Facebook Parent Company Meta loses record $230B in one day.

[Meeho]

All this "Intercept" article is exposing is that government can flag posts they are concerned about. Your mother-in-law can flag a post she is concerned about too. This does not make Facebook content moderation a wing of your mother-in-law.

It just brings it to the attention of the content moderators who then make a decision about it, independently of the government.

LOL. LMAO even.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Nope. Consult a lawyer.

It's going to depend on the details

If its just a top level "man these cellphone towers could be harmful" type of thing, then yeah, not imminent, probably not prohibited speech.

If its a "let's meet on <date> and attack that damn tower that is giving us COVID", then it follows the Brandenburg test to a tee.

There are obviously going to be statements that range between these "clear out" and "clear in" cases, in which case much judgment and legal discussion would need to be had to try to determine if they apply. Rarely is the real world this black or white.

It's going to depend on the detailed specifics of each individual case, which is what makes these decisions so difficult.

But again, I'm not a lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV)

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

You're making my point. It is not illegal. It could be if-then. You were wrong and are now just adding qualifiers that people already pointed out.

Well, there are two different definitions here. The first is whether or not something is protected speech or not. The second is whether or not that speech violated a law.

There are four ways this could go.

1.) Speech did not violate law, and is not protected: Nothing happens

2.) Speech did not violate the law and is protected: Nothing happens

3.) Speech violated a law, but the speech was protected (as defined in the Brandenburg test). Then the law is either struck down (or it is deemed such an unusual case, that it is overruled for just this instance)

4.) Speech violated the law, but the speech was not protected (as defined in the Brandenburg test): There could be legal consequences for said speech.

So, just because the speech winds up falling into a category of not being protected, doesn't mean it is necessarily illegal (though it usually is, for th esimple reason that we hold speech so sacred, that the only areas in which it is not protected tend to be those explicit carveouts due to certain severe types of illegality.

In most cases it's going to play out like this:

Yes "flasely yelling fire in a crowded theater" is illegal, explicitly so, every time you do it, but no, it's not usually enforced, unless you are a dick about it, do it persistently or something bad happens happens as a result.

It's sort of like how people rarely get ticketed for seat belt violations, unless they are being pulled over for something else, or if there was an accident and someone died or was maimed because they weren't wearing their seat belt.

Not wearing a seat belt while in a moving vehicle is still a clear violation of the law (in those states that have this law, I know it's not all states) but unless you are being a dick about it, or something happens that really calls attention to it, its less likely to be enforced.

Never confuse lack of enforcement with legality. These are two very different things.

 

[Nobu]

Also, it may be the case that the speech is not protected, but the actions of the government are illegal for other reasons.

 

[t1337duder]

What have you been smoking? Can I have some?

Facebook is no more a part of a government than any other business out there. Your local barber shop, bakery or car mechanic. It's just a hell of a lot bigger. That doesn't make it government.

I'm genuinely curious how you would evne come to such a conclusion as it has no resemblence to reality what so ever.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not the worlds #1 Zuck fan or anyhting. Facebook drives me up a wall, and their stupid unreliable algorithms have put me in FB jail my fair share of times for no apparent reason, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a private enterpise, with no government ownership what so ever, and can thus run their business as they please as long as they don't run afoul of any other government regulation.

Sounds like you're already smoking something. Your local barber shop, bakery, or mechanic isn't regularly meeting with the government to censor or push what they want. No amount of mental gymnastics you can perform can change our minds on what everyone can obviously see.

Or maybe you're just so far out of the loop that you're not even capable of entering back into it.

Also, it may be the case that the speech is not protected, but the actions of the government are illegal for other reasons.

I don't care about legality. The government will frame whatever benefits them to be "legal" and what doesn't benefit them to be "illegal". We all know people working within the government aren't unbiased, agenda-free people. We also know our government isn't a melting pot of politics. There's no reason to pretend like the USA government has any reason to be fair or impartial to anybody. That's why they use the CIA, FBI, and social media to steer the elections to keep the power dynamic in this country. I could get this thread closed pretty easily by pointing out which things you are and aren't allowed to say and giving an explanation of why you are (or not) allowed to say these things. And it's certainly not that any of the things that I said are advocating violence, are illegal, etc.

