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.
