Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on February 13, 2018, 04:41:33 PM
-
Not that I needed another reason. Long-ish read:
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/
-
We appreciate your sacrifice.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/29Sdfydfmkmv6/200.gif)
-
“ ‘Black Lives Matter’ doesn’t mean other lives don’t,” he wrote.
Actually, Mark, it does. =|
-
Interesting article. Two things jumped out at me. 1. FBook hires someone from CNN to work on neutrality. 2. FBook uses Snopes to check for accuracy.
-
Interesting article. Two things jumped out at me. 1. FBook hires someone from CNN to work on neutrality. 2. FBook uses Snopes to check for accuracy.
the fix is in
Jump to: navigation, search
English[edit]
Phrase[edit]
the fix is in
1.(idiomatic) A process (for example, a court case) has been rigged behind the scenes and its outcome will not reflect true justice.
Related terms[edit]
fixer
Say it ain't so, Joe grampster !
Terry
-
The stories varied, but most people told the same basic tale: of a company, and a CEO, whose techno-optimism has been crushed as they’ve learned the myriad ways their platform can be used for ill. Of an election that shocked Facebook, even as its fallout put the company under siege. Of a series of external threats, defensive internal calculations, and false starts that delayed Facebook’s reckoning with its impact on global affairs and its users’ minds. And—in the tale’s final chapters—of the company’s earnest attempt to redeem itself.
This jumped out at me. The purpose of the company should be to let users do and say whatever the hell they want (within reasonable social norms) and continue to make money off data mining. However, it is obvious they see their company mission as a Champion of Leftist Ideas and they need to attack or censor anyone who disagrees. The idea that conservative thought on their website means it is "used for ill" is just silly.
It made me think that is a big difference between people that are libertarian minded versus authoritarian. The Leftist response to criticism or disagreement always seems to be to attack the critic personally and professionally and shut them down.
-
This notion that Facebook is an open, neutral platform is almost like a religious tenet inside the company. When new recruits come in, they are treated to an orientation lecture by Chris Cox, the company’s chief product officer, who tells them Facebook is an entirely new communications platform for the 21st century, as the telephone was for the 20th. But if anyone inside Facebook is unconvinced by religion, there is also Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to recommend the idea. This is the section of US law that shelters internet intermediaries from liability for the content their users post. If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity—and it’s hard to imagine how Facebook could exist if it were liable for the many billion pieces of content a day that users post on its site.
I hadn't heard of this act. Anyone know if has ever been used in a lawsuit?
-
I hadn't heard of this act. Anyone know if has ever been used in a lawsuit?
Parts of it have been struck down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act)
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.
The Act was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995. The amendment that became the CDA was added to the Telecommunications Act in the Senate by an 84–16 vote on June 14, 1995.
As eventually passed by Congress, Title V affected the Internet (and online communications) in two significant ways. First, it attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to children) and obscenity in cyberspace. Second, Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services).
Legal challenges
In Philadelphia on June 12, 1996, a panel of federal judges blocked part of the CDA, saying it would infringe upon the free speech rights of adults. The next month, another US federal court in New York struck down the portion of the CDA intended to protect children from indecent speech as too broad. On June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the Philadelphia court's decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, stating that the indecency provisions were an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because they did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children, extended to non-commercial speech, and did not define "patently offensive," a term with no prior legal meaning. (The New York case, Reno v. Shea, was affirmed by the Supreme Court the next day, without a published opinion.)
In 2003, Congress amended the CDA to remove the indecency provisions struck down in Reno v. ACLU. A separate challenge to the provisions governing obscenity, known as Nitke v. Gonzales, was rejected by a federal court in New York in 2005. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed that decision in 2006.
Congress has made two narrower attempts to regulate children's exposure to Internet indecency since the Supreme Court overturned the CDA. Court injunction blocked enforcement of the first, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), almost immediately after its passage in 1998; the law was later overturned. While legal challenges also dogged COPA's successor, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000, the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional in 2004.
-
Interesting article. Two things jumped out at me. 1. FBook hires someone from CNN to work on neutrality. 2. FBook uses Snopes to check for accuracy.
Very good, Grasshopper. I noticed the same, er ... anomalies.
-
I gave up fecesbook for lent... it eats up too much of my life, with no real value in return
-
Hey, maybe I need to jump on friendface after all. I just read this morning that (in the UK at least), "over 50" is now the #2 facebook demographic, with all the twenties and under going to snapchat.
-
Hey, maybe I need to jump on friendface after all. I just read this morning that (in the UK at least), "over 50" is now the #2 facebook demographic, with all the twenties and under going to snapchat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c