In an interview with Wired magazine, Mark Zuckerberg revealed Facebooks political agenda he wants to curb free speech and free expression on the platform in exchange for safety.
From the Wired interview:
I think at the heart of a lot of these issues we face are tradeoffs between real values that people care about. You know, when you think about issues like fake news or hate speech, right, its a tradeoff between free speech and free expression and safety and having an informed community. These are all the challenging situations that I think we are working to try to navigate as best we can. (Emphasis added)
Zuckerbergs trade-off confirms Facebooks long-suspected agenda: to take the platform away from first amendment principles, towards a European understanding of speech, in which elites determine what ordinary people can and cannot say, based on vague, flexible terms like hate speech and fake news.
Similarly to YouTubes lurch towards censoriousness, this is a massive bait-and-switch. Silicon Valley promised users open platforms where they would be able to air their views on an equal playing field, without interference from corporate media, political elites, and gatekeepers.
Now Zuckerberg wants to install himself as the ultimate gatekeeper, presiding over the speech and expression of the platforms 2 billion users. In order to ensure safety and an informed community, he is going to decide what information is allowed to spread on the platform, and what information is going to be suppressed.
We are already seeing the results of this approach. Facebooks recent changes to users newsfeeds have caused engagement on conservative media and on President Trumps page to plummet, while left-wing and corporate media has received a boost.
By taking on an editorial role, Facebook may be violating the justification for Communication Decency Acts safe harbor provision, which grants online platforms legal immunity from content posted by their users.
Facebooks decision to take a top-down, editorial view on the information shared on its platform was recently confirmed by the companys head of news partnerships Campbell Brown. Speaking at Recodes annual conference, Brown said:
This is not us stepping back from news. This is us changing our relationship with publishers and emphasizing something that Facebook has never done before: Its having a point of view, and its leaning into quality news. We are, for the first time in the history of Facebook, taking a step to try to to define what quality news looks like and give that a boost. (Emphasis added)
At a Senate hearing in January, Sen. Ted Cruz called out representatives from Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter over censorship of conservatives. Cruz told the representatives that if their platforms did not remain politically neutral, they could lose legal immunity for user content under the provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Without this protection, social media companies would be legally liable for all content posted on their platforms an existential threat to their business model.
#1: Willie Green To: Deckard (#0)
Blah blah blah...
If there be a just God in this world, he'd stike Ted Cruz mute...
And Rand Paul too...
Willie Green posted on 2018-03-24 12:33:03 Reply Private Reply
#2: Liberator To: Willie Green (#1)
Well stated, Willie.
(See that little cup, pills, and glass of water?....)
Liberator posted on 2018-03-24 12:46:46 Reply Private Reply
#3: rlk To: Deckard (#0)
Yup, Big Brother Zuckerberg and pals are going to be watching over you.
We are living in an imposed conformist society where anyone with a functioning IQ of over 95 is a threat to 'safety'.
rlk posted on 2018-03-24 12:50:14 Reply Private Reply
#4: Liberator To: rlk (#3)
True, we DO now live in a "conformist society", but Orwell predicted all this in '1984'.
Mass and Social Media has been the biggest facilitator of this brainwashing. And btw, the standard "IQ" test has little to do the Common Sense Quotient.
Liberator posted on 2018-03-24 13:01:32 Reply Private Reply
#5: Justified To: Deckard (#0)
Justified posted on 2018-03-24 16:45:55 Reply Private Reply
#6: A K A Stone To: Willie Green (#1)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-24 19:01:33 Reply Private Reply
#7: Willie Green To: A K A Stone (#6)
Willie Green posted on 2018-03-24 19:37:48 Reply Private Reply
#8: rlk To: Liberator (#4)
What information a test constructor makes a test look for and defines as intelligence is determined by his personal biases and views of what should be important.
rlk posted on 2018-03-24 20:41:46 Reply Private Reply
#9: sneakypete To: Deckard (#0)
sneakypete posted on 2018-03-25 08:11:02 Reply Private Reply
#10: Liberator To: rlk (#8)
Rhetorically speaking, aren't "personal biases and views" of the Tester/Test relative, arguably skewing the standard "Intelligence" test?
I'd submit that the standard IQ Test overlooks and dismisses "Common Sense" intelligence.
Liberator posted on 2018-03-25 12:34:36 Reply Private Reply
#11: Liberator To: Willie Green, A K A Stone (#7)
Then that might be "hell."
Liberator posted on 2018-03-25 12:36:42 Reply Private Reply
#12: Liberator To: Justified (#5)
Yup, they are fueled by hate; Conditioned to hate everyone who disagrees with them and everything they don't understand. It's the most successful "Pavlov's Dog" experiment in human history. And not by coercion (although these days Public Schools ARE engaging in it.)
The entire West is swept up in their suicidal tsunami. Only Common Sense conservatives and Christians are holding Western Civ together.
I can't decide whether the Left's soldiers want to be Kamikazes or Zombies.
Liberator posted on 2018-03-25 12:55:26 Reply Private Reply
#13: rlk To: Liberator (#10)
To a great extent this is true. Many such tests were developed by academics to measure probable success an academia or having succeded in academia. Academics are noted for feats of memory and being able to string pompous piles of words together in an unreal world. "Common sense" tests are more difficult to construct and become politically objectionable.
Asking for an analysis of the relationship between Aristotles A, E, I, and O, propositions might be relative to real life, but it won't be found on IQ exams.
rlk posted on 2018-03-25 20:55:17 Reply Private Reply