Facebook Is At It Again

[Losing_Sanity]

This is interesting...

Social media, such as Facebook, should not be allowed to block what they want and propagate their own agenda. This is a blatant act of censorship and a double standard. I'm glad to see a big company take a stand on an issue like this one. Good for North Face!

North Face pulling ads from Facebook amid backlash over Trump ads

The North Face said on Friday that it is pulling ads from Facebook amid backlash over the company's policies.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[Rainer]

Facebook is a private company, they have every right to dictate what is on their site. If you don't like it, tough. Don't use the product then. Just like twitter when FOX, POTUS, Right-wing think tanks etc. spread lies and misinformation. They will tag it or remove it

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I can see this thread being civil...lol

 

[Big Fin]

Facebook is a private company, they have every right to dictate what is on their site. If you don't like it, tough. Don't use the product then. Just like twitter when FOX, POTUS, Right-wing think tanks etc. spread lies and misinformation. They will tag it or remove it

^^^^^This

FB, IG, YT, Twitch, Twitter, even the low end Hunt Talk, are all private enterprises. There is no infringement on freedom of speech when you agree to rules set forth by a private property owner.

If you're the Westboro Baptist Church and come on my property to exercise your First Amendment rights by protesting a funeral of a soldier, you're getting your ass hauled away. My property. Their First Amendment rights aren't going to be exercised against my Fifth Amendment rights.

Same applies to private property in the world of digital platforms. First Amendment rights apply to the individual and if they agree to subrogate those rights for the benefits that come with enjoying the use of another's property protected under the Fifth Amendment, so be it. If you don't like how the property owner conducts their business, build your own asset, move along to some other platform, or suck it up and quit whining.

Funny that some want the benefits of these very large private enterprise platforms in the digital space. Yet, when they don't follow the rules or the platform does something that said group(s) don't like, now it is all about censorship and violation of First Amendment rights.

The convenience by which these folks pick and choose what part of the Constitution they adhere to is remarkable. Kind of like the Bundys ranting as being such Constitutional scholars, but when Article Three of the Constitution gives powers to the Judiciary, the Bundys claim those judicial decisions don't apply to them. Those types follow a "Constitution of Convenience," one of personal convenience, not the Constitution of the United States.

I can see this thread being civil...lol

It can be. It better be. Or, people can pack their keyboards.

 

[azelkhntr]

Facebook is a private company, they have every right to dictate what is on their site. If you don't like it, tough. Don't use the product then. Just like twitter when FOX, POTUS, Right-wing think tanks etc. spread lies and misinformation. They will tag it or remove it

FB is a publicly traded stock on the Nasdaq and is most definitely not a private company. It’s a corporation with a ceo and B of D’s. I expect the FCC to crack down hard on these censoring partisan technocrats and infocrats.

 

[Big Fin]

These actions by large digital platforms impact a lot more people than just some whining movie stars, athletes, or politicians. The policies impact businesses more than any group.

YouTube and FB throttle down advertising options if your content includes firearms or knives. They reserve the right to demonetize content that doesn't follow their guidelines. Below are two videos ready to launch in the next couple weeks. They promote a knife I am working on with Gerber. YouTube has put YELLOW flags on them which means they cannot be monetized.

That sucks, as I then get no revenue from the ads. And, when a video has no ad revenue, there is no benefit to YouTube for promoting it to get their share of the revenue, so the YT algorithm places the video at the bottom of their list. Even with that only being served to our channel subscribers, it will get more reach than any other video platform in the world. So, I accept that reality and deal with it.

It is their platform. If I don't like it, I can pull the videos, or I can put them on a different platform that is one-millionth of the reach of YouTube, or I can suck it up and know that is what I agreed to when I signed up for a YouTube account and all the benefits that come with it. Their house, their rules. If I don't like it, I can leave.

 

[Big Fin]

FB is a publicly traded stock on the Nasdaq and is most definitely not a private company. It’s a corporation with a ceo and B of D’s. I expect the FCC to crack down hard on these censoring partisan technocrats and infocrats.

So, under your theory, publicly traded corporations don't have property rights? If so, that's good to learn, as I know a bunch of public traded real estate funds that own some damn nice properties. I think I'll haul my camp over there and set up shop. And if such is the new law of free enterprise in America, all those fine hotels that are publicly traded can't keep me from just going on in and grabbing a room for a month or two.

When the Constitution was drafted I failed to see where they put in the clause that publicly traded corporations are exempt from the protections provided under the Fifth Amendment. I'm hoping you or someone else can point that part out to me? My version must be missing that section.

 

[Oak]

Insert MJ popcorn GIF, but....

...nobody will convince me that Facebook is not the devil's spawn.

 

[azelkhntr]

So, under your theory, publicly traded corporations don't have property rights? If so, that's good to learn, as I know a bunch of public traded real estate funds that own some damn nice properties. I think I'll haul my camp over there and set up shop. And if such is the new law of free enterprise in America, all those fine hotels that are publicly traded can't keep me from just going on in and grabbing a room for a month or two.

