Break up Facebook

[Zorro!]

WE are the Government.

Awesome. You're even adopting the slogans of the socialists.

No. WE are the Government. The Government "workers" serve at our pleasure.

...Your insidious agenda is not only the usual statist claptrap, it's also just plain dumb: When the liberals take over again, they'll use the same approach to clamp down on conservative media outlets...

We aren't getting excluded on Conservative media outlets, we are getting deplatformed on FaceBook Twitter and Google. That's not fair and we aren't going to stand for it, any more than you would.

... And then you'll flip to the other flop and pretend you give a shit a bout free markets. Disgusting.

I do support strong free markets, but I don't support monopolistic cartels. You don't know the difference between free markets and monopolistic cartels?

Oh, you have a very bright future ahead of you once you figure this out!

 

[dblack]

WE are the Government.

Awesome. You're even adopting the slogans of the socialists.

No. WE are the Government. The Government "workers" serve at our pleasure.

...Your insidious agenda is not only the usual statist claptrap, it's also just plain dumb: When the liberals take over again, they'll use the same approach to clamp down on conservative media outlets...

We aren't getting excluded on Conservative media outlets, we are getting deplatformed on FaceBook Twitter and Google. That's not fair and we aren't going to stand for it, any more than you would.

The very same arguments liberals use when they want government to bully businesses.

 

[boedicca]

Breaking up Facebook is not going to solve the problem. The issues are protecting:

- ownership of one's personal data

- freedom of speech / civil rights given that the internet platforms function as public accomodations. (If a restaurant can be forced to serve a meal as a civil right, the platforms should not be able to censor lawful speech).

Smaller platforms can still violate both of these.

It will solve the problem of Facebook silencing Conservatives.

It won't solve the problem at all. The mini-Facebooks will be just as free to silence conservatives.

 

[Darkwind]

So, the Russians use of Facebook did not actually interfere with the election.

It's good to know.

their ads on facebook were divisive in nature, not political candidate oriented.

go look up the god damn ads. so tired of people going WAH FACEBOOK WAH and never looked at the ads that were run.

You're preaching to the choir. My response was bait for the left.

 

[beagle9]

If you ever stopped using Facebook you could still correspond with anyone via e mail, phone, or even another social media platform

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

I never said FB served no purpose did I?

No I did not.

I said it's not a monopoly and there is no need for it to be regulated

I'm not even sure we need new legislation, I think existing legislation is likely adequate.

There are many ways to eliminate opposing voices, from police oppression to mass slaughter to the stifling of the means to acquire salient information. The coercive method eventually engenders resentment, revolt and ultimately political collapse. Data suppression works better, not only muzzling people from expressing their views and convictions but preventing many common folk from even knowing they have been erased from the public conversation. Big Tech, in collaboration with the Democratic left, may well be President Trump’s most powerful enemy—and, indeed, the gravest threat to freedom and the life of a viable democracy.

One possible remedy is for Trump to use existing anti-trust law in order to break up the public monopoly on information enjoyed by the social media giants.

Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code protects an internet service provider, blog host or online forum operator from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

The issue that immediately arises involves the definition of “good faith,” stirring a hornet’s nest of juridical interpretations and disputable findings. The arbitrary removal of both the audience and the solvency of conservative bloggers and prominent internet figures seems obviously contestable as acts not of good faith but of tantamount bias.

Another solution would be by recognizing that these large social media systems with vast market share are actually public utilities to which federal regulations apply. Telecom companies make up over 90 percent of all web traffic and clearly operate in tandem to shut down speech based on opinion they deem objectionable. Author Robert Arvay is keenly aware of the danger. “A common feature in medieval fantasy movies is the wizard,” he writes, “the character whom no one understands and whose powers everyone needs to fear. In real life, the wizards are CEOs of high technology companies, including well known social media platforms and search engines. Their money has been able to buy legislation that allows them to control the public square, to censor those with whom they disagree.” Presumed heretics are thus excommunicated from the debate by the Church of Political Correctness.

