So, FB appears to have banned ZH articles from being shared/posted or even discussed on its platform. I'm torn on this one. I believe in free speech, but also the rights of a company to have discretion on its arbitration of content. But, to me this infringes on the former more than it should be allowed by the latter. Thoughts? What say you, monkeys?
Article here
| +90 | Zoomers are doing life wrong | 28 | 1d | |
| +72 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 49 | 1h | |
| +42 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 22 | 11h | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 1d | |
| +37 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 13h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 1d | |
| +31 | Framed Photo of CEO on desk. | 16 | 1d | |
| +29 | How to sound more eloquent? | 10 | 28m | |
| +26 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 9 | 9h | |
| +24 | BO -> ??? | 14 | 5d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
WSO is the last beacon of free speech
Till the mods ban you.
Do you make 'em say wow every time?
How can this possibly infringe on free speech? Is Facebook a government controlled entity? No? Then free speech laws are irrelevant.
Fair point. Maybe I should have worded it differently than free speech. I guess the question is do you think it's immoral for social media giants like this to behave this way? News sources, for example MSNBC & FOX, get a lot of flak for skewing/not reporting the whole story, or using their monopoly to only present one side of the story. For social media outlets like FB and Google, do you think they are morally obligated to foster the free sharing of opinions and information rather than censor their users' content?
Notice that the Leftists are always the ones to defend corporate censorship by playing verbal semantics. Obviously, when people say "free speech" they are talking about the principle of free speech, not the legal protection of free speech.
Exactly.. Tim Pool gives a good argument for this. FacebookTwitter have become so powerful as a means of communication between both regular citizens as well as public officials and their constituents that censoring speech on these platforms can be argued to limit a citizen's ability to fully participate in democracy. That is in part fueling the demand for public regulation (which also scares me). Hopefully they can figure it out before FacebookTwitter become regulated or corporately censored advertising machines.
I don't understand how people who called themselves democrats 10+ years ago can still identify with the party. They were the party of free speech, free love, and inclusiveness.. Now they divide everyone up by race, gender, sexuality, etc.. and tell you what you can and can't say. All the work done by the feminists of the 60's and 70's has totally regressed in the past few years. I'm totally against predatory male behavior, but drumming up a beef with 'baby it's cold outside'? come on.
Free speech isn't a governmental philosophy. It is an inalienable right to which even the government is not allowed to infringe.
It is an inalienable right upon which only the government is not allowed to infringe. Private entities can stomp on free speech as much as they like.
That's crazy. I'm not a fan of ZeroHedge because I can't stand ZH's (generally put forth view of) libertarianism, but I've never seen a single thing they've ever posted that could so violate community standards that it gets them permanently booted from the platform.
What I can't understand is how social media platforms can censor non-illegal content and yet be immune to liability as a publisher. That, to me, makes no sense. I don't understand how the law has developed such that FB, et al face no liability. It's completely hypocritical.
The publisher angle is the remedy to all of this. When they are promoting certain types of content while restricting certain types of content, they clearly meet the definition of a publisher. Once they're a publisher, the resultant liability goes through the roof which causes them to offer an entirely different value proposition to consumers. Once this happens, people looking for an open platform are going to look elsewhere and the power of Facebook/Twitter/Youtube will have be devolved.
These are private companies and you can't regulate them as if they're public utilities simply because they are so dominant. At the same time, they need to be treated as what they are, publishers, not platforms.
I love that Facebook let people promote outright scams a year or so ago. You could literally run ads for scamcoins and they let everyone do it despite them basically aiding something completely and obviously illegal. Selling unregistered securities left right and center...
...but somehow fucking zerohedge is banned? I don't agree with their content but it isn't remotely racist/sexist/nuts afaik? Maybe I'm missing something...
Anyone listen to the last two Rogans with Joack Dorsey? The chick he brought on the second time to speak for him was insufferable
Yeah it was pretty rough.
"Thanks for pointing out a different opinion. We've heard your view and will discuss it with our team." - Dorsey's legal lackey
She wouldn't acknowledge that the idea of "misgendering" was Left-leaning. Would not acknowledge it.
