8 ms·

We'll see if it helps stop the blatant partisanship or not.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
So blatant Facebook PR is trying to distract people from the fact that 8 of the top 10 posts each day are from Breitbart et al Yes, "conservative" accounts get banned more often than "progressive" ones. Or, at least, that's how it may appear if your definition of "conservative" is dominated by racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia. Which isn't entirely wrong, obviously: traditionally, the ideology that despised all deviations from the norm just came with a different label, fascism.
thephyber 5y ago
Almost no chance of that. This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence? I’ve worked at a large social media company (one most people would not recognize). The loud users that get banned almost always play up the “I didn’t do anything wrong” card but the moderation department has the evidence that they very blatantly did violate the objective standards of the site. The problem is that the public doesn’t see the evidence that the moderation department does, so they are outraged after only looking at half of a ledger.
- chuckee 5y ago
  > This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. On the other hand, freedom of association didn't stop the civil rights act. But freedom of association is less clearly defined in the constitution. Maybe a better example are the many regulations on commercial speech that exist despite the 1st amendment.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    The Civil Rights Act was bolstered by the 13A, 14A, and 15A. None of these necessarily protect anyone by their political party.
- rastafang 5y ago
  > If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence? Let the judge decide... A company of that size should be stripped of that power
  - thephyber 5y ago
    In theory I agree that almost all of this would be solved if the courts could work at the speed of social media. That’s a pipe dream though. There aren’t enough people with law degrees to throw at the problem, and we couldn’t afford it even if we did throw the problem at the courts.

So blatant Facebook PR is trying to distract people from the fact that 8 of the top 10 posts each day are from Breitbart et al Yes, "conservative" accounts get banned more often than "progressive" ones. Or, at least, that's how it may appear if your definition of "conservative" is dominated by racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia. Which isn't entirely wrong, obviously: traditionally, the ideology that despised all deviations from the norm just came with a different label, fascism.

thephyber 5y ago

Almost no chance of that. This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence? I’ve worked at a large social media company (one most people would not recognize). The loud users that get banned almost always play up the “I didn’t do anything wrong” card but the moderation department has the evidence that they very blatantly did violate the objective standards of the site. The problem is that the public doesn’t see the evidence that the moderation department does, so they are outraged after only looking at half of a ledger.

chuckee 5y ago
> This will very likely be overturned on 1A grounds. On the other hand, freedom of association didn't stop the civil rights act. But freedom of association is less clearly defined in the constitution. Maybe a better example are the many regulations on commercial speech that exist despite the 1st amendment.
- thephyber 5y ago
  The Civil Rights Act was bolstered by the 13A, 14A, and 15A. None of these necessarily protect anyone by their political party.
rastafang 5y ago
> If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence? Let the judge decide... A company of that size should be stripped of that power
- thephyber 5y ago
  In theory I agree that almost all of this would be solved if the courts could work at the speed of social media. That’s a pipe dream though. There aren’t enough people with law degrees to throw at the problem, and we couldn’t afford it even if we did throw the problem at the courts.