Suggesting that Facebook, YouTube, or whatever should be shut down is folly.

[MineralMan]

Actually, it is worse than folly. It is downright stupid.

Maybe you don't like Facebook. Perhaps you consider Facebook to be just a comfortable home for right-wingers, constantly posting lies and misinformation. So, since you don't like it, you want to ban it from existence? Really?

Hmm...perhaps you should rethink. Banning things you don't like from public availability is pretty harsh. It's also unconstitutional, and downright authoritarian. Doing things like that is what fascists do.

Lots of people don't like Democratic Underground. Right-wingers hate any social media forum that says things they don't like. If they could, they would shut them all down and only allow social media outlets of which they approve. We'd immediately recognize that as an authoritarian, unfair, and unconstitutional thing to do and oppose it loudly.

There is no difference at all. And, if you look objectively at Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or any number of other Internet venues, you'll notice that every political party, candidate, and issue is represented on them. Nobody with the power to do so can shut such venues down, and only the government has such power. Here's the important thing:

The government in this country is prohibited from shutting down free expression and speech. That was the First Amendment to be added to the US Constitution. It was THAT IMPORTANT.

So, before you suggest that some platform be eliminated because you don't like what shows up on that platform, imagine having your own favorite venues shut down by people who disagree with your points of view. Once you do that, you will understand why that doesn't happen. Everyone gets the opportunity to speak. You do. I do. Even people with whom we vehemently disagree have that same opportunity.

What would Trump shut down?

Think longer before saying stupid things, please. What you are asking for could easily be turned around and aimed at you.

[Srkdqltr]

1. Well said

A lot of the folks who would dump Facebook would go nuts if DU was closed down. A lot of folks don't know how to work Facebook or Twitter (I don't do Twitter although I read stuff from there) my Facebook page doesn't have a lot of misinformation as I delete it and those who push it. Shutting down these platforms is not a good idea.

[MineralMan]

3. Exactly. Anyone who wants to quash speech they dislike

is not thinking clearly. Sometimes, people are in power who would shut down your speech, too. The only thing keeping them from doing that is that pesky First Amendment. We need to guard that for our own sakes, even if it means that people we don't like get to speak too.

We need to be careful about what we demand. Others have a different set of demands.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

16. Does the entire world have the same 1A rights?

If all FB feeds of US citizens are flooded with lies and propaganda from intelligence agencies of our global enemies, is that okay, and hands off FB, cause the 1A?

[MineralMan]

24. Oddly, I have never seen any of that on my FB feed.

Not once. So, apparently it's not "all feeds."

[Hugh_Lebowski]

27. Whether you've seen it, or it's universal, is irrelevant ...

People DO get foreign-based propaganda in their feeds, we learned this about the 2016 election, for example. Or your 'friends' might forward it to you.

So ... consider it a rhetorical question.

[MineralMan]

28. I actually don't see anything political on my feed, except

the odd post by a friend I haven't hidden yet.

It's not irrelevant when you makes statements that include "all FB feeds." In fact, it's highly relevant that people can use FB without seeing any such stuff.

I don't post anything political on FB, which is why I don't see anything political, pretty much.

Now, Facebook could make rules if it liked, but enforcing those kinds of rules gets very expensive. I have seen some FB notices on post about COVID-19 that were questionable, so it does make some rules and tries to notify its users about questionable stuff.

Generally, though, such rules are enforced by using AI to monitor posts. AI can do some things, but interpreting language is not something it does very well. Too many words have multiple meanings. Take the word "fanny," for example. It can mean buttocks, female vulva, or can even be someone's name. AI can't distinguish word meanings very well without a lot of programming, and AI programming is very expensive.

Again, who decides? That's always the question, isn't it. Typically, those in power decide. Whether we agree with them or not.

Good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

34. Go back to my first question in the header of my first post ...

Not talking about 'your feed personally' really. Forget I said 'all feeds', and make it 'some feeds'. Not talking about AI, I absolutely already know everything about it you just described, I'm not talking about the practicality, necessarily.

The point is ... philosophically ... does the government have a 'right' ... to pressure FB/Twitter/IG/TikTok etc ... to limit the 'free speech' of FOREIGNERS ... on these platforms, in the USA?

