So Stephanie Ruhle called tonight on MSNBC for Facebook to be shut down now.

[Grasswire2]

She said that people can get over not being able to look up their old boyfriend's girlfriend. (A shallow understanding of the more useful aspects of FB)

She and Brian Williams and a CIA-FBI type guest (forgot his name) were trying to think of solutions to the new problem of FB overrun again with Russian action.

She said just shut it down.

But why couldn't FB prohibit political discourse altogether for 100 days? Perhaps only allow recognized news reports from the alphabet networks and major papers and NO COMMENTS? Something like that? Maybe not even the news reports. Or maybe just prohibit all political posts. People could use the Internet to go directly to news outlets. Sans FB.

[madaboutharry]

1. There can be a solution

somewhere between doing nothing and shutting it down.

I don’t know what it is, but I think closing down FB is extreme. Maybe putting restrictions on for the next 100 days is a possibility. Or not allowing any new accounts until after the elections.

[AllTooEasy]

21. How about folks not believing everything they read or hear on the internet?

Or on TV? Or on radio? In a book or tabloid magazine? Or what comes out of a family member’s or friend’s mouth?

FB has serious flaws, but not using your brain is the most serious.

[madaboutharry]

28. That is hard for a lot of people.

Critical thinking eludes many.

[MuseRider]

55. I could not have said it better.

They could also block all things that rile them up knowing the benefit to that is nothing but being riled up over nothing.

I am afraid people do not want to have to think hard enough while playing on FB. Every political post that came my way that seemed either too good or too bad or just hinky got checked and usually the group that posted it was blocked. Politics on FB is just stupid and a wreck.

I worry that some of these people are one more dumb moment before they walk into a busy street. Their minds are not engaged at all.

That or they like the feeling of their mind flying this way and that but LSD is illegal.

[Dave Starsky]

36. Just ban all political ads, stories, etc.

Let it go back to being the site where people posted pictures of the hamburger they just ate or their grandkids at the Grand Canyon.

[Meadowoak]

2. I agree, shut it down. We were so much better off, as a nation, before social media.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

14. concur'in here.

It's past it's usefulness. If it means fb or your country, or dt continuing to box our ears, I'm completely ok w shutting it down.
Embargo on!! clap clap

[Hortensis]

17. It's not the only social medium. DU is one.

We seem to be agreed, though, that very regrettably we can no longer leave policing weaponizable sites to their owners. Even if they say they will.

The problem has grown dangerously large. The possibility of voters replacing democracy with autocracy and oppression of liberals, perhaps someday waking up to find federal troops have taken control of our towns, is suddenly no longer ridiculously unlikely.

[A HERETIC I AM]

34. I disagree. I don't think DU qualifies as "Social Media"

DU has been around since 2001, 3 years before Facebook was founded, 4 years before YouTube was launched, 5 years before Twitter and 9 years before Instagram.

For the most part, users here do not use their real names and there is no way to search for an old schoolmate on Democratic Underground. People post pictures using image hosting sites outside of DU and you can not upload a video directly to a thread. And there is no way to "follow" a specific member. You can not get notified when your best buddy on here puts up a post. You can on FB, YouTube and others.

This is a message board in the true sense of the word, but it's format is what makes it unique. When you look at how other message boards are laid out, DU beats them for ease of use hands down.

But DU also has limited reach, that is to say that it's users tend to be liberals with time on their hands who like to post on message boards, and as a consequence, skew to an older demographic. That is a VERY small segment of the overall internet user community and a tiny, tiny segment of the Democratic voter block. I guarantee you that if a major polling firm did a nationwide poll of Democrats, only a small fraction would have ever heard of this website.

That's one reason why Skinner et al are not billionaires by now.

They invented DU, not Facebook.

[Hortensis]

38. You seem to be operating off a different definition

of what a social medium is. Members cannot be anonymous? Really?

