Should the US Get Rid of Facebook and other Social Media Outlets?

[John Camp]

They seem to do a lot of serious damage, and not much good -- they do provide *some* people with a harmless outlet for their cat photos or their knitting algorithms, but generally, they seem to spend a lot of time inflicting damage on the culture.

How would you do that, get rid of them? Quite simple, really. The US has two kinds of "media" -- non-social, in which the owners are responsible for content; and social, which are really derived from old laws primarily dealing with telephones, which held that the phone companies weren't responsible for what people said on their system. Facebook and other media companies managed to get themselves classified under the telephonic laws, so that it Person A libels or slanders Person B, well, it ain't *their* fault. Bullshit. Facebook ain't a telephone. In my view, people who are libeled or slandered on it should be able to sue, just as they can sue a newspaper or a network for a content that appears on those media. Simply reclassifying the would require that Facebook get really serious about monitoring their forums, or get driven into bankruptcy with thousands and maybe tens of thousands of lawsuits. I think the reclassification would eventually cost Facebook a ton of money, but so what, not my problem.   

[Jim Kasson]

They seem to do a lot of serious damage, and not much good -- they do provide *some* people with a harmless outlet for their cat photos or their knitting algorithms, but generally, they seem to spend a lot of time inflicting damage on the culture.

How would you do that, get rid of them? Quite simple, really. The US has two kinds of "media" -- non-social, in which the owners are responsible for content; and social, which are really derived from old laws primarily dealing with telephones, which held that the phone companies weren't responsible for what people said on their system. Facebook and other media companies managed to get themselves classified under the telephonic laws, so that it Person A libels or slanders Person B, well, it ain't *their* fault. Bullshit. Facebook ain't a telephone. In my view, people who are libeled or slandered on it should be able to sue, just as they can sue a newspaper or a network for a content that appears on those media. Simply reclassifying the would require that Facebook get really serious about monitoring their forums, or get driven into bankruptcy with thousands and maybe tens of thousands of lawsuits. I think the reclassification would eventually cost Facebook a ton of money, but so what, not my problem.

If you did that, you'd probably have to have the law apply to LuLa and all other fora, too. Maybe blog and web page hosting companies.

Jim

[Ray]

If you did that, you'd probably have to have the law apply to LuLa and all other fora, too. Maybe blog and web page hosting companies.

Jim

That's true. Consider all the personal insults that occur on the "PLAYPEN: Covid-19-Everything Political" thread. It's sometimes amusing, though. 

[Alan Klein]

America isn't ready to revoke the 1st Amendment.

[Robert Roaldi]

They seem to do a lot of serious damage, and not much good -- they do provide *some* people with a harmless outlet for their cat photos or their knitting algorithms, but generally, they seem to spend a lot of time inflicting damage on the culture.

How would you do that, get rid of them? Quite simple, really. The US has two kinds of "media" -- non-social, in which the owners are responsible for content; and social, which are really derived from old laws primarily dealing with telephones, which held that the phone companies weren't responsible for what people said on their system. Facebook and other media companies managed to get themselves classified under the telephonic laws, so that it Person A libels or slanders Person B, well, it ain't *their* fault. Bullshit. Facebook ain't a telephone. In my view, people who are libeled or slandered on it should be able to sue, just as they can sue a newspaper or a network for a content that appears on those media. Simply reclassifying the would require that Facebook get really serious about monitoring their forums, or get driven into bankruptcy with thousands and maybe tens of thousands of lawsuits. I think the reclassification would eventually cost Facebook a ton of money, but so what, not my problem.

I think it's worth thinking about how they operate. All the surveys I read say that a large percentage of the population gets their "news" from social media. Social media have evolved way past private conversations, so maybe the current legal framework is not adequate to the task.

When social media consists of people talking to each other, then it does resembles a phone call. This forum is an example of that, I'd say. Except even then Facebook censors what is permitted on their site. I remember controversies about photographs depicting nudity. So in that respect, the conversations are not really like a private phone call, they're more like a publication.