Put another way, if NBC News had decided it wanted to air the speeches of Hitler from 1941-1944, live on the air in the USA ... would the government have been within its rights to quash that from happening? Or would the 1A have still applied?

[CaptainTruth]

37. My understanding is if it's distributed in the US, 1A covers it.

"Distributed" could mean broadcast (NBC News broadcasting Hitler's speeches), or published, for example, think about how many books by foreign authors are published in the US. It doesn't matter that the author is foreign & the original content was created outside the US, as soon as it becomes content that's available for consumption in the US ("consumption" meaning viewing, hearing, reading, etc) it's covered by 1A.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

40. So, the 1A leaves us 100% vulnerable, under all conditions, to foreign propaganda manipulating

the population of our country, and the federal government is helpless to prevent that under any circumstances, i.e. the Constitution guarantees absolute 1st Amendment rights to all of our foreign enemies, not just US Citizens?

I would hazard to say, if that's case ... we're screwed in the long run. And probably not even that long.

[MineralMan]

58. Well, it wouldn't have been smart for NBC News to do that.

Look at it another way, though. NBC News and all of he other media outlets aired Twitlers speeches almost universally. I didn't have to watch those speeches, though, so I didn't.

The US government did not have to "squash" Hitler's speeches. There was no need to do so. And the networks carried Trumps speeches because he was, amazingly, POTUS. Pretty much anything a US President says is news, by definition. What foreign leaders say is pretty much not news, though, on a regular basis.

Most Internet social media venues are international in nature to some degree. So, pretty much anything can be found on them. They have members and audiences all over the planet.

What US-based news programs present is certainly protected by the First Amendment. It's that pesky 'free press" clause, isn't it?

[RestoRay]

56. What the critics don't understand is what they see on Facebook, YouTube, etc...

is based on their web browsing history and Google searches. The reason they see a lot of right-wing propaganda is because they consume it all over the Internet. These people probably spend a lot of time reading and responding to right-wing posts, so the algorithm shows them more of this stuff because it thinks they’re interested.

[Demsrule86]

19. We used to say, I hate what you just said, but I would die for your right to say it...

[Kaleva]

2. Leave YouTube alone!. I'm watching vids on fermenting tomatoes.

[MineralMan]

4. Yeah! I'm watching videos of volcanoes in Iceland and

instructional videos on all sorts of subjects. I even watch videos of some guy in Flatbush eating sardines, of all things.

I choose the content I view. I don't want someone else choosing for me.

[Kaleva]

5. Same here. I find it to be a great resource that's costs me nothing but time

Same with Facebook. It's the best way I know of that allows me to keep in contact with extended family, high school friends and former shipmates who are all over the country or even overseas.

[Mme. Defarge]

6. I saved money on an appliance repair bill

by watching a video on how to replace an oven sensor.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes. I replaced a belt on my clothes dryer after

watching a YouTube video on how to do that on my exact model. Saved me at least $200 or the cost of buying a new one. It turned out to be an easy job, too, and the parts I needed were available on Amazon, another website people like to hate.

[Mme. Defarge]

11. Amazon!

Yes, that’s where I got my replacement oven sensor. It’s the Sears catalog of the 21st Century.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes, pretty much anything you might want can be found

there, often from independent sellers who use Amazon to make it easy for customers to find weird stuff. eBay used to be pretty good for that, but Amazon has them beat.

[CaptainTruth]

41. As a professional contractor who gets calls from my customers to fix everything that breaks...

...I use various appliance repair tech support forums & YouTube all the time. After having no initial experience at all with air conditioning repair, I've actually gotten quite good at A/C repairs since I moved to Florida because 90% of the time it's something relatively simple that requires an inexpensive part. Of course, having an electrical engineering degree, which included classes on thermodynamics, helps a lot because I understand how each part of the system *should* work, which makes it a lot easier to test a system & isolate the fault.

[Kaleva]

12. I've fixed the microwave, fridge, washer, dryer and dishwasher watching Youtube.

The motor that spins the plate in the microwave, the pumps on the dishwasher and washing machine, the high limit on the dryer, the evaporator fan motor on the fridge and fixing the icemaker on the fridge.