In any case, any definition that requires blindness to the 24/7/365 efforts to sabotage liberalism, progressive actions, and support for the Democratic Party on DU is...inadequate. If we did have a wonder shield against the malicious subversion threatening to bring down our democracy, no doubt DU's owners would have marketed it and become mega billionaires.

[A HERETIC I AM]

39. "Members cannot be anonymous? Really? "

Where did I say that?

Here's the thing; On DU the users are individuals, not entire "pages" or websites. On Facebook you can create a page and limit participants. You can create a page and then create content that others can share or link to. You can make videos and upload them directly to the page. NONE of that is possible on DU. Sure, you can make a vid, upload it to YouTube or similar and then link it here, but that is not the same thing.

The fact that individual users can not create their own forums on this site and then limit who sees it is a primary difference. And that is the point I am trying to make.

We see new users on here all the time that are dubious, to say the least, but as I am sure you know, we have a MIRT group tasked with looking for and rooting them out.

[Hortensis]

46. I understand. But I believe you're imagining far

more requirements to be a social medium than actually exist. We come together from afar and air and exchange views. We chat.



I have been on MIRT once, and that was certainly quite a learning experience.

Have a nice day, A.

[A HERETIC I AM]

48. Fair enough.

Have a nice day

Backatya

[onenote]

50. Right. Life was so much better before social media

Everything was just hunky-dory in the 30s (okay, there was a depression and discrimination against various groups was institutionalized and legal,, but at least there wasn't social media); 40's (okay, there was a war and discrimination against various groups institutionalized and legal, but at least there wasn't social media); the 50s (okay, there was McCarthyism and discrimination against various groups was institutionalized and legal, but at least there wasn't social media); the 60s (okay, there was another war and while discrimination was made illegal, the underlying bigotry didn't disappear, but at least there wasn't social media); the 70s (okay, the war finally ended and Nixon was forced out and the Republicans were routed in 1976, but then the economy went in the toilet and there was still bigotry and institutionalized discrimination, but at least there wasn't social media); the 80s (okay, Reagan, but at least there wasn't social media); the 90s (no war, booming economy, no social media -- it was wonderful, but for the incessant right wing conspiratorial attacks on the Clintons and a bogus impeachment proceeding)....

[AlexSFCA]

3. I wish they made it fee for service

and not have any ads or sell info.

[PSPS]

4. "But why couldn't FB ..."

Regardless of what you put after the ellipsis, the answer is the same: Because zuckerberg has no morals and is gleefully destroying the country because he gets rich doing so. He stated just recently that promoting climate science denial and even holocaust denial is just peachy keen with him because "both sides have something to say." Those russian troll accounts and fake profiles pay their bills which means "more money for zuck." Quite a guy, isn't he? Fine upstanding american. "Truth, justice, and the american way!"

They have a much better way in the UK: No political advertising is allowed on TV or radio at all until the last two weeks or so, and they must be equitable as to party, time of broadcast and available viewership. The brexit fluke was due entirely to social media which skirts their rules.

Such common-sense rules would never fly here because the US media makes yacht-loads of money off it. The

[Grasswire2]

7. yes, but in a national emergency...

....when it is infiltrated by a foreign adversary, couldn't some authority control it temporarily? Like a bank might be nationalized? The FCC?

[BigmanPigman]

8. Hear hear!

Fuckerberg is a greedy bastard and about as sincerely patriotic as the Kochs.

[brush]

18. Agreed. He's made more than enougn money. Shut it down.

[Grasswire2]

10. well, there is your real world example.

The UK. Excellent.

[More_Cowbell]

12. It isn't just lying political posts

FB has allowed companies to collect data without telling subscribers. The only reason I'm still on it is because I'm waiting to find out how much of my data has been collected. I have a friend who takes all of the stupid personality tests, and without disclosing it, Facebook has given companies the information of all *friends* of the people who take those stupid tests. Not just the people themselves.

