Zuckerberg and Facebook

[Goalpost]

So I don't know if anybody watched this yesterday. Zuckerberg made an appearance in Washington. Got grilled fairly heavily. He wants to move to a digital currency eventually, Libra, which could impact our dollar long-term. Also got grilled on political messages that appear on facebook and took a freedom of speech position, letting the consumer decide. Facebook is extremely popular and a lot of questions of how their platform should be regulated is under a lot of scrutiny. There are even break up whispers. Keep in mind there is competition in this field worldwide so their is a feeling that we don't want to damage one of our own companies at the expense of regulating it. His testimony yesterday was kind of combative what he faced, and while I don't want to say he was in over his head, what say you, how do we manage this technology....and social media.

[*michaelsean*]

We don't manage it. If someone has a problem with someone else putting untruths on Facebook, and it reaches the level of libel, then they can do what people have always done, and take them to court.

[GMDino]

The question that will need to answered is what ARE these sites?  Facebook, Twitter, etc...are they news, are they media, are they business?

There are different rules for different media.  There's a reason the WWF became the WWE beyond being sued for the name.  It is listed as "entertainment" to avoid certain regulations.

Unregulated a candidate could flood social media with outright lies a day or two before an election that their opponent would never have time to respond to.

And that's now new of course.

Candidates have been robocalling falsehoods for as long as I can remember.

Lying isn't the problem...the immense reach of the lies is.

I still have people on my Facebook feed that believe Sandy Hook was a "false flag" with crisis actors.  I can't block the pages that share that stuff fast enough.

People believe what will agree with their preconceived notions must faster than something that challenges them.  And when one or two videos on FB can reach millions in a few minutes it makes it very difficult to get the truth out there.

[Au165]

In terms of the crypto currency, I don't really care because frankly I don't think the concept is going to take off short of the U.S. Government issuing their own. The problem here is what value does a Facebook crypto currency provide over a credit card linked to a cell phone? The answer is none. The reason Bitcoin was unique was that is was truly a self sustained currency that couldn't be manipulated by a single government. In many countries Bitcoin became a way to store your money to fight hyperinflation by the government on local currencies. Bitcoin's volatility though has made it a better investing tool than actual monetary device.

In terms of Facebook and the whole misinformation campaigns, their job isn't to regulate speech, even speech that is false. As much as people hate Zukerberg he is right on this one and the fact people actually want to ask a company to do such a thing leads to a very dangerous precedent. Instead of trying to limit people's exposure to false information, we should look in the mirror and ask ourselves why it's so damn easy for people to believe it. We don't properly teach our children how to critically reason and question the information they receive. We need to equip people with the tools to make good decision over trying to shield them from potentially making bad ones.

Once you go down the road of asking platforms to block false information you open up the question of who gets to determine what is false? That definition of "false" can then be dictated by the person enforcing the rules and now you've empowered someone to control content and manipulate what people see. Let's say an Atheist is now in charge of regulating the information and they decide that religion is false information and they ban it, are people going to still be happy they have given someone that power? Regulation of speech is a really powerful tool that you have to be careful who you allow to wield it.

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2019, 10:30 AM)Au165 Wrote: Once you go down the road of asking platforms to block false information you open up the question of who gets to determine what is false? That definition of "false" can then be dictated by the person enforcing the rules and now you've empowered someone to control content and manipulate what people see. Let's say an Atheist is now in charge of regulating the information and they decide that religion is false information and they ban it, are people going to still be happy they have given someone that power? Regulation of speech is a really powerful tool that you have to be careful who you allow to wield it.

This.

It is not against the law for me to tell a lie unless it rises to the level of libel or involves fraud.  Just enforce those rules against Facebook members.

All Facebook should be required to do is be able to identify anyone they let use their platform.

[Dill]

(10-24-2019, 10:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: Unregulated a candidate could flood social media with outright lies a day or two before an election that their opponent would never have time to respond to.

And that's now new of course.

Candidates have been robocalling falsehoods for as long as I can remember.

Lying isn't the problem...the immense reach of the lies is.

Well then once the dishonest candidate takes office and is governing us, the losing candidate can sue for libel.

Unless that liar wins the presidency, of course. 

[Dill]

(10-24-2019, 10:30 AM)Au165 Wrote: In terms of Facebook and the whole misinformation campaigns, their job isn't to regulate speech, even speech that is false. As much as people hate Zukerberg he is right on this one and the fact people actually want to ask a company to do such a thing leads to a very dangerous precedent. Instead of trying to limit people's exposure to false information, we should look in the mirror and ask ourselves why it's so damn easy for people to believe it. We don't properly teach our children how to critically reason and question the information they receive. We need to equip people with the tools to make good decision over trying to shield them from potentially making bad ones.

Once you go down the road of asking platforms to block false information you open up the question of who gets to determine what is false? That definition of "false" can then be dictated by the person enforcing the rules and now you've empowered someone to control content and manipulate what people see. Let's say an Atheist is now in charge of regulating the information and they decide that religion is false information and they ban it, are people going to still be happy they have given someone that power? Regulation of speech is a really powerful tool that you have to be careful who you allow to wield it.

A good, thoughtful post, A. It set me to thinking too.

I'd say, the question of "who gets to determine what is false" appears at every level, including when we "look in the mirror." I don't presume it can't be answered.

I agree with you that people are not answering that question very well, and teaching children to reason better should be part of the solution. But as soon as people don't like what their children are being taught, they'll be asking "who gets to determine what is thought?"  

Liberals cannot answer "who gets to?" questions very well, so they leave free speech (and education) up to the market where possible.  That road has led us to Trump, Fox and the Barr-run DOJ--people only to happy to decide what is false and the power to enforce their decisions.  

But defining "false" information on Facebook platforms is, at bottom, not really more difficult than resolving libel suits. Someone finally does get to decide, with the appropriate checks. Even if people want to keep truth a function of the market, companies have become quite good at avoiding slander and potential suits.  Facebook could be too.

Your example of the atheist who regulates religious "information" posits a censor unconstrained by voters and legal precedent. I don't think the choice has to between between that sort of unchecked power and a free market of speech.

At the moment, I view unchecked propaganda is a greater threat to democracy than censorship based upon legal, scientific and logical criteria of truth claims.  We can have the latter if enough of us  voters want it.

[Au165]

(10-25-2019, 04:56 PM)Dill Wrote: At the moment, I view unchecked propaganda is a greater threat to democracy than censorship based upon legal, scientific and logical criteria of truth claims.  We can have the latter if enough of us  voters want it.

I have a hard time believing this criteria you mention prevents anything as we have seen with abortions it will be eroded for political gain over time. The power of censoring is just to great for the government to be meddling in affairs of private business. The government hasn’t chosen to check the actual politicians for saying the blatantly false things found in these ads and until they do so they shouldn’t worry about other ways it’s being spread.