When the Constitution was drafted I failed to see where they put in the clause that publicly traded corporations are exempt from the protections provided under the Fifth Amendment. I'm hoping you or someone else can point that part out to me? My version must be missing that section.

I posit no theories. Corporations enjoy US Constitutional Rights just as any person. It’s weird but a Corp. is considered to be a person. I only pointed out that fb is a publicly traded Corp. owned by the stockholders and not a private wholly owned business. It was an incorrect statement and I hate to see friends not know the truth.

 

[Big Fin]

Insert MJ popcorn GIF, but....

...nobody will convince me that Facebook is not the devil's spawn.

Oh, I agree, 100%. I have scripted a video titled "Blue Up Your Facebook." If it was not a condition of the contracts we have, I'd have blown up my business FB a long time ago. I'd blow up my personal FB if not for Mrs. Fin using it as an incognito manner to keep track of family and old classmates.

 

[huntandfly]

Facebook and Twitter hold arguably more power than any other private company ever when it comes to social influence, shouldn’t they be subject to some sort of review on how they censor and moderate the views expressed on their websites? I totally understand the need to remove speech that is harmful to society, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. The problem is, the line is drawn by the people who control the website, and they can allow the publication of whatever they feel doesn’t cross “their line.”

Unlike other private companies, Facebook and Twitter are not liable for what is posted on their site and cannot be challenged under Section 230. I find this problematic when they decide to start suppressing viewpoints that they don’t agree with, even if that speech doesn’t violate any case law or any other law that would make it unprotected.

I understand the “don’t like it then don’t use it” mindset, but the problem is there are millions of people out there who don’t know that the information they are consuming has been censored

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Social media will be 100% responsible for the downfall of society in some way, shape, or form. Like I tell my wife who uses facebook to keep tabs on family, but agrees that it's the devil's spawn. Just stop using it or you contribute to the devil's spawn. If you think it's bad but still use it your not helping anything even if you just lurk and dont post. Your still generating revenue for them everytime you log in.

Giant annoyance of mine when someone says "I hate facebook and twitter but I gotta use it to keep in touch with family" Ummmm how bout pick up the damn phone you numbnuts! Yes I call my wife numbnuts!

 

[JLS]

Social media will be 100% responsible for the downfall of society in some way, shape, or form.

No, it just amplifies it and makes it more visible. You don't have to wonder who the crazies are, because they make themselves easy to pick out.

Stupidity and close mindedness will be responsible for the downfall of society.

 

[SAJ-99]

I posit no theories. Corporations enjoy US Constitutional Rights just as any person. It’s weird but a Corp. is considered to be a person. I only pointed out that fb is a publicly traded Corp. owned by the stockholders and not a private wholly owned business. It was an incorrect statement and I hate to see friends not know the truth.

Public vs private in the context of an enterprise. Public = government owned and Private = not government owned. Public vs private can also mean in terms of the ownership/equity. Public = publicly traded shares and Private = privately owned shares that can't be traded because they are not registered.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

No, it just amplifies it and makes it more visible. You don't have to wonder who the crazies are, because they make themselves easy to pick out.

Stupidity and close mindedness will be responsible for the downfall of society.

Stupidity is easier to achieve on enormous levels with the use of social media.

 

[JLS]

Stupidity is easier to achieve on enormous levels with the use of social media.

We'll just agree to disagree. Stupidity has been around forever. It's just easier to display it.

Edit: It's also easier to manipulate stupidity via social media.

 

[ignorethefringes]

We'll just agree to disagree. Stupidity has been around forever. It's just easier to display it.

Edit: It's also easier to manipulate stupidity via social media.

I'll posit that it's easier to find people of like minded stupidity with social media fire to the ease in displaying it. That builds a bigger, stupider base and let's people get entrenched.

 

[SAJ-99]

Facebook and Twitter hold arguably more power than any other private company ever when it comes to social influence, shouldn’t they be subject to some sort of review on how they censor and moderate the views expressed on their websites?

Nope. Their "power" comes from the breadth of usage by the public and the algos that feed it to those that want to eat it. As private companies, they can do whatever they want. The real problem is that a large subset of the public is prone to believe crazy, bullshit stories. Any of those companies that places a "bullshit" label on such stories is probably doing a public service. There are also plenty of websites that push those stories as business strategy, so there are alternatives. The only way to change it is to implement a law to regulate them like we do media companies. Conservatives are hesitant of looking hypocritical in pushing for new regulations because they are so anti-regulation, so they wave the flag and claim first amendment violation. Of course they would lose that argument in any court, so ironically their claims stay on Twitter and Facebook to get pushed around to those that want them. They have learned to use the "power" of those companies as well or better than anyone else except maybe the Russians.

 

[JLS]

I'll posit that it's easier to find people of like minded stupidity with social media fire to the ease in displaying it. That builds a bigger, stupider base and let's people get entrenched.

I'd agree with that. I think social media exacerbates tribalism.

 

[davinski]

If you don't pay for the product, you are the product.