The future of Facebook...

[iceberg]

Yes, but the publisher has to choose to publish it. FB does not choose what is put on their site. They choose what can stay, but not what is put there initially. Thus the difference between them and a publisher

they choose to put their fact checks on there.

so yes, they do.

they choose who to NOT ALLOW on there, so yea, they do.

 

[iceberg]

True, to me the biggest difference is the prior approval that a publisher has vice a platform.

Just imagine what this site would be like if every post had to be approved before anyone could see it.

s230 made that not necessary. been turned around since 1996 and AOL cds.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

they choose to put their fact checks on there.

so yes, they do.

they choose who to NOT ALLOW on there, so yea, they do.

s230 made that not necessary. been turned around since 1996 and AOL cds.

Well, I disagree. We will just have to see how it all works out

 

[iceberg]

Well, I disagree. We will just have to see how it all works out

you can disagree, but then what was the original intent of s230 then?

 

[MinTrut]

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 WANTS this.

It can afford to self-regulate if this profoundly anti-constutional push (backed by the same TDS-riddled fascists who pushed the Russiagate conspiracy theories et al) succeeds.

The question isn't whether Facebook can survive being thrown into the luxurious briar patch it allegedly so fears, but whether any possible future competitor could afford the associated costs of crushing free speech on a global basis.

Fascism ain't cheap!

 

[MinTrut]

If Zuckerberg did not spend all those millions to get Biden elected and censored Facebook to rid itself of any negative posts about Biden, he might be in trouble. But Zucker knows who is in power and who runs things. He's just one more useful tool of the Left.

Liberals, not the left.

Big tech despises the left and seeks to silence it.

 

[MinTrut]

The feds have seen the power of social media. The feds like power. They want power. They want control of social media.

And Facebook et al WANT these controls imposed.

This then enshrines them; only they can afford to run the massive MemoryHole boiler rooms that will be needed.

 

[dblack]

And Facebook et al WANT these controls imposed.

This then enshrines them; only they can afford to run the massive MemoryHole boiler rooms that will be needed.

Yep. Any CEO with any brains welcomes the chance to convert their company into a "public utility". It's guaranteed profit. They can basically take a long break after that, and the money will keep rolling in.

 

[Astrostar]

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?

It's just a Trump forum; needs to bite the dust bigly!!!

 

[MinTrut]

Yes, but the publisher has to choose to publish it. FB does not choose what is put on their site. They choose what can stay, but not what is put there initially. Thus the difference between them and a publisher

If they choose what can stay, they're acting editorially.

Reverse-engineered editing is still editing, and that makes them a publisher fashioning, framing & shaping news.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If they choose what can stay, they're acting editorially.

Reverse-engineered editing is still editing, and that makes them a publisher fashioning, framing & shaping news.

We are going to get to the point where anything posted to any site/platform has to be pre-approved, and that is going to suck.

I have been on one forum that did this, I stayed less than a day...total waste of time.

 

[MinTrut]

We are going to get to the point where anything posted to any site/platform has to be pre-approved, and that is going to suck.

Possibly, but there are workarounds, though not for Facebook et al who actually WANT anti-constitutional controls imposed.

I have been on one forum that did this, I stayed less than a day...total waste of time.

I hear you.

The moderation here is great, and the rules clear and evenly enforced; good moderation makes good forums.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does FB survive this?

Yes.

And government shouldn’t be involved in determining the future of FB.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of government to interfere with private publishers and how they edit their content.

 

[dblack]

Yes.

And government shouldn’t be involved in determining the future of FB.

So, will you speak out against Democrats when that's exactly what they try to do? Or will you make excuses and insist "it's different when we do it"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Such is the authoritarian right: more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty.

The right’s contempt for the First Amendment comes as no surprise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What a totally anti-Conservative position to hold.

Actually not.

Conservatism is fundamentally authoritarian.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, but the publisher has to choose to publish it. FB does not choose what is put on their site. They choose what can stay, but not what is put there initially. Thus the difference between them and a publisher

A distinction without a difference.

FB nonetheless enjoys First Amendment protections as a private publisher, free from government interference to edit content as it sees fit, at liberty to determine who will or will not participate.

 

[iceberg]

We are going to get to the point where anything posted to any site/platform has to be pre-approved, and that is going to suck.

I have been on one forum that did this, I stayed less than a day...total waste of time.

no we are not.

again what is the intent of s230 when written?

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A distinction without a difference.

It is a huge difference. It is the difference between the NY Time and this forum. The difference is preapproval.

 

[g5000]

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?

Younger people don't use Facebook. They use Instagram and Snapchat. As they grow older, Facebook's future is going to be affected more by that fact than this recent controversy.

Anyone remember Myspace?