[Srkdqltr]

8. There are great tutorials on quilting. YouTube is great.

Just don't watch the junk

[USALiberal]

47. Or watch what you want! Nt

[Srkdqltr]

60. Of course.

[leftstreet]

9. Social media is the peoples media

It's interactive, as opposed to the 4 or 5 corporations that tell us what we should be talking about

[Haggard Celine]

10. I agree that we can't shut those platforms down.

The problem I have with some of the speech on Facebook and others is the proliferation of dangerously false information. It's one thing if someone starts a platform called Bullshit and everybody understands that people are just posting lies. But if people start believing everything on Bullshit and it affects public health, there needs to be a way to stop people from posting garbage about how the vaccines are poison and how horse paste is the best cure for what ails us.

I realize that there are concerns about free speech. Some people are free speech absolutists, like Alex Jones. They push the limit all the way with the trash they put out, and they in turn endanger free speech more than any censor ever would. It's a problem without an easy answer, but something is going to have to be done about it sooner or later. Some of that 'free speech' is a danger to the peace and public health.

[Kaleva]

13. The library divides books into fiction and non-fiction. There is no such division on social media

[Demsrule86]

15. And at the library, not all books classified as non-fiction are true either.

[Kaleva]

20. You are correct but I was trying to make a very generalized point.

[Demsrule86]

70. I know what you me. But truth is relative anf not often black and white...except for math of course

but even there, we have pesky imaginary numbers. Who can decide what the truth is in more than a few cases? I submit it is bettet to let everyone have their say. I still believe 'the truth will out` in the end.

[Harker]

38. As a lifetime bookshop guy, that's one of the maxims I live by.

Also that there's often great truth in fiction.

[NoSheep]

43. You are right about that!

"...not all books classified as non-fiction are true either"

[Demsrule86]

17. Consider there is no constitution mandate that free speech only applies top that speech which

is true. I want free speech period. Now a commercial website has the right to ban content that goes against its rules.

[Kaleva]

23. I agree with you. We can't have the good without the bad.

I'm perfectly okay though with privately owned social media platforms censoring what is posted on their sites.

[Demsrule86]

18. You will never stop some from believing stupid crap...

Free speech is absolute in my opinion. And nothing will be done as it would violate our constitution. I can only imagine what Trump would do with such power.

[Haggard Celine]

30. I understand your position, and I can sympathize.

It just seems like we're headed toward a major collision between reality and the land of make believe, and it looks like it could go either way. I don't have an answer for how to deal with it, but the clash is coming. I just hope that the crazy doesn't infect half of the population or more.

[RestoRay]

64. It's like shutting down the phone company.

Facebook, like the telephone, is way for people to communicate with each other. It would be like shutting down Verizon because people tell lies on the phone.

[Demsrule86]

14. Exactly right. I use Facebook for family stuff delete political posts and block the poster.

[Justice matters.]

21. Agreed. But we can ridicule it by name-calling it what it is: FaRcebook.

Although I wouldn't mind shutting down murderous fux noises.

[MineralMan]

29. Interestingly enough, that is a judgment you can make quite easily.

If you consider it to be such, you can simply never visit the venue. Lots of people don't, including many of those who would like to see it shut down.

And yes, you can ridicule Facebook. Many do. That is your right of free expression at work.

[Voltaire2]

22. Regulated. NT.

[MineralMan]

26. Hmm....Like movies used to be?

That didn't work out very well, I think.

They tried to ban some books, too. That also failed in time.

The question is: Who does the regulating? It's the same question, though, that I posed.

Who decides? Answer that, and you've answered the entire thing.

[Voltaire2]

59. Not like movies as movies are massively

dissimilar to social media platforms.

[Hortensis]

44. "No yelling fire in a crowded nation" regulation is needed.

We need to be able to stop the use of free speech to destroy it. I'm imaginging special courts with investigatory powers.

But otherwise, agree. We're seeing wonderful possibilities of the internet that were once only imagined become reality, and we need to protect it and make sure it remains available to everyone.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. I think there is an argument for both antitrust and FCC interventions

Social media should be treated as publishers, not platforms, and subject to the same liabilities. Monopolistic companies should be broken up to encourage competition.

[CaptainTruth]

53. Except there's no legal difference between a publisher & a platform.

Common misconception, explained pretty clearly here:

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Publisher or Platform? It Doesn't Matter.

“You have to choose: are you a platform or a publisher?”