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go

It's time for us to reassert our rights against the Tech Oligarchs.

(Or) Just as we do with despot's or rogue governments that we have a problem with in the world, we seek regime change if serious violations occur right ? So it would be regime/management change that we would seek in somewhat the same reasoning or thinking right, but not a break up or shut down.

Of course the same process and it's results wouldn't apply to American's or American companies in as far as military action goes, but the point and change to occur (of course being always peaceful in America) is the same thinking along those lines in some respects and/or in regards to such things being dealt with under the law.

In the case of tech giant's who are entrusted to be stewards of millions of our citizen's (a powerful thing), by providing them a platform or services in good standings with American laws, and in good standings with the nation's standards kept, (of course), it is that we as a nation and government must have them complying with the law, and complying with the standards that govern these United States just as well in good faith.

If it is found that a major platform is violating our laws by suppressing free speech for biased political reasons that are being taken as a position by a company, and doing so in order to try and sway an election etc, then the CEO and it's management should be forced to step down if found guilty of such things either directly or indirectly.

A new CEO and management team could be appointed or voted on by those still left in the company, once the bad apples have been relieved of their duties if guilty.

 

[beagle9]

Breaking up Facebook is not going to solve the problem. The issues are protecting:

- ownership of one's personal data

- freedom of speech / civil rights given that the internet platforms function as public accomodations. (If a restaurant can be forced to serve a meal as a civil right, the platforms should not be able to censor lawful speech).

Smaller platforms can still violate both of these.

It will solve the problem of Facebook silencing Conservatives.

It won't solve the problem at all. The mini-Facebooks will be just as free to silence conservatives.

But would it remain as profitable to do so ???

 

[dblack]

and tell me how much more difficult that would be?

i can spend 10 minutes on facebook and see what 4-5 different groups of people are doing easily that i'd never see otherwise. also, many people post their local events on fb - if i'm not there, what other platform also has these i could use that wasn't facebook related?

i already said i could stop and what i'd miss, your reply doesn't change what i'd miss.

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

I never said FB served no purpose did I?

No I did not.

I said it's not a monopoly and there is no need for it to be regulated

I'm not even sure we need new legislation, I think existing legislation is likely adequate.

There are many ways to eliminate opposing voices, from police oppression to mass slaughter to the stifling of the means to acquire salient information. The coercive method eventually engenders resentment, revolt and ultimately political collapse. Data suppression works better, not only muzzling people from expressing their views and convictions but preventing many common folk from even knowing they have been erased from the public conversation. Big Tech, in collaboration with the Democratic left, may well be President Trump’s most powerful enemy—and, indeed, the gravest threat to freedom and the life of a viable democracy.

One possible remedy is for Trump to use existing anti-trust law in order to break up the public monopoly on information enjoyed by the social media giants.

Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code protects an internet service provider, blog host or online forum operator from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

The issue that immediately arises involves the definition of “good faith,” stirring a hornet’s nest of juridical interpretations and disputable findings. The arbitrary removal of both the audience and the solvency of conservative bloggers and prominent internet figures seems obviously contestable as acts not of good faith but of tantamount bias.

Another solution would be by recognizing that these large social media systems with vast market share are actually public utilities to which federal regulations apply. Telecom companies make up over 90 percent of all web traffic and clearly operate in tandem to shut down speech based on opinion they deem objectionable. Author Robert Arvay is keenly aware of the danger. “A common feature in medieval fantasy movies is the wizard,” he writes, “the character whom no one understands and whose powers everyone needs to fear. In real life, the wizards are CEOs of high technology companies, including well known social media platforms and search engines. Their money has been able to buy legislation that allows them to control the public square, to censor those with whom they disagree.” Presumed heretics are thus excommunicated from the debate by the Church of Political Correctness.