What was the context though?
IDK how to answer you man. It was a 3.5 hour podcast. The context was she wouldn't acknowledge that Twitter's policies lean left by essentially not acknowledging that such a concept exists.
Just came across the news Elizabeth Warren had put ads on Facebook regarding breaking it up. It got taken down. I don't care about which side of the spectrum does some one lie but that is censorship. But the other side of the coin is Facebook is trying to protect itself like any other company would.
Also I feel there might be a strong undercurrent developing against social media and in the long run may be anonymous forum board like WSO and Reddit will be the real winners. I would personally actually love to use a DuckDuckGo version of Facebook I think.
reddit is just as corrupt as any of the other platforms. niche, single-community forums will be the real winners. long live WSO
Yeah definitely and given the recent Tencent investment of $150m it's going to he interesting to see how does that affect Reddit.
But isn't reddit just a collection of niche forums?
Interesting question here.
On the one hand, can we really force a company to provide ad space to someone advocating for its own destruction?
On the other hand, laws that force TV stations to air ads from competing networks and equal time rules for political ads (even for candidates who would attack the media) don't seem very controversial to me, despite the intrusion on the network's ability to choose its buyers. As a social network and de facto public forum, I don't think I have a problem limiting Facebook's discretion in similar ways.
That actually had to do with her putting a Facebook logo in the add. It was an automated system to protect against fraud and phishing scams.
Hedgie checking in.
ZH will be fine as they denote in their news announcement:
"...unlike other websites, we are lucky in that only a tiny fraction of our inbound traffic originates at Facebook, with most of our readers arriving here directly without the aid of search engines (Google banned us from its News platform, for reasons still unknown, shortly after the Trump victory) or referrals."
ZH's content is incendiary and inflammatory. The commenters they foster don't belong in public. But the aggregation of facts + global-macro array of topics is top-notch, regardless of spin.
As for FB, it's really their call. I just find it bold because ZH is reputable news source. FB is further crafting the reality they would like their users to live in.
Yeah I mean just to clarify, I would feel the same way whether it was ZH or CNN. I might not agree with someone's viewpoint, but I do want them to have the same opportunity to have it heard.
How many rubles a month do you get paid?
Probably not as much as the guys who made ZH. Here is a good analysis of ZH as a propaganda network: http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html
Facebook can do whatever it wants with its platform. If you don't like it, stop using it. I personally don't use it.
So you are asking for government control (sorry "oversight") of a company's platform in order to AVOID an Orwellian society.... the irony is almost too much.
I’ve never had a Facebook account and everything is good in my world.
Did anyone bother checking to see if this was true or not? I still see ZH posts on FB and am able to post them. ZH's traffic is dying it -- just a way for them to pump up their brand. Shit platforms die out.
I've seen a bunch of people I follow on Twitter confirm that they couldn't share posts/stories from ZH. That may have been reversed now. With the quick news cycle, ZH news was literally yesterday's news so I haven't seen that many people talk about it today.
Zerohedge is Russian propaganda. Why would you allow that on American social media?
Imagine the idiots who listened to that shit and bought gold in 2009 and missed out on the biggest 10 yr bull run.
If you like Zerohedge, chances are you parents have the same last name, and you are un-vaccinated.
I tend to agree, but who made us (or anyone else) censors of the internet? How about we let ideas battle each other for supremacy?
Because liberal proposals can't win in the free marketplace of ideas. This is why they ensorse censorship. I'm not even sure why you expect a honest answer. If a conservative company started censoring liberals, they'd swap their opinion, just like they do on most other issues.
LMAO you say "American social media" as if Facebook is some patriotic organization that will put the country's interests first.
Until I see Republicans doing something about it, I don't think we can whine. Either fight or let them get away with it and build their socialist dystopia. You'll get the Green New Deal and you'll like it because AOC will criminalize dissent as ''climate change denial'' and prevent you from posting on any social platform. If that's the future you want, then support corporate censorship.
On a side note, Zerohedge is no longer censored and Facebook said ''it was a mistake''.