It’s the question that makes us pull out our hair and roll our eyes. It’s the question that makes us want to shout from the rooftops “IT DOESN’T MATTER. YOU DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE”

We’ll say it plainly here: there is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform” as opposed to a “publisher.” Yes. That’s right. There is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform.” Nor does the law treat online services differently based on their ideological “neutrality” or lack thereof.

There is no common law or statutory significance to the word “platform.” It is not found in Section 230 at all.

...more...

[link:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter|]

[Fiendish Thingy]

68. Well laws and regulations must make clear "platforms" can't pass on liability to users via TOS

Platforms/publishers must be liable just as broadcasters are, for the content they publish.

[Oliver Bolliver Butt]

32. don't ban, but hold them legally liable for the content that they publish

[brooklynite]

33. Add to which...

Taking away a platform where people say things you don't like doesn't stop them; it just moves them to a different platform that you're not privy to.

I read a QANON forum regularly, so I know what ideas are circulating among them.

[CaptainTruth]

35. Agree 100%. So is saying they should be "broken up."

I've seen folks saying Facebook (or banks or whoever) should be "broken up" yet no one has been able to explain exactly what they think such a move would accomplish, or how it would presumably make anything better.

In the case of Facebook, let's say for the sake of argument, that their functionality could somehow be split into 5 different areas & each of those areas became a separate company. And let's assume that you think Facebook should be broken up because they're too powerful when it comes to harvesting & selling your personal information. Well, congratulations, you now have 5 companies who want to harvest & monetize your information & most of them don't have their brand on the face of the site (which comes with a stock price that's influenced by brand image, which the company needs to maintain for shareholder satisfaction) so some of those companies are likely to do things far more unscrupulous than anything Facebook has done just because they can get away with it. That has made the problem worse, not better.

"Breaking up" companies is not the answer to problems with the use of personal data. Regulation is the answer. Look across the pond to the EU where they have much stronger data protection regulations than we do in the US, this problem has already been solved.

[Xolodno]

36. Prohibition never works.

All you do is force them onto another platform.

The mis-information that is being shared by other facebook, youtube, etc. users. I've asked politely of family and friends to lay off on all the political stuff. More or less was told to fuck off in a polite way. One relative went to visit another once and asked them if they read his political posts. They told him "no" and really don't care to. It surprised him but sure didn't stop him.

I think they are looking more for validation of their views with the likes and agreeing comments. Show them proof they are wrong, all you do is irritate them and they double down on crazy.

A few just simply deleted on the friends list (and some have deleted me when they can't over come the evidence I present). Others I unfollowed. But I have taken to alerting on false information. Everyone once in awhile, it gets tagged as false and they go ballistic and how facebook is censoring them, etc. Most of the time, it doesn't get hit.

Perhaps one way to curtail things, have facebook create its own political groups where you can opt in to join. Similar to when internet forums were more prevalent for specific interests. But if you insist on pushing politics in the general feed, you get alerted and if found to be true, get a 30 day ban.

[Hekate]

39. KnR

[Orrex]

42. Every time I mention Facebook here...

A chorus of DU’s moral gatekeepers leaps up to scold me for using that forbidden platform.

They assure me that faxes, emails and letters are just as good at conveying information as Facebook. Better, in fact, because of reasons.

[MineralMan]

46. There's never a shortage of people to tell you what you shouldn't do.

Most of them have no real information to offer, though - just more propaganda from somewhere else.

People tell me I see too much false stuff on Facebook. When I tell them I don't see any political stuff there, they don't believe me. That tells me that they don't actually use Facebook themselves, or dipped into it briefly and then fled from the place.

Like every platform that allows you to customize your experience, Facebook will let you tailor the site to suit your own needs and interests. Where else can find a group of people who make unique tubas from different parts from different manufacturers? The Frankentuba group is exactly that. Maybe a couple hundred people for whom that is a primary interest.

Guess what? On that private group, any political discussion gets you tossed out of the group. There are many groups on FB that forbid all political discussion. I'm a member of several such FB groups, and they are where I spend most of my FB time. My own feed is politics-free as well. Anyone who spouts politics gets hidden.

[dpibel]

65. As in "You shouldn't talk smack about Facebook"?

That kind of telling people what they ought not do?

[ancianita]

45. Thank you! Someone has to clarify the issues on eliminating platforms, & you're the person to do it.

Much appreciated.