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go

It's time for us to reassert our rights against the Tech Oligarchs.

(Or) Just as we do with despot's or rogue governments that we have a problem with in the world, we seek regime change if serious violations occur right ? So it would be regime/management change that we would seek in somewhat the same reasoning or thinking right, but not a break up or shut down.

Of course the same process and it's results wouldn't apply to American's or American companies in as far as military action goes, but the point and change to occur (of course being always peaceful in America) is the same thinking along those lines in some respects and/or in regards to such things being dealt with under the law.

In the case of tech giant's who are entrusted to be stewards of millions of our citizen's (a powerful thing), by providing them a platform or services in good standings with American laws, and in good standings with the nation's standards kept, (of course), it is that we as a nation and government must have them complying with the law, and complying with the standards that govern these United States just as well in good faith.

If it is found that a major platform is violating our laws by suppressing free speech for biased political reasons that are being taken as a position by a company, and doing so in order to try and sway an election etc, then the CEO and it's management should be forced to step down if found guilty of such things either directly or indirectly.

A new CEO and management team could be appointed or voted on by those still left in the company, once the bad apples have been relieved of their duties if guilty.

We need to ensure the need leaders are all loyal party members.

 

[sparky]

They are not monopolies because they are not essential services, and there are competitors. While a lot of people do use more than one social media platform there are people who have stopped using Facebook to use Instagram. Or stopped using Instagram to use Snapchat. Facebook and Twitter are not services unto themselves. They are competing social media platforms.

In some ways they...bet there isn't a govt agency in US that doesn't use them......Instagram is nowhere near what facebook is as an information platform

Instagram's policies don't appear to be nearly as sporadic as FB. The scariest thing about Facebook is its ownership construct.
I'm beginning to question whether or not Zuckerberg is still even sane. He has absolutely no respect for business laws; and is apparently as pragmatic anf ruthless as a female praying mantis.

Jo

Zuckerborg is not insane. He's corrupt and amoral.

how so?

~S~

Try watching his Congressional testimony and then read up on how Facebook has violated privacy regulations.

I gave up TV, broke too much sh*t in the house watchin' politicians flap their pieholes ~S~

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A founder of Facebook says the government should break up Facebook:

Opinion | It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

A founder of FB is wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is just a necessity as these two companies have legal protections provided by law, so they should have to be broken up to provide a competitive forum.

Another "small" government conservative looking to Big Brother government to fix your problem because the free market isn't working in your favor.

I want real competition in these services and no monopoly.

If you think that is pro-big government, so be it.

They aren't a monopoly

Depends....

They don't have to be technically a perfect Monopoly to fall under the guidelines of the government's antitrust regulations.

For instance recently Amazon was clandestinely buying up salespace on eBay.
It was strictly an illegal move being done through a dummy corporation. Customers who visited that sale space were redirected to Amazon. That's exactly the kind of thing of the attorney general could use to indicate to a federal judge that Amazon is a de facto Monopoly even if it's not a perfect Monopoly.

Jo

Nonsense.

The internet is virtually infinite – ample opportunities for all to be heard.

Rightists want FB ‘broken up’ solely because they incorrectly perceive the platform to be ‘anti-conservative.’

Such hypocrisy from conservatives comes as no surprise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You don't need politics to understand the potential damage of a Monopoly or a near Monopoly. The most dangerous men in world History were the Robber Barons of the Gilded age.

Jo

Start your own competitor.

I hear what you're saying and I agree.
That however does not alleviate the pressure from the already dominant Giants.
They will be broken up...and it will be a bipartisan decision not based on jealousy but based on the already numerous
Crimes that all of them have committed.

Jo

They are not monopolies because they are not essential services, and there are competitors. While a lot of people do use more than one social media platform there are people who have stopped using Facebook to use Instagram. Or stopped using Instagram to use Snapchat. Facebook and Twitter are not services unto themselves. They are competing social media platforms.