Two things:
Democratic leaders aren't in favor of the "green new deal" because it is full of absurdity, would poll terribly outside of far left communities, and is more virtue signaling than coherent policy. AOC is all the hype right now - because she is a new female democrat Fox News can fear monger about since Hillary is out of the limelight and because she says outrageously dumb things at times - but there is a large gap between hype and policy. She is very much out of touch with the majority of the party, and the party would be throwing away all of the good will of the "blue wave" if they turn into a party of democratic socialists as opposed to just democrats. A majority of the midterm pickups were in far more centrist districts, but moderation doesn't get you headlines.
Climate Change Denial shouldn't be criminalized, but it should be mocked right up there with thinking the earth is flat, "chemtrails," pizza gate, Sandy Hook denial, or that vaccines cause autism.
Demographics are in favour of AOC and against the Democratic moderates. Unless the Millennial fetish for socialism somehow dies out in the next 4-8 years because everyone figures out AOC is a complete moron. Politics however is also driven by activism and that's the one driving polarization right now. For a comparison, see the Tea Party influence on Republicans under Obama: not many elected, but significant pressure to shift policy.
I agree with that entirely.
"Climate change denial" as a term has lost all meaning--it is as meaningless as "Ben Shapiro is a Nazi". "Climate change denial" is the set up for an obvious straw man--if you don't support MY proposal then you are denying anthropogenic global warming. The real debate is over the policies we take to either reduce CO2 emissions or to generally reduce air pollution in general. To the Left, everyone who disagrees with MY proposal is a climate change denier. Well, ya know what? Actions speak louder than words. If you've spent 40 years campaigning against nuclear then your behavior is worse than my "denial." You should be mocked and put into the same category as flat earthers.
Aut vero et delectus autem deserunt consequatur. Ratione quod nulla voluptate dolores qui sint praesentium nulla. Laudantium nostrum in est earum repellat.
In veritatis distinctio voluptatibus ut sunt velit praesentium. Et voluptate accusamus iure provident ducimus. Tenetur dolorem vero et suscipit repellendus doloribus itaque. Aut neque nihil nulla reprehenderit qui quisquam iste.
Eos qui dolorum minima aut dolores. Corporis reiciendis blanditiis iure. Sint officiis aut veritatis ut nemo sequi quos.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Architecto aut delectus nihil voluptas voluptatem ut. Id voluptate aut cum eveniet aut. Ut eius est atque necessitatibus quod. Doloremque voluptatum natus consequatur quod.
Qui enim rerum molestiae cupiditate velit cupiditate sapiente tenetur. Error voluptatem sequi et in totam. Ut delectus eos dolores dolore quaerat facere magnam. Odio velit autem quo sit. Doloremque accusantium totam modi vel id. Exercitationem magnam hic voluptas necessitatibus. Quia a nihil in aut aperiam.
Eveniet maiores adipisci harum. Id in in ea et aut. Id est voluptas voluptates ducimus commodi id ea. Impedit dignissimos eos distinctio vel voluptas et fuga. Velit molestiae esse quia voluptatem. Et aperiam ab et. Assumenda quibusdam nulla amet iste est molestiae et.
Molestiae quaerat qui ut numquam assumenda tempore. Porro qui velit et similique necessitatibus. Et non nobis id dolore voluptatibus unde tenetur.
Reprehenderit quia nemo pariatur id et. Neque ex nostrum aut reiciendis dolor. Non nihil voluptas ut id rem rem neque non.
Officiis voluptas pariatur totam autem aut repudiandae. Iste perferendis placeat nulla quia recusandae voluptatem sint. Id optio distinctio esse amet ut aspernatur. Dolores et nisi mollitia labore repellendus voluptas ut. Nobis enim ut dolorem eius aut. Et occaecati quibusdam atque possimus. Natus quo et dolorem laudantium ut voluptate exercitationem.
Dolor excepturi quia quo iure tempore. Accusamus est architecto quaerat et quae iste consequatur. Veritatis a similique natus aut fuga aliquid rerum.