[MineralMan]

49. You're too kind!

Thanks.

[Initech]

48. Yeah I hate what Facebook has turned this country into.

But no way would I advocate for it being shut down. Or Tik Tok or Youtube or Twitter or any other platform. There should be some way to comply with the rules against hate speech on forums, but a total shut down? Hell no!

Just do what I do and alert the trolls when you see them. That's how we stop this madness.

[MineralMan]

50. It's not Facebook that has done that.

People have done that, and they do it wherever they are, frankly.

None of the people I know on Facebook do anything like that. As usual, it is a minority that does.

[Initech]

54. My point is that there's trolls everywhere.

On every social media platform. On every forum you post on. They are out to flip your beliefs and turn you into against everything that is good and decent in this world. Thet made hate, fearmongering, racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia fashionable again.

The enemy is not the platforms. It's the brainwashing trolls. It's the memes. It's the bullshit "news" sites that are peddling propaganda and attempting to disguise opinions as actual news sites.

It's not the platforms that are the problem. It's the users and feeds that are out to change your opinion that are. And they're not changing it for the better. They're changing it for worse. If this crap had been around in WWII, we'd currently be under Nazi rule.

[MineralMan]

55. I'm sorry, but I see none of that anywhere I go on the Internet.

I don't take politics online in general or specialized forums, except here on DU. That's not my style at all.

I don't see any politics on Facebook, really. No ads. Nothing in my news feeds. That's probably because I never talk about politics myself, nor do I search for political content on the venues I frequent. I have many interests. For political discussion, I come to DU, and I'm here a lot. I don't need it on Facebook or Twitter. So, I don't see it there.

[Voltaire2]

62. So you've generalized your experience.

Perhaps a serious error on your part?

[RestoRay]

66. What he's saying is anyone else can have the same experience.

If you don’t use Facebook for political news and opinion, you won’t see any. If you engage on political topics then Facebook is going to keep giving you more. Facebook shows you things that your account data says you’re interested in.

[Voltaire2]

61. Oh now you've demonstrated

ignorance about what Facebook is doing and how it does what it is doing.

The toxicity and the rightwing slant of Facebook are deliberate and very much part of the algorithm used to control what is in everyone’s Facebook stream.

[Initech]

63. Oh yeah I agree. I don't use Facebook.

But on the platforms I do use, I block and report that shit everywhere I see it. It makes things so much better.

[Sugarcoated]

51. Just about everyone I know on FB is liberal or moderate

I'm one friend shy of a thousand FB friends. Facebook is what you make it, it's a communication tool.

[MineralMan]

52. Yeah, me too, except for a few family members who

are Republicans. They keep politics off limits, too, for the most part. I have to keep my family folks as friends. They're family. We talk about family things.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

57. Agreed

[LanternWaste]

67. I s'pose suggesting Facebook to shut down is as practical, valid and realistic as...

(for example) suggesting a politician we may not favor to "stop! Just stop" as they attempt policy, or run for an office.

Yup... "worse than folly" indeed!

[hunter]

69. The problem isn't Facebook. The problem is people with no critical thinking skills.

Such people are easily manipulated by the oligarchs of this world.

Half the U.S. economy is dependent upon the same sort of people who voted for Trump, people whose primary motivation is fear and anxiety.

The "Left" has its own share of fearful anxious people lacking in critical thinking skills.

Corrupt political parties, billionaires, and religions are constantly provoking these fears and anxieties on television, radio, and social media such as Facebook. That's how they sell their bullshit.

It's surprisingly easy to exclude most of that noise from one's life.

With that noise gone one might think about how to improve the critical thinking skills of the general population.

Two great defects of the United States have always been racism and anti-intellectualism. If we can tackle those problems directly then Facebook might become a nicer place. I don't think Facebook is the cause of these problems, even though Mark Zuckerburg has become one of the oligarchs who has profited mightily from them.

As I understand it, Facebook is overrun by xenophobes promoting their anti-intellectual religious beliefs and ideologies.

There are plenty of people like that in my own "real life" community as well. It's a lot more awkward to "unfriend" the hopelessly anti-intellectual people and racists in real life, but maybe I have a reputation such that they mostly avoid me.

[uponit7771]

71. Facebook is more than just "expression" right now