The future of Facebook...

[Harpy Eagle]

The Facebook Papers may be the biggest crisis in the company's history

Facebook has confronted whistleblowers, PR firestorms and Congressional inquiries in recent years. But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company's 17-year history.

www.cnn.com

Forgive the source, it was just the most convenient one and the fact the MSM is going after FB I think is significant.

On Friday, a consortium of 17 US news organizations began publishing a series of stories — collectively called "The Facebook Papers" — based on a trove of hundreds of internal company documents which were included in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's legal counsel. The consortium, which includes CNN, reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.

So, what do you all think? Does FB survive this?

Is there a good enough alternative for all those young moms to post things showing what amazing mothers they are to replace FB?

Or does all this get "forgotten" and people go on living on FB like they have been doing?

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Dekster]

The Facebook Papers may be the biggest crisis in the company's history

Facebook has confronted whistleblowers, PR firestorms and Congressional inquiries in recent years. But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company's 17-year history.

www.cnn.com

Forgive the source, it was just the most convenient one and the fact the MSM is going after FB I think is significant.

On Friday, a consortium of 17 US news organizations began publishing a series of stories — collectively called "The Facebook Papers" — based on a trove of hundreds of internal company documents which were included in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's legal counsel. The consortium, which includes CNN, reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.

So, what do you all think? Does FB survive this?

Is there a good enough alternative for all those young moms to post things showing what amazing mothers they are to replace FB?

Or does all this get "forgotten" and people go on living on FB like they have been doing?

Oh it will be Facebook decides to pay news outlets for content and suddenly news outlets forget this incident.

 

[iceberg]

The Facebook Papers may be the biggest crisis in the company's history

Facebook has confronted whistleblowers, PR firestorms and Congressional inquiries in recent years. But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company's 17-year history.

www.cnn.com

Forgive the source, it was just the most convenient one and the fact the MSM is going after FB I think is significant.

On Friday, a consortium of 17 US news organizations began publishing a series of stories — collectively called "The Facebook Papers" — based on a trove of hundreds of internal company documents which were included in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's legal counsel. The consortium, which includes CNN, reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.

So, what do you all think? Does FB survive this?

Is there a good enough alternative for all those young moms to post things showing what amazing mothers they are to replace FB?

Or does all this get "forgotten" and people go on living on FB like they have been doing?

FB will survive, but how people choose to fight the authoritarian nature of it will morph. we already see states creating laws that will allow people to sure them for being censured.

to really get into this, you need to fully understand the intent behind S230 and what it does and does not allow and where lines are drawn. while i don't think laws from the 90s really apply fully today, it's the best we have to go by.

the other day you commented that a publisher puts things out there first and FB doesn't do that. i asked for the legal quantifier for that and didn't get a reply.

S230 when enacted in 1996 was to say AOL and other "platforms" that allowed people online and to interact with their services, are not libel for what these people say and do on their platform. the intent was to ensure that a platform DID NOT HAVE TO edit or remove commentary. in short, it was to prevent censorship.

but things sure have changed, haven't they?

so, glad to dive into this - it's a great topic. but you need a strong understanding of s230 as that is going to drive a lot of this. if you feel that these social media companies *can* limit who can say what, great. that is your opinion and i strongly disagree. but what will happen is states/countries still start to say what FB can and can't say in their state.

if FB can do it, so can states. so can companies who say you must be vax'd despite what laws say. it's going to get very hairy for FB to have to try and comply with all this and sooner or later this volcano is going to blow.

my guess is they will be split up as a start.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Oh it will be Facebook decides to pay news outlets for content and suddenly news outlets forget this incident.

That is possible for sure.

I just have to wonder how much FB users really care about this stuff.

I use it to keep in touch with friends and family. My sister lives overseas and it is an amazing way to see what she has going on.

 

[iceberg]

that said, while i hate CNN, the article itself seems to stick to journalism and i do appreciate that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

S230 when enacted in 1996 was to say AOL and other "platforms" that allowed people online and to interact with their services, are not libel for what these people say and do on their platform. the intent was to ensure that a platform DID NOT HAVE TO edit or remove commentary. in short, it was to prevent censorship.

Yet platforms have always been held legally liable if they let criminal content stay on their platforms.

 

[iceberg]

Oh it will be Facebook decides to pay news outlets for content and suddenly news outlets forget this incident.

this is a huge catch 22. does this make them MORE of a publisher by being paid to publish news? now the liability for "truth" goes up.

then, do they only take payments to push sources they like, as they do today?

at any point, a publisher can say NO to being published/shared to FB. but to do that, you limit exposure and FB knows this and that's why they punish conservative sites with less exposure creating the problems here today.