The traditional press could be biased of course, but it was pretty difficult to hide the bias. You could find out who owned a newspaper, study the content and publish your findings about it. No one ever thought that Soviet newspapers were really a free press. Nobody was fooled. In Facebook's case during the last US election, it has been shown that they were co-opted by large numbers of phoney users whose origins were very difficult to trace and very much fit the definition of propaganda. If people are getting their current event information from an entity that has no control over its sources and no operating guidelines on how to operate in the media sphere, that's not doing public discourse any good.

There used to be rules about not letting any one entity get too powerful. There were good reasons for that.

[Robert Roaldi]

America isn't ready to revoke the 1st Amendment.

When it was enacted nobody had access to the internet.

[Alan Goldhammer]

the only 'social media' site I am on is LinkedIn and I've gotten a couple of consulting jobs as a result.  Don't have a Facebook or Twitter account and do not intend to.

[Alan Klein]

I think it's worth thinking about how they operate. All the surveys I read say that a large percentage of the population gets their "news" from social media. Social media have evolved way past private conversations, so maybe the current legal framework is not adequate to the task.

When social media consists of people talking to each other, then it does resembles a phone call. This forum is an example of that, I'd say. Except even then Facebook censors what is permitted on their site. I remember controversies about photographs depicting nudity. So in that respect, the conversations are not really like a private phone call, they're more like a publication.

The traditional press could be biased of course, but it was pretty difficult to hide the bias. You could find out who owned a newspaper, study the content and publish your findings about it. No one ever thought that Soviet newspapers were really a free press. Nobody was fooled. In Facebook's case during the last US election, it has been shown that they were co-opted by large numbers of phoney users whose origins were very difficult to trace and very much fit the definition of propaganda. If people are getting their current event information from an entity that has no control over its sources and no operating guidelines on how to operate in the media sphere, that's not doing public discourse any good.

There used to be rules about not letting any one entity get too powerful. There were good reasons for that.

A newspaper is not like a social media.  Papers have full control of what gets printed.  The news, opinions, letters to the editor, etc.  The public cannot "print" what they want.  That's unlike a social media like Facebook, Twitter, and even LuLa for the most part.  Letting everyone's opinion "fly" unimpeded is the best kind of free speech there is.  It's the only kind that is impervious to someone shutting it down.  After all, who's going to be the gatekeeper?  Would you want me deciding whether your ideas should be posted here?  Would you want me deciding whether you're telling the "truth" or not? 

Also, you can't sue anyone for opinions which is in essence biased.  You can only sue for defaming someone for libel.  Even then, that only applies to regular people not famous people or people in politics.

[LesPalenik]

Could be that the deciding push to limit the power and influence of Facebook will come from Europe, and not only from spreading the political disinformation but also because of its sheer power and dominance of social media.

Germany has been at the forefront of a global backlash against Facebook, which faces increasing criticism that it is being used to spread political disinformation.

The country’s antitrust watchdog had objected in particular to how Facebook pools data on people from third-party apps - including its own WhatsApp and Instagram - and online tracking of people who do not have accounts via Facebook “like” or “share” buttons.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-germany/top-german-court-reimposes-data-curbs-on-facebook-idUSKBN23U2P4?il=0

[Robert Roaldi]

A newspaper is not like a social media.  Papers have full control of what gets printed.  The news, opinions, letters to the editor, etc.  The public cannot "print" what they want.  That's unlike a social media like Facebook, Twitter, and even LuLa for the most part.  Letting everyone's opinion "fly" unimpeded is the best kind of free speech there is.  It's the only kind that is impervious to someone shutting it down.  After all, who's going to be the gatekeeper?  Would you want me deciding whether your ideas should be posted here?  Would you want me deciding whether you're telling the "truth" or not? 

Also, you can't sue anyone for opinions which is in essence biased.  You can only sue for defaming someone for libel.  Even then, that only applies to regular people not famous people or people in politics.

So far as personal opinion goes, I don't disagree in principle. But if the delivery and usage looks more and more like journalism, and the way Facebook pushes news onto people's feeds comes damn close, then it's not as clear cut as you paint.

