Briefly put, the current fb issue involves, (alleged), claims that some fb practices/platforms are harmful to young pre-teen and teen girls, and did nothing because their actions were a legal part of their business model.
Politicians, pundits, and the MSM are demanding government intervention and regulation. The current talking-point highlight is a comparison to the 1990's tobacco issue.
So, put aside a determination of whether fb is guilty as charged, or liable in any way. Also, just as a what if, consider that the whistleblower claims that studies prove the damage to those pre-teens and young adults are true.
What is the government's duty and responsibility and what is the parent's?
I think parents and society have the most responsibility. I think the government will have a part to play, but it should be in areas of broad regulation establishing concepts, not in areas assuming the responsibility of censorship and access control that should be the parent's job.
"I think parents and society have the most responsibility. I think the government will have a part to play, but it should be in areas of broad regulation establishing concepts, not in areas assuming the responsibility of censorship and access control that should be the parent's job."
Agree 100%. We may need fewer middle class parents working full time jobs to get society back to a point of reasonable responsibility.
The govt is putting way too much pressure on FB to censor exactly what the govt wants it to. Then they say, "FB is a private entity and can do what it wants." Well, I don't think Zuckerberg would be censoring things like blaming Biden for inflation if it weren't for government pressure.
The whole thing of social media censoring something has become more than a little comical to me; it seems that everyone and their dog has a specific thing they want censored.
Business has been put in the position of trying to please all the people all the time - something we all know is impossible. In the specific matter in this thread it does seem that the parents are the ones responsible, not the govt. Even recognizing that our society has come to depend on govt. intervention rather than people's own efforts, this one is still on the parents.
This too, as far as people having their pet things they want censored. I just think the primary ones that are acted upon by the big social media entities are being forced or urged by the government.
I've watched a good deal of the hearings with FB, Google, Twitter execs, and it is eerie how much the Dems demand that they censor any type of political argument that they do not agree with. I also get to witness this with a contract job I've been doing.
This is in line with my feeling that the Dems are demanding that any opposition be severely censored. We're (or least I'm) not seeing it to anywhere near the extent from Republicans; instead Republicans are complaining that they are censored, not that they want the opposition censored.
And again it's just a feeling, but I think it goes beyond simple politics and into philosophy as well. Dems want anything not in line with their philosophy of how we should live censored while Republicans are (mostly) silent on the matter.
From my experience, your feeling is correct. Some of the work I am doing now, contracting for a big tech firm (for too low pay, lol) confirms to me that Dems are using the misinformation bandwagon to push an agenda and stifle most anything bad said about Biden and company. I can't say much, but I am not one of the ones actually making decisions on what is misinformation.
For example, on SM, you can say about anything about Trump without having it censored, or a fact check warning link under your post, but state gas prices have risen since Biden took office too many times and you are at risk of losing your account. There are fact checks of issues of importance to Dems, but they seem to be token efforts. It is very creepy.
The Dems are riding big tech about most everything being misleading. Meanwhile, I saw Republicans, like Dan Crenshaw tell the tech CEOs that his main concerns were things like sex trafficking, child abductions, etc...actual crimes.
A quick Google search did not get me a full video of the most recent hearings, only media re-hashes, but maybe I'll find one if I put some more time and effort into it.
Hi Sharlee. And, it is only contributing to even more distrust of government and media. I don't know how so many on the left cannot see this. This is one of the issues that makes me politically schizophrenic with the two choices we have in the US.
LOL "politically schizophrenic". I can sure sympathize with that one!
Registered as an independent, I don't fit very well with either party - both have some pretty major differences with what I think is right and what I think we need.
We need at least one more viable party. I know people have been saying this for years.
Some people think this makes for a good argument to changes our election system, such as getting rid of first past the post type voting. Of course, any changes, would have to be well thought out, and instituted by a neutral party if a neutral party could even exist in the US today.
Yes, I see where you are coming from. It really baffles me watching not only some of the agenda they hope to push through, but they certainly are not playing a smart game alienating many American's with --- not sure how to say this ... Their steamrolling anyone that disagrees with what they feel is "best for them or us I should say"... Not many like or accept others thinking for them.
