…that right about the time big left/big Media (pardon the redundancy) start telling us basic human lights like free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are bad for us…
… they also start telling us that a diet of insects is good for us and essential to save the world?
If you don’t think they’re connected…
by
Tags:
No guns, no freedom of religion, no free speech. Maybe some progressive could tell me what it is that they don’t like about North Korea?
One of the more interesting battles in Silicon Valley — is Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
If Facebook is really about people joining together to share their lives, it should follow Twitter’s lead and ban all political advertising.
People can still discuss politics and Facebook will survive without the revenue from those who would use its platform to disseminate lies.
It really isn’t any more complicated than that.
Twitter makes about $0 political advertising.
What is it about progressives that makes them want to ban political speech? Human speech does not consist of lies (bad) and facts (good). It consists of qualified or unqualified opinions, for the most part. A male human being has male sex organs and produces male hormones. A male human being cannot menstruate or have a child. Twitter will ban you for stating this, Twitter doesn’t care about the truth.
… besides both Twitter and Facebook ban speech of which they don’t approve anyway. I don’t know FB so much, but Twitter does it all the time, for the lame-est of reasons, and (almost?) always against non-lefties.
Well, by your logic, Emery, Mitch would be well within his rights to ban you for parroting the lies of your left wing media masters or the ones that you conjure up in your deluded mind.
How can twitter get away with banning political “lies,” but not the lies some women tells about her ex-husband? A little common sense, please.
“Welcome to North Korea. Your weapons will be confiscated, you may not engage in public religious worship, and your political speech will be monitored and tightly controlled.”
“Welcome to California. Your weapons will be confiscated, you may not engage in public religious worship, and your political speech will be monitored and tightly controlled.”
I assume that political advertising on Twitter is pretty much worthless because it’s hard to target constituents when users are largely anonymous.
Facebook suggests that you include your address in your profile and also suggests that you register for updates from your representatives. Using that information Facebook can sell advertising targeted down to the Precinct level, not merely targeted to people that have already liked your page (is it any surprise that Facebook limits viewership of non-paid posts?). With all that information to microtarget the only wuquestion I have is, “Why am I getting paid ads for a Duluth City Council Race?”
Emery is probably on of those people who thinks that users on Facebook are customers. They’re not– the advertisers are. The users are the product. During a political season, what’s the most lucrative source of advertising revenue?
I don’t envy the spot Zuckerberg has put himself in: After the shenanigans with the left-wing “fact-checking” sites, he’s taking a step back and trying to show Facebook is not a publisher but merely a platform. It seems he’s got leftists angry at him and conservatives defending him. We get another sterling example of the lip-service the Left pays to free-speech. They’ll go to the mat against Trump or the GOP political ads that “distort” facts or “take things out of context”, but they’d probably let Valerie Plame continue to perpetuate the lie that Scooter Libby went to prison for outing her as a spy.
As far as Zuckerberg is concerned, I’m hoping he’s starting to see the proverbial crocodile that is the perpetually-offended Left won’t necessary eat him last. But I suspect it’s more likely he’s willing to tolerate a little heat from his normal political allies to make a little extra change before the election. Come Wednesday, he may double down on the fact-checking spiel, especially if the elections take a bite out of his detractors on the Left.
“The users are the product.”
Exactly, Ian.
People that make use of social media are willingly giving up their most personal information to anyone willing to pay, or with the ability to get a warrant to access it…just so they can post a picture of the steak they’re enjoying. It’s crazy.
Fedbook AI is capable of ferreting out your identity by simply logging your activity. Your VPN, your false login mean nothing. You tell Zuck & the NSA who you are every time you log in.
“ it should follow Twitter’s lead and ban all political advertising.”
Look at that insipid dimwit, whining about a lack of banning.
You do you, little cowboy. LMFAO!!
The publisher-platform distinction may be significant to defamation law. The person who makes a defamatory statement is liable for the damages that flow therefrom, but so is everybody else who publishes and re-publishes the defamatory statement.
Carlos publishes a newspaper that allows people to submit comments to his staff for approval. When commenters defame someone, it’s with his approval, he publishes the statement, making him liable for the damages resulting from their defamation. That’s why Carlos’ staff rigorously enforces a code of conduct – not to promote honesty and fair play, but to avoid paying damages. The fact it’s a blog or chatroom instead of a printed newspaper, doesn’t change the fact he published defamatory statements.
Zuck wants to claim he only provides a platform for people to express themselves, but he does not edit or screen the defamatory statements. He does not publish the defamatory statement and therefore is not liable for the damages resulting from their defamation. He wants to be like the community bulletin board where people post stuff but nobody monitors it for content.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It’s all about the Jacksons, baby.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.