For the ten-thousandth time: getting banned on Facebook is not censorship. When it gets brought up in other countries, it is the governments of those countries doing it.
Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest.
> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
Marsh v Alabama may not currently apply to digital spaces, but it's not inconceivable that in the future there will be another SCOTUS ruling to clarify this new emerging scenario.
I am familiar with that topic too, but like you said it doesn't apply to the internet.
I suspect the conditions that it is offered at will matter. If I offer my land for yoga I probably can still filter someone who tries to hold a practice for their rock band.
ELUAs and such would come into play.
Let alone that I'm not yet sure if SCOTUS as a group really understands technology.
Sure it does. FB is a communication platform that adheres to the principles of free speech or it isn't.
Here, they are demonstrating (among other times) that they do not believe in free speech. It is their right. Just as it is their right to collect user data and resell it.
The ramification being that some people my choose to understand the world differently from you. The answer to that worry is to make compelling points in your favour, or maybe try to understand the other side of the argument. Freedom comes at the expense of security, and security in this instance is overstepping its boundaries.
It is censorship. It isn't government backed and hence legal, but it is by definition censorship.
Telling people to divest from facebook is as helpful as telling a chinese citizen to leave china if they don't like government censorship. Especially if facebook becomes entrenched and monopolistic. Also, considering facebook has more power and reach than almost every country in the world, perhaps it's time to think about censorship and corporate power.
After all, government censorship was the norm until we decided that governments have gotten too powerful to allow to exist unchecked. Perhaps it's time to think of large corporations in the same manner.
And there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never made any sense
> And there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never made any sense
What makes no sense is thinking Facebook is on the left.
Facebook will be standing right in with the tighty-righty GOPpers when it comes to regulating or taxing it.
Robert Mercer's SCL Group, owners of Cambridge Analytica who worked on the Trump campaign, and campaigns for Cruz and Romney before that, is supposed to be very rightwing. Which made me wonder if the FB/CA deal wasn't the first case but the first one called out, and could Murdoch's myspace have ever been played with comparably, earlier?
Your right, it is worse than that, it's a consortium of governments, NATO and corporate interests that so generously donate to the Council;
>The Atlantic Council’s president and CEO sent a seven-page letter to Hagel Friday that included a list of foreign corporations, governments and government entities that fund the organization. The list includes roughly 100 corporations and 15 foreign governments, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The amount of funding from each entity is not listed.
Facebook is not your government? They don't control a military or police force? Of course, censorship is censorship, and those kinds of details are irrelevant. What is important is that we develop powerful skills in equivocation and conflation.
