is something that publishers do all the time, but that platforms do not.

And don’t forget about Net Neutrality
Making things even more complicated is the fact that the big social media giants seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to issues like Net Neutrality. Facebook, for example, wants to be sure that none of its content is blocked, throttled or moved to the “Internet slow lane” by any broadband provider. Twitter talks a big game about how important it is to protect freedom of speech and diversity of thought when it comes to Net Neutrality, but then appears to adopt a different tack entirely when it comes to censoring, cracking down on or banning content.

Tilting towards publisher
So it’s time for the big social media giants to finally choose which side they are on. They can’t be both a publisher and platform at the same time, no matter what kind of legal weasel words they choose to use to justify their decisions. It doesn’t matter if it’s a human or a machine algorithm making the editorial decision – if you are blocking or censoring some content that doesn’t agree with your values and viewpoints, then you are a publisher. Period. It’s time for social media companies to wake up to that reality and be prepared for the consequences.

Source: If Social Media Companies Are Publishers and Not Platforms, That Changes Everything

 

[April_Rose]

I copied and pasted this article from SocialMediaHQ.com that explains the problem. Kind of a Social Media Dilemma for Dummies guide.


If Social Media Companies Are Publishers and Not Platforms, That Changes Everything
July 31, 2020 by Christian Zilles

The ongoing debate over whether social media companies like Facebook and Twitter should be considered platforms or publishers is really starting to heat up. In fact, things are getting so hot that the White House has stepped into the middle of the debate, suggesting that the time has finally come for companies like Facebook and Twitter to admit that they are really publishers hiding behind all the legal protections granted to them as platforms.

In short, if Facebook or Twitter is going to be making editorial decisions about what appears on their platforms, then they are really acting as publishers. If they are making decisions about censoring certain types of content, banning certain individuals from their platforms, or somehow throttling or blocking certain types of content by using algorithms, then they are no different from traditional publishers like newspapers or magazines.

Publisher vs. platform
The difference between “platform” and “publisher” might sound like semantics, or a bunch of techno mumbo-jumbo, but it actually carries huge legal implications for companies like Facebook and Twitter. You see, as a “platform,” these social media giants can hide behind all the legal protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They can’t be sued, for example, if any slanderous content appears on their website.

While tech companies still have a responsibility of care and duty to remove any content that violates federal criminal laws, they can’t be held be responsible if some crazy guy or gal starts spreading misinformation or trafficking in conspiracy theories. However, POOF! All of the legal protections are removed once they are considered to be publishers and not platforms.

Examples of publishers and platforms
The easiest way to think about this dichotomy is by thinking about newspaper companies like the New York Times or Philadelphia Inquirer. These companies make editorial decisions about what news to publish, have editorial boards, publish op-ed pieces, and make every effort possible to fact-check (and fact-check again) every single thing they publish. If they publish a slanderous or defamatory article about a high-profile individual, they can expect to be sued in court.

Now, think about companies like Verizon, AT&T or Comcast. These are platforms, in that they primarily serve to facilitate communication and distribute information. They can’t “ban” you from using their services, even if you are trafficking in all kinds of conspiracy theories. If you want to talk about “false flag” conspiracy events with your crazy uncle on the phone, nobody is going to block or throttle that conversation. You won’t get a letter from AT&T saying that you are no longer a customer.

So is Facebook a publisher or platform?
Using the analogies above, social media companies are basically saying that they are acting much more like Comcast than the Philadelphia Inquirer. As a result, they should be afforded all the legal protections of Section 230. But that doesn’t really hold water, when you consider that Mark Zuckerberg has even admitted that Facebook sometimes acts as BOTH a platform and publisher. And, as numerous U.S. politicians have pointed out, Facebook has a notable bias towards liberal, left wing and Democrat-friendly political ideologies, as well as a notable bias against conservative, right wing and Republican-friendly political ideologies. In this regard, Facebook is much like the Philadelphia Inquirer deciding to support a particular candidate for political office – this is something that publishers do all the time, but that platforms do not.

And don’t forget about Net Neutrality
Making things even more complicated is the fact that the big social media giants seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to issues like Net Neutrality. Facebook, for example, wants to be sure that none of its content is blocked, throttled or moved to the “Internet slow lane” by any broadband provider. Twitter talks a big game about how important it is to protect freedom of speech and diversity of thought when it comes to Net Neutrality, but then appears to adopt a different tack entirely when it comes to censoring, cracking down on or banning content.