Personally, I think they should be shut down until they can prove they've stopped selling information. And then they should start up again and share all the information they've stolen from each customer before making that customer acknowledge that they're okay with their information being sold. A lot of people will stay as customers, but a lot of people won't.

[onecaliberal]

5. shut It down.

[marybourg]

6. We are still a nation of laws.

We don’t “shut them down” just because a news commentator thinks so. If she knows of a law that they’re violating, she needs to say so. I can think of more virulent sites to shut down that are not shut down. I never use nor have I ever used, f.b., but c’mon folks, we’re not quite a Soviet satellite yet.

[Grasswire2]

9. agreed

She was really over the top. But in response to your comment. Other sites are not the size of FB. Virulent sites particularly. It is the universality of FB and the ease of use and the potential anonymity that make it particularly dangerous. Uniquely so. And it's not a free speech issue in that the same speech opportunities are available at those other (virulent) smaller entities.

I do not advocate shutting it down. But I could support restricting political material and commentary temporarily.

[regnaD kciN]

13. Yeah. "Shut it down!" sounds like something Trumpers would shout...

...about the New York Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC.

[Grasswire2]

16. apples and oranges

Them shouting that would be as ignorant as they are every day.

[aikoaiko]

11. A journalist actually said that? That's fucked up.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

15. Respectfully, if you are panic'ing about fb, maybe a check up, from the neck up is in order. I

understand the business bit, but, I've had a business for 2 decades plus and theres alternative ways to advertise. fb is free. I get it. But, my country isn't for sale. Either were being attacked or we're not. I think we are. Shut it down. It's called Homeland Sacrifice. We came close to losing it altogether.

[Liberty Belle]

19. No, that is going too far.

Locally we saw several races where progressive beat well funded conservatives by using social media especially Facebook to reach many voters, bypassing the old mantra where only the richest candidates who could afford glossy mailers would win. So in some ways FB, Twitter, Youtube etc. have been good for democracy. The answer is to more tightly regulate these companies, not eliminate them or censor all political speech, which would surely violate the First Amendment. Also in areas without newspapers or with only biased ones, sometimes the info about local candidates obtained by chatting with neighbors or candidates themselves is valuable info. We have a local paper that refuses to publish anything controversial. They've refused to publish anything on a councilman accused of sexually harassing women and other wrongdoing, for instanced. Voters have a right to know this info.

FB is also enjoyed by many for nonpolitical reasons. I like seeing photos and updates on relatives and friends across the country, for example. Our nonprofit utilizes Facebook to spread word about benefit events.

Activists use social media sites to organize major protest marches and rallies, such as the women's march , climate change and anti-gun rallies we've seen lately.

I run a wildfire alert service. During major fires, Twitter is a life-saving tool to warn people that a big fire threatens their area (reverse 911 calls regularly fail in rural areas where lines burn down and there's still no cell service). I also post on FB sites for our rural communities as a free public service.

Getting rid of Twitter and Facebook in our area would kill people, literally. In one recent fire our first Tweet went out 6 minutes after it started. The first official notification from our county didn't happen until an hour and a half after the fire started, when many homes had already burned down. I had people say they got our Tweet, looked outside and their fence was on fire. They barely got out with their lives.

Please don't call for ending services that are vital to protect lives in emergencies and keep people informed on local issues.

[airmid]

20. I agree. Not only that, who decides which sites are adanger? What will they shut down next once they

have this power? Will they decide that the trolls that can frequent places like DU make it intolerable and a danger and shut it down next? This is a slippery path and once gone down will be hard to pull back from.

[Hekate]

22. I'm with Stephanie on this. The problem is with Zuckerberg, who has turned out ...

...to be not so much of a boy genius as an idiot savant. He observes and uses social interactions, but seems to have the personal social consciousness of a clam.

Whether he wants to admit it or not, his company aided and abetted Treason. He scarcely seems able to grasp the harm caused to the nation by his own lack of interest in what entities like Cambridge Analytica hath wrought.