"Their steamrolling anyone that disagrees with what they feel is "best for them or us I should say"... Not many like or accept others thinking for them."
This is the absolute truth. The cancel culture and "we are right cause we say so" is supported by the top Democrats, who happen to be in charge of the government right now. Alienated me.
I have several Democrat friends that have at this point regretted they voted for Biden, and are actually as afraid as I am of where he is attempting to take the country.
It almost seems like the Democrats in Washington are not even aware of the consequences that could come from supporting cancel culture. Example --- Biden sticking his nose in the state/local Governments attempting to cancel parents from voicing their concerns at school board meetings. Trying to threaten and silence parents with the DOJ and FBI investigations. Not to mention the DOJ bringing lawsuits against several states in regard to new voting laws they passed.
My gosh, the norm in America was always to encourage parents to be involved in their children's education. To take responsibility to be responsible for protecting our children from what we might find adverse to their education.
In my view, the Federal government is overstepping its boundaries. When the Federal government starts controlling our state we could become one state --- a state where identical laws blanket all, and one body Governs all.
Need I name that type of Governing? We have for many many years condemned Comunisuim and held respect for Democracy. A system that offers freedom, and allows one to thrive. So, do we now need to take a sharp turn, and allow the Federal Government to remove the freedoms we have enjoyed? Bullied by a Government to stay out of our children's education, what curriculum they are exposed to. One set of voting laws for all... Social media and media dictating what they feel we need to hear and read.
I hope more American's take a long hard look at what is being quickly ushered in by this administration. Because if one really takes a hard look and opens their eyes --- they will see the dangers that are ahead if we go down this road.
I think many in the last months are becoming very aware of where this administration is hoping to take us... And are have buyers remorse.
I have faith in the American people.
All of the things you speak of concern me also, very much so. It seems the Dems are going overboard with limiting freedoms and the ability to be self taught/self made in many ways. Perhaps the increased government help lately makes the Dems feel like they have increased power to tell us how to live?
I'm left-leaning economically but cannot support the costs in freedoms to have the increased government aid we see today.
Just to clarify, I did not vote for Biden. I voted for myself, lol.
I have more faith in the American people than I do any other peoples so we will see.
Relative to your Zuckerberg thought I don't think it was or is government pressure that caused FB to censor the things they did or do, I think it was their ideology and their perception of the ideology of their users that prompted them to act as they did.
I used to think this may be the case, and perhaps to a small extent it is. However, as I said, after watching large portions of two separate hearings, it seems clear to me that much of the censorship is being pushed upon big tech by Democrats.
Now you make me think a bit. Before you said it was government pressure and now you say Democrat pressure. If government and Democrat are the same to you, then I will stick with my first thought because I think they are different—even as I agree with your second "Democrat" thought.
Even though Democrat is a political power, it is not government. I think it is more the power of ideology than of regulation. Then again, maybe I am reading too much into your choice of descriptions and we are kinda saying the same thing. *shrug
Pressure from Democrats in the government who happen to hold the highest seat in the land and a slim majority in both Houses of Congress. Either way, it is government putting pressure on private business to censor things.
I think the kind of pressure you are discussing started, (or ramped up), during the Trump years. well before the Democrats gained government power and control. That is why I see it as ideological pressure instead of government pressure.
Yes, it seems it was put into overdrive during the Trump years. Difficult to argue when you put it that way. However, if the Dems solidify their hold at the federal level, your argument could get harder to make. I know that historically Dems are likely to lose seats in 2022 and it's not looking good for Biden in 2024 right now anyway.
Emphasis on Parents, "the village" taking such a large part in the raising of a child, has done/is doing, irrefutable harm.
Social media poses a real challenge to free speech — American's are committed to free speech or at least many are. But, is all speech appropriate? If what is being said is untrue, or meant to be non-sensical or even abhorrent.
The Facebook whistleblower has brought front and center an accusation that Facebook is directing harmful information to our youth, via algorithms that provide ads to our young that are psychologically harmful.
