Facebook - Removes 1.7m member group - no reason

[jimnyc]

Facebook isn't suddenly going to get better. It's infected. From the top down.

---

Facebook Removes 1.7 MILLION Member Group “Joe Biden Is Not My President” Without Warning — But Anti-Trump “Not My President” Page Still Up After 4 Years

Facebook removed the 1.7 million member “Joe Biden Is Not My President” group this weekend without warning.

This is what continues to happen to conservatives after Republican lawmakers refused to take action to preserve freedom of speech in America.

Via The Scoop: (https://thescoop.us/censorship-facebook-deletes-1-7-million-member-group-joe-biden-is-not-my-president-with-no-warning-or-explanation/)


The far-left radicals that run Facebook just deleted the 1.7 million member group ‘Joe Biden IS NOT MY PRESIDENT!‘.

The group’s admins say they were given no warning and no explanation as to why the group, which was created on December 15th, 2020 was deleted.

The Scoop reported 3 days ago that the group had set the record for the shortest amount of time to reach 1 million members.

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/facebook-removes-1-7-million-member-group-joe-biden-not-president-without-warning-anti-trump-not-president-page-still-4-years/

[fj1200]

Private enterprise. :shrug:

[tailfins]

Private enterprise. :shrug:

Since this has effectively become the town square and the principal way of the public broadcasting ideas, it could be time to question whether this should be a private enterprise. It is rendering freedom of expression and the First Amendment inoperative.

[gabosaurus]

Facebook is a private entity. It is owned by one person. Facebook may be much larger than this board, but both operate by the Golden Rule -- who ever spends the gold to operate it makes the rules.

[Mr. P]

Private enterprise. :shrug:


Since this has effectively become the town square and the principal way of the public broadcasting ideas, it could be time to question whether this should be a private enterprise. It is rendering freedom of expression and the First Amendment inoperative.

I agree with both of you.

[jimnyc]

Facebook is a private entity. It is owned by one person. Facebook may be much larger than this board, but both operate by the Golden Rule -- who ever spends the gold to operate it makes the rules.

They are a publicly traded company. And you may want to talk to shareholders about that one. He may be the single largest shareholder but it's not really owned by one person. Zuck is CEO and their board of directors likely together make the golden rules.

But when publicly traded, and decisions like this continue, and if folks leave more and more - it can harm their bottom dollar.

[jimnyc]

Private enterprise. :shrug:

Not breaking laws or not that they don't have the complete right to make such decisions. Like any other business they have the right to run it like they please, and consumers are free to decide whether or not to do 'business' with them. I'm Just continuing to point out the amount of censorship they apply and how many they ban and/or delete and for why. Some in the way past denied endlessly that censorship and the shadow banning and what not didn't take place. But it grew worse and worse, and like the MSM in 2019 they no longer were even quiet or hiding anything.

[gabosaurus]

Not breaking laws or not that they don't have the complete right to make such decisions. Like any other business they have the right to run it like they please, and consumers are free to decide whether or not to do 'business' with them. I'm Just continuing to point out the amount of censorship they apply and how many they ban and/or delete and for why. Some in the way past denied endlessly that censorship and the shadow banning and what not didn't take place. But it grew worse and worse, and like the MSM in 2019 they no longer were even quiet or hiding anything. I think you are on target with this one. Facebook and YouTube operate the same way. They rely on advertising to remain afloat. If enough advertisers withdraw, I am guessing that Facebook and YouTube will change their operating methods. Fox News is in pretty much the same boat. Special interest groups are always howling about whatever Tucker Carlson or Jeannine Piro have to say. But until enough advertisers agree, the naysayers will have no influence.

[fj1200]

Since this has effectively become the town square and the principal way of the public broadcasting ideas, it could be time to question whether this should be a private enterprise. It is rendering freedom of expression and the First Amendment inoperative.

There are alternatives to Facebook not that the others are better alternatives but they are there. But all in all there is no limitations on the freedoms you mention.


I agree with both of you.

It's not a pretty thing to watch this operate but tell me the alternative. I'm not sure I want government anywhere near the levers that we voluntarily give to private companies. At what point do we cry that they impinged the view of something I agree with against something I do not. Should ANTIFA have free reign?

I don't think the small government crowd needs to be the one crying the loudest over these types of things. I think of the "robber barons" who improved life but were constantly attacked and desired to be taken down a notch by their competitors because they couldn't compete.