In some ways they...bet there isn't a govt agency in US that doesn't use them......Instagram is nowhere near what facebook is as an information platform

Instagram's policies don't appear to be nearly as sporadic as FB. The scariest thing about Facebook is its ownership construct.
I'm beginning to question whether or not Zuckerberg is still even sane. He has absolutely no respect for business laws; and is apparently as pragmatic anf ruthless as a female praying mantis.

Jo

Then FB will fold the consequence of Z’s incompetence – problem solved absent government interference.

But you and others on the right need to decide whether FB is an ‘evil monopoly’ or a poorly run business owned by a crazy person – you can’t have it both ways.

 

[aaronleland]

I'm 14 pages in, and I'm still reading horseshit. For the last time.... CREATE YOUR OWN BUSINESS,

 

[justoffal]

Start your own competitor.

I hear what you're saying and I agree.
That however does not alleviate the pressure from the already dominant Giants.
They will be broken up...and it will be a bipartisan decision not based on jealousy but based on the already numerous
Crimes that all of them have committed.

Jo

They are not monopolies because they are not essential services, and there are competitors. While a lot of people do use more than one social media platform there are people who have stopped using Facebook to use Instagram. Or stopped using Instagram to use Snapchat. Facebook and Twitter are not services unto themselves. They are competing social media platforms.

In some ways they...bet there isn't a govt agency in US that doesn't use them......Instagram is nowhere near what facebook is as an information platform

Instagram's policies don't appear to be nearly as sporadic as FB. The scariest thing about Facebook is its ownership construct.
I'm beginning to question whether or not Zuckerberg is still even sane. He has absolutely no respect for business laws; and is apparently as pragmatic anf ruthless as a female praying mantis.

Jo

Then FB will fold the consequence of Z’s incompetence – problem solved absent government interference.

But you and others on the right need to decide whether FB is an ‘evil monopoly’ or a poorly run business owned by a crazy person – you can’t have it both ways.

Yes ... well said.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

I'm 14 pages in, and I'm still reading horseshit. For the last time.... CREATE YOUR OWN BUSINESS,

Ultimately theres no escaping your argument.

Jo

 

[dblack]

Start your own competitor.

I hear what you're saying and I agree.
That however does not alleviate the pressure from the already dominant Giants.
They will be broken up...and it will be a bipartisan decision not based on jealousy but based on the already numerous
Crimes that all of them have committed.

Jo

They are not monopolies because they are not essential services, and there are competitors. While a lot of people do use more than one social media platform there are people who have stopped using Facebook to use Instagram. Or stopped using Instagram to use Snapchat. Facebook and Twitter are not services unto themselves. They are competing social media platforms.

In some ways they...bet there isn't a govt agency in US that doesn't use them......Instagram is nowhere near what facebook is as an information platform

Instagram's policies don't appear to be nearly as sporadic as FB. The scariest thing about Facebook is its ownership construct.
I'm beginning to question whether or not Zuckerberg is still even sane. He has absolutely no respect for business laws; and is apparently as pragmatic anf ruthless as a female praying mantis.

Jo

Then FB will fold the consequence of Z’s incompetence – problem solved absent government interference.

But you and others on the right need to decide whether FB is an ‘evil monopoly’ or a poorly run business owned by a crazy person – you can’t have it both ways.

Why not? The Democrats do.

 

[boedicca]

Breaking up Facebook is not going to solve the problem. The issues are protecting:

- ownership of one's personal data

- freedom of speech / civil rights given that the internet platforms function as public accomodations. (If a restaurant can be forced to serve a meal as a civil right, the platforms should not be able to censor lawful speech).

Smaller platforms can still violate both of these.

It will solve the problem of Facebook silencing Conservatives.

It won't solve the problem at all. The mini-Facebooks will be just as free to silence conservatives.

But would it remain as profitable to do so ???