So -- the issue is: How do you get his attention? With a 2X4 upside the head? Or do you grab him where it will really hurt?

I understand a lot of people are addicted to FB, dependent on it, all kinds of stuff. Well, it is a monopoly and very attractive. But it is also a corporation that has harmed and is harming the nation, as much as if it were pouring lead into our drinking water.

Believe me, what Stephanie Ruhle is proposing would assuredly get Zuckerberg's undivided attention.

[SkyDancer]

23. I'm going to disagree

My business has a facebook "page" and I do a lot of business all because of it. Shutting down facebook would cause me along with millions of others massive financial loss. Facebook is very unique in this sense compared to any other social media sites out there, it allows for something other sites don't; direct contact with our customers in a way nobody else provides. I can easily interact with clients and often do, hold promotions & sales, something Twitter doesn't offer.

Just my thoughts.

[lancelyons]

24. Can't they block Russian Internet traffic somehow.

[DetlefK]

27. IIRC you can mask your IP-adress with a VPN.

[HipChick]

30. yup..pretty easy....I'm shocked Trump has not tried to pick up on this

a

[LuckyCharms]

25. Should have been shut down 2 years ago.

Until they get their shit together, they are a propaganda machine and a data breacher. Zuckerberg never took this seriously.

[redstatebluegirl]

26. If facebook goes so should twitter.

A lot of you LOVE twitter, including the great orange jabba the hut, but it is also a cesspool spewing all kinds of false nonsense and hate.

[Squinch]

29. Its a swamp of misinformation and social posturing. I wouldn't miss it.

[samnsara]

31. just dont log onto it...

..I weaned myself off it ages ago and got hooked on twitter... now I find DU has more timely news!

[kentuck]

32. Nationalize it!

and fix it!

[Tactical Peek]

33. Ground it until it is safe to fly.

Public safety demands it.

[kentuck]

37. Twitter may be more malevolent than Facebook?

I don't think it is possible to stop free speech. Those with ill intent need to be exposed.

[RhodeIslandOne]

40. There are plenty of Democrats who legit use Facebook to get their message out

Especially on the local level.

So no, not cool.

[oberliner]

41. Youtube also?

Twitter?

[hughee99]

42. How about instead of shutting it down, we hire someone

To drive around the country, find the people who vote base on information from people they don’t know on social media, smack them in the head and ask them “what the fuck is wrong with you?”. The problem isn’t the forum (Facebook, Twitter, etc...), the problem is the lazy, low information voters.

[fescuerescue]

43. Half a trillion dollar company

Even for the US government. That is alot of money.

That would make one HELLA of an eminient domain payment.

.

[fescuerescue]

44. Banning political discourse is something right out of the soviet playbook

Wouldn't that be amazing?

To counter Russian influence, we adopt soviet style policies.

[lagomorph777]

45. I'd never notice its absence; as far as I can tell it's always been evil

and I've avoided it.

[Skidmore]

47. SMH

Certainly we can allow as much free speech as possible and apply standards as exist in the non cyber world. In the real world, we don't go around taping everyone's mouth shut because some lie or curse. There is an expectation for civility with sanctions for those who violate rules.

[NCTraveler]

49. When facebook breaks laws they need to be investigated.

Hearings, regulations, reporting on them. All good.

Shut it down? That's just foolish.

[themaguffin]

51. I've never heard of her

[AllaN01Bear]

52. too bad we couldnt shut down faux noiZe and idiots. as wel. i got rid of tv a year ago

havnt read newspapers and listened to the radio since 2000 i quit fb for lent and advent.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

53. Silly Rule ...

[Devil Child]

54. If Facebook broke laws then investigate/prosecute

There is no grounds for "shutting down" facebook simply because one does not like the platform. Does anyone seriously think calling for social media blackouts is a winning strategy for Democrats? Why stop with Facebook, how about we go full authoritarian and declare a national emergency with total internet shut off.