Remember when people were upset when a newspaper printed a correction on page 32 at the bottom of the page? Imagine if corrections are never printed and the original lie remains online forever. I don't think that pretending that the world hasn't changed will wash for long. There is still content online about Pizzagate. There are many web sites made to look like small-town newspaper sites that are owned and managed by central data content managers with agendas to push.

Has there ever been a case where a contributor on FB or any other social media was sued by someone for libel or out and out lying?

Snake oil salesmen could only fool a few people at a time in small towns and had to work at it. Nowadays propaganda machines can run circles around any online watchdogs and can do real harm. Adopting caveat emptor sounds good in theory at first glance but what happens when the cost of bad info becomes widespread. A society has the right to protect itself.

OTOH, maybe it is sorting itself out. Hardly anyone I know has the stomach for social media, they treat it largely as a joke already, like the National Enquirer, when it comes to news and public affairs anyway. It's still ok for keeping in touch with family or some wider community. Twitter, for example, is becoming an ideal marketing tool for the sex industry.

Anyway, just to be snarky about it, I know exactly how to convince people that social media needs to be controlled. Just have pro-choice and ERA activists start to make really heavy use of social media to push their agenda. Then wait for the reaction, it won't be far behind. It wasn't that long ago that the FBI was tracking rock and roll bands.   

[Alan Klein]

So far as personal opinion goes, I don't disagree in principle. But if the delivery and usage looks more and more like journalism, and the way Facebook pushes news onto people's feeds comes damn close, then it's not as clear cut as you paint.

Remember when people were upset when a newspaper printed a correction on page 32 at the bottom of the page? Imagine if corrections are never printed and the original lie remains online forever. I don't think that pretending that the world hasn't changed will wash for long. There is still content online about Pizzagate. There are many web sites made to look like small-town newspaper sites that are owned and managed by central data content managers with agendas to push.

Has there ever been a case where a contributor on FB or any other social media was sued by someone for libel or out and out lying?

Snake oil salesmen could only fool a few people at a time in small towns and had to work at it. Nowadays propaganda machines can run circles around any online watchdogs and can do real harm.

That's a slippery slope.

OTOH, maybe it is sorting itself out. Hardly anyone I know has the stomach for social media, they treat it largely as a joke already, like the National Enquirer, when it comes to news and public affairs anyway. It's still ok for keeping in touch with family or some wider community. Twitter, for example, is becoming an ideal marketing tool for the sex industry.

Anyway, just to be snarky about it, I know exactly how to convince people that social media needs to be controlled. Just have pro-choice and ERA activists start to make really heavy use of social media to push their agenda. Then wait for the reaction, it won't be far behind. It wasn't that long ago that the FBI was tracking rock and roll bands.   

That's a slippery slope.  The best balance is to leave posts to all comers.  That way, everyone gets their bias and opinions posted and let the readers decide. 

I think the problem right now is that social media in the U.S. enjoys Congressional protection against lawsuits.  It was given to them to encourage the free interchange of ideas.  However, if Twitter and others are going to ban certain ideas, then their right to protection is no longer valid.  Of course, they say they have a social responsibility to ban certain "news" as being violent or other some such reason.  But the truth is they're being political and banning only certain news they disagree with defeating the whole point of the Congressional protection and encouragement of free exchange of ideas.  Twitter and others like them can't have it both ways. 

[Peter McLennan]

One of the major problems is anonymity.  Global entities are free to create an infinite number of accounts on social media and say whatever they like.  "Free speech" writ large, to the greater detriment.

If people aren't held responsible for what they post, they'll post crap.  Judging by history, it appears to be human nature. For example, anyone remember Citizens Band radio?  It arrived with great promise to unify us all. After about two years, the entire enterprise imploded due to what was essentially audio vandalism.

On the other hand, people value privacy and anonymity, and rightly so.

Technology is often a two-edged sword. Absent regulation of some kind, it'll just get worse. 

