Facebook Throttling Liberal Sites For Years

[Machismo]

No, they're part of the same problem. The algorithm failing to attack conservative posters who violate the ToS is a problem. The same algorithm is attacking leftwingers for not violating the ToS.

It would be different if Facebook told all of its leftwinger users to fuck off. They just secretly held them to different moderation standards instead.

Once again, that does nothing for the conspiracy theories.

There will still be people spreading misinformation and lies.

[Ivanstone]

Once again, that does nothing for the conspiracy theories.

There will still be people spreading misinformation and lies.

Except some of that misinformation and lies is explicitly against Facebook's ToS.

[Machismo]

Except some of that misinformation and lies is explicitly against Facebook's ToS.

And they ban that shit like crazy.

[Edge-]

And they ban that shit like crazy.

They're starting to take it more seriously after largely refusing to take action for years and years.

But like...misinformation has grown and become more sticky over the years too - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/t...n-in-2016.html

Interactions with misinformation have more than tripled since 2017.

And Facebook even directs people to misinformation - https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ormation-study

Again, they're starting to take it more seriously. But it's gotten so ludicrously out of hand and they're so far behind the 8 ball that I doubt they can get any kind of control over it without extremely drastic action, which they won't take.

[Machismo]

They're starting to take it more seriously after largely refusing to take action for years and years.

But like...misinformation has grown and become more sticky over the years too - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/t...n-in-2016.html

Interactions with misinformation have more than tripled since 2017.

And Facebook even directs people to misinformation - https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ormation-study

Again, they're starting to take it more seriously. But it's gotten so ludicrously out of hand and they're so far behind the 8 ball that I doubt they can get any kind of control over it without extremely drastic action, which they won't take.

Yes, misinformation is rampant, no doubt about it. But, it's still protected speech, and their ToS is very subjective on how they enforce it.

They are not obligated to be the world's fact checkers, not even on their own site.

[Edge-]

But, it's still protected speech

Like...for the First Amendment? Because if that's what you mean then like...it's not.

and their ToS is very subjective on how they enforce it.

Agreed, which is the source of a ton of the problems.

They are not obligated to be the world's fact checkers, not even on their own site.

You're right, but when the misinformation spreading through their site, that they're often promoting, causes real world harm, it becomes an issue they need to address.

[Machismo]

Like...for the First Amendment? Because if that's what you mean then like...it's not.



Agreed, which is the source of a ton of the problems.



You're right, but when the misinformation spreading through their site, that they're often promoting, causes real world harm, it becomes an issue they need to address.

Yes, lies and conspiracy theories are protected speech. If someone is saying something that is against the law, then arrest their asses. It's still not on Facebook.

Betting on the gullibility and ignorance of others is not necessarily criminal. Saying that Covid-19 is a hoax is not a criminal act.

[Edge-]

Yes, lies and conspiracy theories are protected speech.

Not on Facebook, it's not. Or anywhere on the internet really, for that matter. Only place where that applies is government sites that allow comments etc. or Trump's Twitter account, which is an official government communication channel.

If someone is saying something that is against the law, then arrest their asses. It's still not on Facebook.

It's on Facebook to report that, or forward user reports. Facebook isn't legally liable for those comments, though if they see them and refuse to take action that may muddy the waters a bit.

Betting on the gullibility and ignorance of others is not necessarily criminal. Saying that Covid-19 is a hoax is not a criminal act.

No, but per your own previous definition it's directly harmful to others. That's the exact type of situation where the government should step in, especially if Facebook is promoting that dangerous misinformation, no?

[Machismo]

Not on Facebook, it's not. Or anywhere on the internet really, for that matter. Only place where that applies is government sites that allow comments etc. or Trump's Twitter account, which is an official government communication channel.



It's on Facebook to report that, or forward user reports. Facebook isn't legally liable for those comments, though if they see them and refuse to take action that may muddy the waters a bit.



No, but per your own previous definition it's directly harmful to others. That's the exact type of situation where the government should step in, especially if Facebook is promoting that dangerous misinformation, no?

Then, Facebook can take them down, if they want, as it's their property. They don't have to take them down.

If Facebook sees it, they can report it, just like you can. Just because they absorb massive amounts of data, doesn't mean they are actually parsing through it all.

No, it's not harmful, per my previous definition. I'm not sure how you figure that. So... no.

[postman1782]

Nobody's perfect. But since posting Mark Dice and Paul Joseph Watson videos here gets you banned now, I'll refrain so you can continue to enjoy my august presence.

Peddling conspiracy theories is a bannable offense, yes. And both of them are conspiracy theorists. But I highly doubt you were banned for posting those.