Were the Baby Bells profitable after the AT&T break-up? As long as the mini-FascistBooks are allowed to profit by violating people's privacy, yes, they will likely be very profitable.

 

[beagle9]

About as difficult as it was before Facebook.

IOW not that difficult.

There is no need to regulate Facebook any more than there is a need to regulate your local newspaper.

local newspapers are pretty much gone. and while they may say "xyz show is at 123 club tonight" it won't tell me which of my friends are going. now i need to call many people at once to find out what i can do in a minute on FB.

so yes, does serve a purpose. never said it didn't. i also said it should be left alone to do what they want to do - so don't preach that my way. all i'm saying is regardless of how people may feel, companies tend to reach a certain level of growth that eventually makes them a target. FB playing into the left vs right war is their own downfall eventually but eventually they were going to get hacked up anyway.

I never said FB served no purpose did I?

No I did not.

I said it's not a monopoly and there is no need for it to be regulated

I'm not even sure we need new legislation, I think existing legislation is likely adequate.

There are many ways to eliminate opposing voices, from police oppression to mass slaughter to the stifling of the means to acquire salient information. The coercive method eventually engenders resentment, revolt and ultimately political collapse. Data suppression works better, not only muzzling people from expressing their views and convictions but preventing many common folk from even knowing they have been erased from the public conversation. Big Tech, in collaboration with the Democratic left, may well be President Trump’s most powerful enemy—and, indeed, the gravest threat to freedom and the life of a viable democracy.

One possible remedy is for Trump to use existing anti-trust law in order to break up the public monopoly on information enjoyed by the social media giants.

Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code protects an internet service provider, blog host or online forum operator from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

The issue that immediately arises involves the definition of “good faith,” stirring a hornet’s nest of juridical interpretations and disputable findings. The arbitrary removal of both the audience and the solvency of conservative bloggers and prominent internet figures seems obviously contestable as acts not of good faith but of tantamount bias.

Another solution would be by recognizing that these large social media systems with vast market share are actually public utilities to which federal regulations apply. Telecom companies make up over 90 percent of all web traffic and clearly operate in tandem to shut down speech based on opinion they deem objectionable. Author Robert Arvay is keenly aware of the danger. “A common feature in medieval fantasy movies is the wizard,” he writes, “the character whom no one understands and whose powers everyone needs to fear. In real life, the wizards are CEOs of high technology companies, including well known social media platforms and search engines. Their money has been able to buy legislation that allows them to control the public square, to censor those with whom they disagree.” Presumed heretics are thus excommunicated from the debate by the Church of Political Correctness.

Deplatforming the Platformers: Why Antitrust Legislation Is the Way to Go

It's time for us to reassert our rights against the Tech Oligarchs.

(Or) Just as we do with despot's or rogue governments that we have a problem with in the world, we seek regime change if serious violations occur right ? So it would be regime/management change that we would seek in somewhat the same reasoning or thinking right, but not a break up or shut down.

Of course the same process and it's results wouldn't apply to American's or American companies in as far as military action goes, but the point and change to occur (of course being always peaceful in America) is the same thinking along those lines in some respects and/or in regards to such things being dealt with under the law.

In the case of tech giant's who are entrusted to be stewards of millions of our citizen's (a powerful thing), by providing them a platform or services in good standings with American laws, and in good standings with the nation's standards kept, (of course), it is that we as a nation and government must have them complying with the law, and complying with the standards that govern these United States just as well in good faith.

If it is found that a major platform is violating our laws by suppressing free speech for biased political reasons that are being taken as a position by a company, and doing so in order to try and sway an election etc, then the CEO and it's management should be forced to step down if found guilty of such things either directly or indirectly.

A new CEO and management team could be appointed or voted on by those still left in the company, once the bad apples have been relieved of their duties if guilty.

We need to ensure the new leaders are all loyal party members.

Not nessesary..... It really should be that it's none of the government's business who runs any company, other than the company, and it's company management makes sure that it follows the law. Correct ??