 

[Hellbilly]

View attachment 556098

If Facebook goes down there will be 60,000 new unemployed but I don’t imagine you care about that.
Cultist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Facebook Papers may be the biggest crisis in the company's history

Facebook has confronted whistleblowers, PR firestorms and Congressional inquiries in recent years. But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company's 17-year history.

www.cnn.com

Forgive the source, it was just the most convenient one and the fact the MSM is going after FB I think is significant.

On Friday, a consortium of 17 US news organizations began publishing a series of stories — collectively called "The Facebook Papers" — based on a trove of hundreds of internal company documents which were included in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's legal counsel. The consortium, which includes CNN, reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.

So, what do you all think? Does FB survive this?

Is there a good enough alternative for all those young moms to post things showing what amazing mothers they are to replace FB?

Or does all this get "forgotten" and people go on living on FB like they have been doing?

Facebook.gov

Bake my cake, Mark!!

 

[iceberg]

Yet platforms have always been held legally liable if they let criminal content stay on their platforms.

yet a conservative opinion is not criminal content.

lets get back to publisher vs. platform. which is facebook? to me, they take the best of both and responsibility of neither.

and given the intent behind s230 in 1996 was to NOT have to censure, should that still be considered today, ie, not censuring because you are not held liable for what i say on your platform.

i'll fully agree openly saying you're going to kill someone shouldn't be allowed. but there's a far cry between that and simple conservative values that are treated the same.

 

[Rambunctious]

If Facebook goes down there will be 60,000 new unemployed but I don’t imagine you care about that.
Cultist.

No...I care as much for them as the 150,000 pipeline related workers Joe fired....where were you back then jackass....so who is the cultist?....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Facebook discriminates based on political affiliation. They should be mandated to allow Conservatives to use their PLATFORM

 

[Harpy Eagle]

lets get back to publisher vs. platform. which is facebook? to me, they take the best of both and responsibility of neither.

and given the intent behind s230 in 1996 was to NOT have to censure, should that still be considered today, ie, not censuring because you are not held liable for what i say on your platform.

I agree they try to have the best of both worlds, but to me the difference between a publisher vs. platform is as plain as day. The NY Times is a publisher, everything that goes in to their paper/website is preapproved and never sees the light of day until that happens.

Nothing on FB is preapproved, everything sees the light of day prior to FB even knowing it is there. There is no way you can argue these two entities are the same.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No...I care as much for them as the 150,000 pipeline related workers Joe fired.

150,000

 

[iceberg]

Facebook discriminates based on political affiliation. They should be mandated to allow Conservatives to use their PLATFORM

or declare you are a progressive publisher and be held accountable for the things you say and NOT able to "fact check" yourself.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Facebook discriminates based on political affiliation. They should be mandated to allow Conservatives to use their PLATFORM

What a totally anti-Conservative position to hold.

 

[Hellbilly]

No...I care as much for them as the 150,000 pipeline related workers Joe fired....where were you back then jackass....so who is the cultist?....

Piss on Facebook says otherwise.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

or declare you are a progressive publisher and be held accountable for the things you say and NOT able to "fact check" yourself.

Also, it is not really the political part that I think is the biggest problem. FB knows it is used for human trafficking and does not really try all that hard to fix it. They are known to be used to promote violence in parts of the world and they let it happen.

To me these are the things that really matter. I could really not give a fuck if they are mean to Conservatives or not.

 

[iceberg]

I agree they try to have the best of both worlds, but to me the difference between a publisher vs. platform is as plain as day. The NY Times is a publisher, everything that goes in to their paper/website is preapproved and never sees the light of day until that happens.

Nothing on FB is preapproved, everything sees the light of day prior to FB even knowing it is there. There is no way you can argue these two entities are the same.

Publisher

Definition of Publisher in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

PUBLISHER. One who does by himself or his agents make a thing publicly known; one engaged in the circulation of books, pamphlets, and other papers.

now, in this instance, the pamphlets, books or "other papers" are already known, are they not? FB in fact is making lesser known "books, pamphlets and other papers" more publicaly known. i can print a book on my own, but a publisher can still take it and publish it to a greater audience.

also, when FB fact checks, they cross over platform and go into publishing. a "platform" does not fact check. that isn't their role. they are free to state their rules / terms of service and then apply them evenly. easy to say FB has not done this.

so, i think it's obvious that FB blurs the shit out of this line and as i said, takes the best of both and responsibility of neither. so does twitter, youtube and all the majors.