Kanye, for example, never advocated violence - and he's facing a massive censorship campaign. The private companies and government are working hand in hand to eliminate all of his platforms and his finances. There is no distinction between public and private. The government uses these media companies to skirt around the 1st amendment and suppress speech, and the companies are more than happy to comply.

If anyone isn't following the Kanye situation, this video perfectly demonstrates why you shouldn't trust the government, social media, etc.


Anyways, my attempt to steer these conversations to the reality of our government is just going to get me banned and will just get this thread closed. Even this social media platform is under the thumb of the US government. Remember the last time the mods here challenged me? So much for "free speech"

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Kanye, for example, never advocated violence - and he's facing a massive censorship campaign. The private companies and government are working hand in hand to eliminate all of his platforms and his finances. There is no distinction between public and private. The government uses these media companies to skirt around the 1st amendment and suppress speech, and the companies are more than happy to comply.

If anyone isn't following the Kanye situation, this video perfectly demonstrates why you shouldn't trust the government, social media, etc.

The Kanye situation has absolutely nothing to do with Government.

He is a mentally ill man who said and did some really unfortunate, racist and just plain awful things, which caused his business partners and advertisers to get cold feet and drop him.

The man needs help. He is in full on implode mode, and its all self created.

Anyways, my attempt to steer these conversations to the reality of our government is just going to get me banned and will just get this thread closed. Even this social media platform is under the thumb of the US government. Remember the last time the mods here challenged me? So much for "free speech"

I suspect we've crossed that line long ago.

We are certainly off-topic, and well into the "politics" side of things at this point.

I've tried to not reply several times, but it is really hard to do.

I'm honestly surprised this thread hasn't already been locked.

Maybe it's because we are keeping it reasonably civil? That's pretty rare these days.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Remember the last time the mods here challenged me? So much for "free speech"

That's mainly because you're posting it in the wrong section. Genmay has soapbox for political discussions. The tech news forum isn't for politics.

 

[KazeoHin]

Sounds like you're already smoking something. Your local barber shop, bakery, or mechanic isn't regularly meeting with the government to censor or push what they want. No amount of mental gymnastics you can perform can change our minds on what everyone can obviously see.

Or maybe you're just so far out of the loop that you're not even capable of entering back into it.

I don't care about legality. The government will frame whatever benefits them to be "legal" and what doesn't benefit them to be "illegal". We all know people working within the government aren't unbiased, agenda-free people. We also know our government isn't a melting pot of politics. There's no reason to pretend like the USA government has any reason to be fair or impartial to anybody. That's why they use the CIA, FBI, and social media to steer the elections to keep the power dynamic in this country. I could get this thread closed pretty easily by pointing out which things you are and aren't allowed to say and giving an explanation of why you are (or not) allowed to say these things. And it's certainly not that any of the things that I said are advocating violence, are illegal, etc.

Kanye, for example, never advocated violence - and he's facing a massive censorship campaign. The private companies and government are working hand in hand to eliminate all of his platforms and his finances. There is no distinction between public and private. The government uses these media companies to skirt around the 1st amendment and suppress speech, and the companies are more than happy to comply.

If anyone isn't following the Kanye situation, this video perfectly demonstrates why you shouldn't trust the government, social media, etc.


Anyways, my attempt to steer these conversations to the reality of our government is just going to get me banned and will just get this thread closed. Even this social media platform is under the thumb of the US government. Remember the last time the mods here challenged me? So much for "free speech"

I agree with you on your point that FB/META are large enough to influence the government and throw enough money to essentially write laws around their interests. But to admit this is to bring up criticisms of the free market and our current macroeconomic system.

If the free market allows an individual or group of individuals to become so large that their influence on the government is disproportionate to their democratic rights, then either A: this is fine and what we should want OR B: there's something wrong with the free market and this needs to be addressed.

 

[FrgMstr]

Soapbox for politics.

https://hardforum.com/account/upgrades