 

[beagle9]

This is just a necessity as these two companies have legal protections provided by law, so they should have to be broken up to provide a competitive forum.

Another "small" government conservative looking to Big Brother government to fix your problem because the free market isn't working in your favor.

I want real competition in these services and no monopoly.

If you think that is pro-big government, so be it.

They aren't a monopoly

Depends....

They don't have to be technically a perfect Monopoly to fall under the guidelines of the government's antitrust regulations.

For instance recently Amazon was clandestinely buying up salespace on eBay.
It was strictly an illegal move being done through a dummy corporation. Customers who visited that sale space were redirected to Amazon. That's exactly the kind of thing of the attorney general could use to indicate to a federal judge that Amazon is a de facto Monopoly even if it's not a perfect Monopoly.

Jo

Nonsense.

The internet is virtually infinite – ample opportunities for all to be heard.

Rightists want FB ‘broken up’ solely because they incorrectly perceive the platform to be ‘anti-conservative.’

Such hypocrisy from conservatives comes as no surprise.

Shouldn't be anti-anything that is ethical and morally fit to be part of a properly operated platform. Otherwise no politic's should be allowed if can't handle being fair and decent when promoting anything that is political. The rule should be made.

 

[beagle9]

I'm 14 pages in, and I'm still reading horseshit. For the last time.... CREATE YOUR OWN BUSINESS,

Yes, but we must have compliance with the law's from any company operating within or without our borders. This goes for American companies or those representing American companies that do business with us or for us.

 

[iceberg]

Another "small" government conservative looking to Big Brother government to fix your problem because the free market isn't working in your favor.

I want real competition in these services and no monopoly.

If you think that is pro-big government, so be it.

They aren't a monopoly

Depends....

They don't have to be technically a perfect Monopoly to fall under the guidelines of the government's antitrust regulations.

For instance recently Amazon was clandestinely buying up salespace on eBay.
It was strictly an illegal move being done through a dummy corporation. Customers who visited that sale space were redirected to Amazon. That's exactly the kind of thing of the attorney general could use to indicate to a federal judge that Amazon is a de facto Monopoly even if it's not a perfect Monopoly.

Jo

Nonsense.

The internet is virtually infinite – ample opportunities for all to be heard.

Rightists want FB ‘broken up’ solely because they incorrectly perceive the platform to be ‘anti-conservative.’

Such hypocrisy from conservatives comes as no surprise.

Shouldn't be anti-anything that is ethical and morally fit to be part of a properly operated platform. Otherwise no politic's should be allowed if can't handle being fair and decent when promoting anything that is political. The rule should be made.

people do in fact "pay" for the services from facebook. our activity and "surfing value" to advertisers keeps them alive and well. so when they are able to utilize my information for their profit then yes, i feel i have a stake in the game.

that stake it stay or go.

i saw a usa.life site pop up the other day (or something like that) and i joined because it said it was an upcoming facebook alternative. hey - i WANT to find a replacement. i just value my online friends more than i hate facebook at this point.

but that could change.

usa.life was HUGE IN YOUR FACE God action, so i left. i got no use for that extreme either. we seem to have forgotten the middleground *most* of us live in while we work through how much of an asshole we can be to each other.

whether its right or wrong, facebook is going to get the shit kicked out of it soon enough. when microsoft got told what to do they cooperated and never rubbed faces in things or silenced customers or views. they just went for the $ at every possible turn and were ruthless about it.

facebook does cater to the left HARD and twists the news to that direction. if they are in fact a "media" outlet then rules that media has to follow *are* going to come into play but given the state of our media these days, what *are* those rules?

i think we could resolve this by simply allowing tagging of posts. if i post something political, mark it political and people can filter out what they want to come or get blocked from their feed. but facebook would have to view it as a problem before they look for a solution and given they created this problem, i don't see them inclined to fix it.