Not breaking laws or not that they don't have the complete right to make such decisions. Like any other business they have the right to run it like they please, and consumers are free to decide whether or not to do 'business' with them. I'm Just continuing to point out the amount of censorship they apply and how many they ban and/or delete and for why. Some in the way past denied endlessly that censorship and the shadow banning and what not didn't take place. But it grew worse and worse, and like the MSM in 2019 they no longer were even quiet or hiding anything.

I'm not going to argue against that.

[jimnyc]

There are alternatives to Facebook not that the others are better alternatives but they are there. But all in all there is no limitations on the freedoms you mention.


I'm not going to argue against that.

There are many alternatives to use than just FB but they have the market cornered and isn't so simple. It's difficult to compete with them when they have billions of members. But for now, is what it is, so many either don't use FB at all, or "deal" with it. I don't use it much, but admittedly do, solely because of the expanded network of people I know all in one location.

And it wouldn't be so bad if things were equal all the way around. Or they simply didn't censor anything unless it was against the law or other things within decency and no porn and what not. But they have decided to be heavy handed at times - and mainly only to right leaning, republican stuff.

[SassyLady]

Private enterprise. :shrug:
Protected by politicians that zuckerburg contributed to.

[fj1200]

Protected by politicians that zuckerburg contributed to.

I just say tread lightly before demanding that government start regulating because you don't like something. Not a Section 230 thread but...

The Bipartisan Push To Gut Section 230 Will Suppress Online Speech (https://reason.com/2020/12/18/the-bipartisan-push-to-gut-section-230-will-suppress-online-communication/)

...
Without such protections, social-media platforms would have a stark choice (https://www.rstreet.org/2020/04/10/the-earn-it-act-creates-a-new-moderators-dilemma/). They could take responsibility for everyone's posts. They would therefore place stricter limits on what we write—and we'd see a likely return to posting delays as the sites review comments. It would undermine the informal nature of these discussions.
Or they could allow anyone to post whatever they choose, which would mean that forums—especially the more freewheeling ones that conservatives increasingly seem to prefer (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/technology/parler-rumble-newsmax.html)—would be swamped with garbage, targeted attacks, incitements to violence, and the like. Anyone with an email spam folder should know what to expect.
Instead of hobbling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-attack-on-the-ndaa-is-ridiculous--and-dangerous/2020/12/07/28fff00e-38bd-11eb-9276-ae0ca72729be_story.html) the big tech firms that Trump and others despise, it would make them more powerful. They could afford armies of people to review posts, whereas smaller sites would go out of business or become unusable cesspools. It would open the door to endless litigation—to the detriment of everyone except for trial lawyers.
Think it through before you embrace proposals to revise Section 230 (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230), even if they are bipartisan efforts. Instead of boosting speech, they will bridle the way you communicate. That's a high price to pay because some politicians are angry about a little Facebook moderation.

[SassyLady]

I just say tread lightly before demanding that government start regulating because you don't like something. Not a Section 230 thread but...

The Bipartisan Push To Gut Section 230 Will Suppress Online Speech (https://reason.com/2020/12/18/the-bipartisan-push-to-gut-section-230-will-suppress-online-communication/)



It's not a "little moderation". My position is that if they're going to moderate they do it evenly across the board. Either none to support free speech or rules apply to everyone. Not cherry picked by radical ideologists.

[fj1200]

It's not a "little moderation". My position is that if they're going to moderate they do it evenly across the board. Either none to support free speech or rules apply to everyone. Not cherry picked by radical ideologists.

It's not a free speech issue at all unless you want government to take it over. But it would be nice if they do things evenly but a line is always drawn. Someone somewhere is not going to like some line that they draw.

[tailfins]

It's not a free speech issue at all unless you want government to take it over. But it would be nice if they do things evenly but a line is always drawn. Someone somewhere is not going to like some line that they draw.


Social media is close enough to a monopoly that they are about to decide what information gets disseminated in the US. The First Amendment is becoming inoperative.

[hjmick]

Why anyone would get involved with any of the "social" medias is beyond me.

[fj1200]

Social media is close enough to a monopoly that they are about to decide what information gets disseminated in the US. The First Amendment is becoming inoperative.

They're no more a monopoly that the main stream media ever was. Besides I don't see them as leading anything, they're more a following entity IMO; following the people. The problem is the multitude of idiots that spend their time on whatever outlet and spend their time talking at each other confirming each other's biases.

[gabosaurus]

Facebook does not force anyone to post or advertise on its web page. There are quite a few social media site devoted to right wing conservative ideals, including gab and parler. Though I bitterly dispute the former for stealing my name for their site. -----------------> https://gab.com/