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.