Tilting towards publisher
So it’s time for the big social media giants to finally choose which side they are on. They can’t be both a publisher and platform at the same time, no matter what kind of legal weasel words they choose to use to justify their decisions. It doesn’t matter if it’s a human or a machine algorithm making the editorial decision – if you are blocking or censoring some content that doesn’t agree with your values and viewpoints, then you are a publisher. Period. It’s time for social media companies to wake up to that reality and be prepared for the consequences.

Source: If Social Media Companies Are Publishers and Not Platforms, That Changes Everything

Okay,.. that still doesn't answer my question of what exactly has brought all of this on in the first place?

 

[lforrest]

The basic question boils down to "What are public decency standards?"

The standards for say Brazil or France or Iran are not the same as for Canada or America.
But they all have access to the same platform.

And how exactly do you regulate such things?

That famous line "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it" is not a solution to the problem. But that's the system they have been using.

Then there's the problem with automated advertising purchases.

Advertising on Social Media is very inexpensive. You provide the slides and money and the system automatically inserts them where they should go.

Problem is that hate groups and scammers gain all sorts publicity and dollars from these ads before they get caught and removed.

If a country imposes additional restrictions, complying with those is the cost of doing business. If they do not comply then they could be blocked in that country.

What is to keep such a company from relocating to another country to avoid lawsuits in this one? Section 230 then becomes irrelevant, and other legal avenues vanish as well.

 

[Base12]

I have noticed an even more sinister problem in the last few years.

Donation platforms like GoFundMe and Patreon are now censoring based on political views.

SGT Report just lost their funding yesterday...

Even worse... Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard are now denying services as well.

I believe the problem reaches beyond just 'Social Media'.

If the rules are clear, and someone breaks them, great... do what you need to do. However, it is the 'selective enforcement' of those rules that has become the problem.

Accountability would be great, but at what price? Big Brother?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Okay,.. that still doesn't answer my question of what exactly has brought all of this on in the first place?

Allegedly, some social media companies have been blocking content based on the political views expressed in that content. I've heard many conservatives complain that their accounts were frozen or that their content wasn't coming up in searches..... I'm talking about some prominent Republicans like former U.S. Representative Allen West.

This op-ed explains:

Big tech's censorship of conservative users is alive and well
BY CHRISTIE-LEE MCNALLY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/14/18 05:30 PM EDT
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL


A study released by the Pew Research Center in late June has once again brought to the surface a key issue of the Obama-era Title II net neutrality regulations: America’s concern about big tech’s approach to privacy, censorship and political bias and how Obama ignored it.

The study found that “seven-in-ten Americans think it likely that social media companies intentionally censor political views they find objectionable.”

The majority of us Americans agree that it is necessary for online platforms to regulate hate speech or intervene when users are engaging in harassing or threatening behavior. However, big tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter have taken this practice too far and have created their own definitions of hate speech, censoring political viewpoints that differ from the left-leaning ideologies of the companies’ leadership.

The Pew study found that 72 percent of the American public thinks it “likely that social media platforms actively censor political views that those companies find objectionable.” Well, unfortunately for consumers, it isn’t “likely” happening — it is happening.

In January, Project Veritas exposed Twitter for “shadow banning” conservative profiles, meaning the users were blocked from the platform without even being notified. Further, a shadow-banned user’s followers won’t even know they’ve been blocked, as they will still appear to exist, but won’t show up in search results or anywhere else on Twitter. “Although Twitter presents itself as politically neutral, its culture behind closed doors is one of blatant censorship, systematic bias, and political targeting,” said Project Veritas President James O’Keefe.

In June, Google listed “Nazism” as the ideology of the California Republican party, blaming “vandalism” at Wikipedia for the search results. Immediately after apologizing for the California issue, Google again found itself in hot water when a top search result for North Carolina Republican state senator yielded a photo labeling her a bigot.

The list goes on and on....

This is not a hypothetical issue and it is not the least bit surprising that the majority of Republicans think major technology companies as a whole support the views of liberals over conservatives.

Read the rest of the article here: Big tech's censorship of conservative users is alive and well

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I have noticed an even more sinister problem in the last few years.

Donation platforms like GoFundMe and Patreon are now censoring based on political views.

