Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Should Facebook be allowed to prohibit the use of its platform for encouraging murder?

Is it a public utility?

Should enouraging the killing of RINOs or liberals be prohibited anywhere?

Or does the First Amendment mean somthing else?

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/20/eric-greitens-rino-hunting-video

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

Facebook is a corporation and can decide to prohibit people for being left handed (or right handed) if it chooses. The question is whether those decisions are commercially smart of open one to legal liability..😷

View 14 more replies »

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@whowasthatmaskedman

Difficult to enforce indeed, what with proxy servers and VPNs.
Even the CCP can't quite manage it.

Paladin · 61-69, M

@Thinkerbell If that is one of the terms of use you Agree to, then yes they could

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Paladin I suspect an ID verify and email would go a long way. And clear TOS that your ID is available under law in the case of a legal issue. But I cant see that ever happening. We dont live in an age of personal responsibility..
😷

TexChik · F

Facebook is not a public utility. And , as we discussed earlier, any conservative's humor is a liberal's claim a crime has been committed. Facebook's censoring has been disgusting and I think they have drawn the ire of the conservatives in congress. With the midterms looming, I bet they are nervous.

View 17 more replies »

TexChik · F

@MistyCee They keep claiming that. I recall the women who claimed Trump raped them just before the 2016 election. His attorney started filing lawsuits and suddenly all was redacted, and they all pointed to a hillary donor as the woman who paid them to lie. Is that what they call a "liberal truth"?

MistyCee

@TexChik Is this link more c credible:

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/texas-gop-platform-secede/2022/06/20/id/1075217/

MistyCee

@TexChik Have you heard about this Texas GOP silliness yet?

The "liberal" uproar is getting absurd already, but, imo, so is the proposed "platform."

SatyrService · M

FACEBOOK is Private Property, It owners can do as they please. they can ban this or that, and the claim ownership of every thing posted on Facebook'

now if it WAS a public Utility, there might be some potion to take regarding Freedom of speech

SW, twitter, Insta, wikipedia, Newspapers, TV networks, Facebook all of them are PRIVATE PROPERTY, just like your own house

an as far as limits on Free speech? we have carve outs like perjury. Lying when Sworn in court
Some views are illegal to express because they can cause harm to others. This category often includes speech that is both false and dangerous, such as falsely shouting "Fire!" in a theater and causing a panic. Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the "harm principle" or the "offense principle".

I support free speech and see it is limited many ways

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@SatyrService I think inciting violence is rather firmly established as illegal. And I think Silk Road and Pirate's Bay proves the " we are just a platform " defense doesn't hold up.

SatyrService · M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow you have good points
but silk road and pirate bay do not have the VAST lawyer fee and lobbyist budget that
Meta. Alphabet, and whatever Apple is calling itself now. think they will play the private propety card a while yet

also. P-bay and SR could be seen as abetting criminal activity, they were never a Media Outlet

such interesting times!

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@SatyrService For the most part I agree. Although who knows how much dark money was behind SR.

That being said on the last point I think FB being used as a platform to plan a coup attempt in the US and being used by groups like the Proud Boys which at least in Canada is now officially a terrorist organization might make this a bigger headache for Zuckerberg.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

Well I guess Facebook/ Meta is so far in the toilet now they are cool with being a platform to incite political purges and death squads.

Then again back in the 2010s they were criticized when posting material "joking" about sexual assault was considered not a breech of their TOS.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

Oh, come on, Misty... incitement to murder or riot, etc., is a crime and OF COURSE no social media platform should permit that.

View 4 more replies »

Slade · 56-60, M

@Thinkerbell I see you got the expected painful stupidity...🤮

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@MistyCee

Is Nick Sandmann a sociopath...? 🤔

Be careful... he won defamation lawsuits against the WaPo, NBC and others.

Slade · 56-60, M

@Thinkerbell lovely faery, you seem to have a soft spot and will indulge this particular throwback of evolution...

(Misty)

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

encouraging murder?

Well, there you go. The first amendment has exemptions, including this. There is no justification for allowing its platform be used to spread death threats and fantasies. Well, there is. Controvery means eyeballs and eyeballs means $.

Quetzalcoatlus · 46-50, M

It’s not a public utility, it’s a privately run company that answers to its shareholders. Social media is not a basic necessity to function in life…

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Quetzalcoatlus

Social media is not a basic necessity to function in life

Yeah but the universe has a panic attack when FB goes down for an hour.

It is a public utility. 100^ necessary for survival? No. An integral part of social, cultural and political life? Yes.

SW-User

I think it should, yes.

Facebook doesn't care about anything other than harvesting data though. And they will allow whatever gets more people on the site.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@SW-User It is pretty screwed up that if left to their own devices they will put up with anything as long as they can sell your data.

AuRevoir · 36-40, M

[media=https://youtu.be/BnKc1DMEN40]

I feel like chapelle dissects the difference between what we can do with our actions vs. words in relevant times..

justanothername · 51-55, M

Users should be able to expect reasonable moderation for public use.

Ynotisay · M

Next up? Twitter. Because he shared it there too.

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

Well, they are not a public utility in the legal sense. The issue is less about what they allow on their platform and more what the morons do with the random information they find on the Internet and then simply act on it because someone or something told them to act.

justanothername · 51-55, M

No it shouldn’t.

Elisbch · M

I don't know. Should it be allowed to be used as a platform for doing the same thing to Republicans or Fascists?

View 1 more replies »

Elisbch · M

I stand corrected. 🙂

it should be "allowed" to "censor" stuff and not have to be forced to provide a platform for sociopaths if it decides it doesn't want to,

I agree.

Myself, I just think such hate speech shouldn't be allowed on platforms such as Facebook ... etc. @MistyCee

MistyCee

@Elisbch I didn't really "correct" you, you know.

Elisbch · M

Well you're right I guess,... I mis-read actually I think. I didn't have the right words in my head when I replied before.
😕.. @MistyCee

MistyCee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/greitens-rino-hunting-ad/

bijouxbroussard · F

It depends upon whether or not the company wants to deal with being sued and the resulting negative press.

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

First Amendment doesn't cover yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, and it shouldn't cover encouraging murder on social media.

View 1 more replies »

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

@Paladin Yeah, well, prohibited speech under the law should also be prohibited speech on Facebook, yes?

Paladin · 61-69, M

@LordShadowfire Do you believe that business' should be able to set their own guideline of how they conduct their operations?
If you go into say, a restaurant, and start cussing and making a scene, there's a very good chance you will be shown the door. And that's as it should be. That wouldn't be a first amendment issue either, because it isn't the government who is setting the rules.

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

@Paladin Absolutely.

Add a comment...