[SirBeef]

This article and post are clearly from the Mirror Universe.

LOL. Whatever flat-earther. Of course you don't believe facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody's perfect. But since posting Mark Dice and Paul Joseph Watson videos here gets you banned now, I'll refrain so you can continue to enjoy my august presence.

Posting conspiracies from know conspiracy peddlers goes against those rules you agreed to follow. But yet here you are complaining about getting punished for not following rules you agreed to.

[Ivanstone]

If Facebook sees it, they can report it, just like you can. Just because they absorb massive amounts of data, doesn't mean they are actually parsing through it all.

No, it's not harmful, per my previous definition. I'm not sure how you figure that. So... no.

Their parsing is sufficiently fine-tuned and prevalent that they can distinguish between conservative and leftwing posting.

And lying about the effects of a global pandemic is causing harm. Facebook had to be shamed into taking action which is why their ToS doesn't tolerate Covid-related conspiracies anymore.

[Machismo]

Their parsing is sufficiently fine-tuned and prevalent that they can distinguish between conservative and leftwing posting.

And lying about the effects of a global pandemic is causing harm. Facebook had to be shamed into taking action which is why their ToS doesn't tolerate Covid-related conspiracies anymore.

Great, then let me know when you prosecute all those people posting those lies.

[Felya]

LOL. Whatever flat-earther. Of course you don't believe facts.

Based on everything we know, why does everyone think he is being ironic?

[Antiganon]

I regularly shit on Facebook both online and in person. I'd rather force them to change their behaviour. It worked for breastfeeding pictures with no government involvement.

I find it fascinating that your against contract law. I guess you must be some hermit who lives in the words and swipes internet and electricity from some unsuspecting neighbour. Its pretty hard to avoid it otherwise.

What nonsense is this you keep posting about ToS being some equally balanced enforceable contract?

It's Facebook's ToS. They wrote it. In exchange for using their platform, you agree to follow it. If you don't, they reserve the right to ban you from their platform.

They are under no obligation from their ToS to ban anyone. They could choose to ban nobody and be in the clear as far as contract law is concerned.

The proper pressure to apply to Facebook regarding the free passes they give conservative shit posters is social pressure, not legal pressure.

Where legal pressure is appropriate is when Facebook is harming the business interests of their contract partners, e.g. people who have paid for ad space or content promotion. If Facebook isn't delivering the ad views specified in the contract, or they aren't promoting the content as specified in the contract, they are in violation of contract law and a civil suit would be the appropriate remedy to seek restitution of funds paid for services not rendered.

[SirBeef]

Based on everything we know, why does everyone think he is being ironic?

I'm not sure he could be ironic if he tried. He lacks the critical thinking needed to understand irony.

[silveth]

Even so, as a private company, I don't see the problem with this. Neither does anyone that believes in free speech.

Well I do. If you are going to claim protects of a platform and then are manipulating the speech on your platform, you are not a platform.

It's the same for both sides, If you claim to be a platform and edit the content that users post, you are a publisher. You are controlling what it there. You should not have platform protection. So they should be liable for their content. A paper is, a tv show is, a singer is, a radio host is, etc.

Why not Facebook?

They are not acting like the phone company or the electric company, or the cable company.

If it's illegal, then block it. Otherwise they should let the users decided what they want to write, read, and see. Full stop.

I am kind of old fashioned that way. I will defend left and right when it comes to free speech. Even if I disagree with what they are saying.

Like the Democrats use to be. How they decided to give that to Republicans I will never understand.

[Elegiac]

It's the same for both sides, If you claim to be a platform and edit the content that users post, you are a publisher. You are controlling what it there. You should not have platform protection. So they should be liable for their content. A paper is, a tv show is, a singer is, a radio host is, etc.

Why not Facebook?

Because moderation is not "editing content". It's the digital analogue to kicking a racist customer out of your bar because they're disrupting other patrons.

Y'all are terrible at this.

[Endus]

Well I do. If you are going to claim protects of a platform and then are manipulating the speech on your platform, you are not a platform.

It's the same for both sides, If you claim to be a platform and edit the content that users post, you are a publisher.

This is absolute nonsensical hogwash that has no basis in any law. You're literally making shit up and pretending it's a legal argument.

[NED funded]

Average traffic from Facebook to our content decreased 37 percent between the six months prior to the change and the six months after.

So Mother Jones' traffic was already decreasing and just continued to decrease thereafter???

I dont get it, yeah conservative oulters perform better on Facebook bc old people (which are conservative) have more presence on the platform. Doesnt seem like its out of line, like this story would be believable if we were given a picture of the slide or at least a description of the type of changes implemented

Im going to sleep on this story until more infor comes out.