[TechTalk]

Letting everyone's opinion "fly" unimpeded

Like vomit. The internet is the bucket that catches all of it.

[Robert Roaldi]

That's a slippery slope.  The best balance is to leave posts to all comers.  That way, everyone gets their bias and opinions posted and let the readers decide. 

I think the problem right now is that social media in the U.S. enjoys Congressional protection against lawsuits.  It was given to them to encourage the free interchange of ideas.  However, if Twitter and others are going to ban certain ideas, then their right to protection is no longer valid.  Of course, they say they have a social responsibility to ban certain "news" as being violent or other some such reason.  But the truth is they're being political and banning only certain news they disagree with defeating the whole point of the Congressional protection and encouragement of free exchange of ideas.  Twitter and others like them can't have it both ways.

But if they are private companies and not public media, why shouldn't they be allowed to only give voice only to opinions that they agree with?

Why should Facebook feel it necessary to allow all viewpoints? Is there something forcing them to?

Does the First Amendment even apply if they are simply a collection of private bulletin boards and not the public press? You can't have it both ways.

[Alan Klein]

But if they are private companies and not public media, why shouldn't they be allowed to only give voice only to opinions that they agree with?

Why should Facebook feel it necessary to allow all viewpoints? Is there something forcing them to?

Does the First Amendment even apply if they are simply a collection of private bulletin boards and not the public press? You can't have it both ways.

It's a thorny issue.  I agree that Facebook should do what they like and ban what they want being a private concern.  However, there are a few issues that are different than in the case of a private newspaper.  First, the airways belong to everyone.  The government (people) own them and a license is granted, at least in the case of radio and TV stations.  Also, in order to stimulate the free exchange of ideas, Congress passed legislation protecting Facebook and other like them from lawsuits for what is transmitted to encourage that free exchange of ideas.  If they're going to limit that speech to only those they agree with, why should they be granted protection if they insist on censoring?  Frankly, I think the best way to handle this is for the public to stop using sites who play games.  The Left has learned this.  They force corporations to favor their views.  If a big number of people stop using their services, it would be in their interest to stay out of the censorship business and just be a transmission wire just like a telephone company's phone wire.  Don't listen in.  Don't censor.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

John, are you aware that you just agreed with Trump?

[Peter McLennan]

First, the airways belong to everyone.

Alan, even though "the airways belong to everyone", much of it has been auctioned off by the governments to commercial entities who use it to make profits.  Anyway, much of the social media don't depend on the airways.  Only cell data and ISPs that transmit wirelessly are using the "airways".  The Internet is largely fibre nowadays. In fact, you could argue that all data is transmitted at some point by fibre optics, which is not "the airways".  Read "Flash Boys" by Michael Lewis to learn how this affects us all.

I agree that part of the policing is up to the end user.  I don't use Facebook or Twitter for the reasons you outlined.

[Peter McLennan]

John, are you aware that you just agreed with Trump?

Please explain.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Please explain.

The essence of the ongoing debate is the nature of the social media: are they utilities, like telephone or electricity, or are they publishers, like newspapers or tv. So far, they've been treated as utilities, thus shielding them from legal liability for posted material on their sites.

However, the moment they started editorializing and censoring the content on their platforms, they opened the door to be considered as publishers, thus legally responsible for the content.

Trump was pissed off that Twitter started editorializing his tweets, adding warnings and disclaimers to them, and signed an executive order that would strip them of the legal shield as utilities.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

[Alan Klein]

The essence of the ongoing debate is the nature of the social media: are they utilities, like telephone or electricity, or are they publishers, like newspapers or tv. So far, they've been treated as utilities, thus shielding them from legal liability for posted material on their sites.

However, the moment they started editorializing and censoring the content on their platforms, they opened the door to be considered as publishers, thus legally responsible for the content.

Trump was pissed off that Twitter started editorializing his tweets, adding warnings and disclaimers to them, and signed an executive order that would strip them of the legal shield as utilities.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Of course the question is whether Trump's action to encourage free speech from people who Twitter takes away free speech from the Twitter owners in the process.