SGT Report just lost their funding yesterday...

Even worse... Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard are now denying services as well.

I believe the problem reaches beyond just 'Social Media'.

If the rules are clear, and someone breaks them, great... do what you need to do. However, it is the 'selective enforcement' of those rules that has become the problem.

Accountability would be great, but at what price? Big Brother?

Yes, the problem is the "selective enforcement" of the rules as you have said.

I'm surprised to hear this about PayPal. Do you have info on this?

 

[April_Rose]

Allegedly, some social media companies have been blocking content based on the political views expressed in that content. I've heard many conservatives complain that their accounts were frozen or that their content wasn't coming up in searches..... I'm talking about some prominent Republicans like former U.S. Representative Allen West.

This op-ed explains:

Big tech's censorship of conservative users is alive and well
BY CHRISTIE-LEE MCNALLY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/14/18 05:30 PM EDT
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL


A study released by the Pew Research Center in late June has once again brought to the surface a key issue of the Obama-era Title II net neutrality regulations: America’s concern about big tech’s approach to privacy, censorship and political bias and how Obama ignored it.

The study found that “seven-in-ten Americans think it likely that social media companies intentionally censor political views they find objectionable.”

The majority of us Americans agree that it is necessary for online platforms to regulate hate speech or intervene when users are engaging in harassing or threatening behavior. However, big tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter have taken this practice too far and have created their own definitions of hate speech, censoring political viewpoints that differ from the left-leaning ideologies of the companies’ leadership.

The Pew study found that 72 percent of the American public thinks it “likely that social media platforms actively censor political views that those companies find objectionable.” Well, unfortunately for consumers, it isn’t “likely” happening — it is happening.

In January, Project Veritas exposed Twitter for “shadow banning” conservative profiles, meaning the users were blocked from the platform without even being notified. Further, a shadow-banned user’s followers won’t even know they’ve been blocked, as they will still appear to exist, but won’t show up in search results or anywhere else on Twitter. “Although Twitter presents itself as politically neutral, its culture behind closed doors is one of blatant censorship, systematic bias, and political targeting,” said Project Veritas President James O’Keefe.

In June, Google listed “Nazism” as the ideology of the California Republican party, blaming “vandalism” at Wikipedia for the search results. Immediately after apologizing for the California issue, Google again found itself in hot water when a top search result for North Carolina Republican state senator yielded a photo labeling her a bigot.

The list goes on and on....

This is not a hypothetical issue and it is not the least bit surprising that the majority of Republicans think major technology companies as a whole support the views of liberals over conservatives.

Read the rest of the article here: Big tech's censorship of conservative users is alive and well

Oh yes,.. now I know what you're talking about. Such a shame, we're supposed to be a free country. *Sigh*

 

[JohnDB]

In defense of the banking industry...

Banks are somewhat of the "whore on the block" of investment money.
Meaning that so long as no one causes them trouble they don't care who has an account.

Now banking does have issues with scams.
Where insurance companies sell "blue sky" but invest their own profits...they do keep their promises to pay.

Many of these "talk show" type political pundits are selling "blue sky" as well. Which isn't illegal. It's when they begin to subscribe and promote conspiracy theories that the banking industry begins to have a problem...
Conspiracy theories are often hate speech that hurt innocent people. Pizza Gate was one such conspiracy theory.

Then there's:
colloidal silver, prostate powders, gold bullion/coins investments (with super high expense rates) and toothpaste that supposedly cures Covid-19 that causes the banks even more problems. These guys are already on shakey ground by being "online banks" only... financial audits would cost them a server full of money even if they were innocent of wrongdoing...they all have been either publicly or privately hacked at some point. They are just trying to make money.

Try opening up an account for a 501-C.3 Charity DBA KKKU2 and see what happens...
Tossed out the door so fast you likely will need another bank to have a personal account in.

BUT
Where the problem lies is with those who are not promoting conspiracy theories or selling crazy items but getting the cold shoulder lockouts as well.
That's where lawyers are needed but nobody wants to employ one. (Good ones are expensive that can take your case all the way to the supreme court...and you will need one that can because that's where you are heading)
In the meantime while waiting the years needed to win your day in court you are broke and need a real job to pay the bills...(the one you quit because your online talk show was double the money your regular job was paying)

It's a mess.