Among the allegations in the SEC filings are claims that Facebook and Instagram were aware in 2019 that the platforms were being used to "promote human trafficking and domestic servitude."
These are very serious accusations, and in my view, these accusations should work to wake parents up to the fact of how dangerous Facebook can be to their children psychologically. At this point, I feel it's up to the parents to take steps to keep a close eye on what their child is viewing and doing on social media.
Deciphering what is appropriate, and what isn't appropriate in regard to free speech, could become difficult for the very young, due to being susceptible to peer pressure. Pulling up a chair and talking to one's child about the problems that are occurring on social media couldn't hurt. I don't feel the Government can or should replace parenting. However, a few well-placed regulations would be more than suitable. Because at this point these problems that are affecting the young, are not new and will be hard to control unless some regulations are placed on social media outlets.
In this case, I am not looking for more details, (not that yours weren't appreciated), because my interest is in what part, if any, our government should play. My gut feeling is that the only crime(s) fb may have committed are going to be moral ones.
And with that thought in mind, I don't think fb did anything wrong. They are a private enterprise and they didn't force* anyone to participate. That thought holds for the private business' vaccine mandates issue also.
*(yeah, there are all kinds of force)
I don't want any tech to have the power of "deciphering" the appropriateness of any public speech. And I do recognize that as a private enterprise that users ask for, and by a user's agreement to their Terms of Service, we, (users) give them that power. And with a smile and a thank-you to boot.
I think this is a 21st-century issue that we are not prepared to handle. This looks like the current time's version of the pornography question: `I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Who gets to decide what is hate speech, or misinformation, etc.? I don't want our government in control of that decision, but, I really don't want big tech to have that control.
So for me, it's government regulation. At least we have some chance of participating in the processes that make such determinations. Now, considering our government's history of groundbreaking new regulation efforts, I will struggle to remain a `glass half full' optimist.
" My gut feeling is that the only crime(s) fb may have committed are going to be moral ones." I agree.
However, to be technical it's the algorithms that are programmed, that are the culprits in the case where inappropriate immoral ads are sent to users. It's algorithms that decipher what they hope you will be interested in. And it's human beings programming those algorithms. So, you may not want any tech to have the power of "deciphering" the appropriateness of any public speech. --- but thus far that is what one gets on the internet. A young tech person that chooses what will be directed your way.
At this point, it is clear that social media enterprises are running the show... You receive what they want you to receive. And as a rule, the more you search, looking for another view, the more of what they want you to see is what you get. And it has become very evident, that much of what we get is half-truths or context that has been well skewed. Propaganda.
So, if we are dammed if we do - and dammed if we don't where do we go from here?
And I hope you remain optimistic, it's a tool that will serve you well.
I don't care for censorship in most every instance. It is the parents responsibilty to monitor the behavior of their children.
by peterstreep 2 years ago
Facebook is a publisher. Like a newspaper or magazine. Newspapers and magazines do and can not publish everything they want as they have to abide by the law. And so can be held accountable if they are promoting hatred towards groups of people, defamation of a person or spreading outright lies like...
by Sharlee 16 months ago
On Thursday, Psaki was asked a question regarding the Biden administration’s request for tech companies to be more "aggressive" when policing what they referred to as "misinformation." Psaki revealed that the White House is "in regular touch with social media...
by ga anderson 6 months ago
Elon Musk Offers to buy Twitter for $43 Billion dollarsThe link is a Google search quey. Pick your source for details. The short story is that we are about to see a battle of titans. America's richest man vs. the capital interests involved with Twitter. Musk has offered $43 Billion, and `they' say...
by ga anderson 2 years ago
This is a tricky one for me. I am a firm Capitalist. I believe in private companies' rights.But, like our nationally regulated gas, power, and light utilities, has the internet and social media platforms reached utility status?I think it can be reasonably argued that internet access has become as...
by Silas Nyamweya 4 days ago
Guys, what is the best approach to promote your articles on social media? anybody with a good idea?
by Angie B Williams 6 months ago
The FB post shared, does a great job at explaining what I and so many others have been up against, throughout all of social media, for far too long. Hopefully, things are changing for the better.Thoughts?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|