Posted on 05/03/2018 10:56:10 AM PDT by C19fan
The Heritage Foundation will defend Facebook’s legal right as a “private company” to censor content and will oppose attempts to regulate the tech giant, according to the think tank’s senior research fellow for technology, Klon Kitchen. In an interview with Breitbart News, Kitchen argued that as a private company, Facebook has the right to censor content at will, although he strongly cautioned the social network against a censorious approach.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
More likely we would simply be banned. Facebook and their government bureaucrats would make sure of that.
My concern is that Facebook uses facial recognition technology. I don’t use Facebook, though my wife does and there are pictures of us in her FB profile. I didn’t sign their terms and conditions. I should have the right to know what data has been collected about me, even though I’m not a user. The only way to do that now is to sign up and create a Facebook account. That’s BS.
IMO...I think FB is not needed...and I don't partake.
FreeRepublic is an on line resource supported financially by voluntary contributions and it is void of commercial advertising.
When FR changes that aspect of their model, I may be first out of here.
Meanwhile, FB steals info, personal info not freely disclosed, and sells it to any and all.
The problem is they “partake” of you every time you visit a website with the F symbol on the page.
Karl Deninger covers this in detail if you need more information.
They are guilty of fraud, among other things.
Zuckerburg etal belong in jail, their assets should be liquidated, and the proceeds divided among all citizens of the world.
Does she post a picture with a caption: "this is me and my husband John Smith" or something like that? If so, you should tell her you want to remain anonymous. If not, then there's no way for Facebook to know who is in the picture.
I love Heritage, but when they get something wrong, they really get it wrong.
Because its users allow them to "steal" it and sign a waiver saying so.
I would agree on the general principles but knowing Adam Smith was no fan of monopolies and how Facebook has a near de facto monopoly in it’s class of service, I would suggest that anti-trust measures could insist on regulation of Facebook (& Google), and as government regulated utilities their censoring habits would be deemed as government interference in free speech, and classified as out of bounds.
...the think tank’s senior research fellow for technology, Klon Kitchen... argued that as a private company, Facebook has the right to censor content at will, although he strongly cautioned the social network against a censorious approach.
Thanks C19fan.
Since Congress broke up AT&T and created the 8 ‘Baby Bells’ the natural monopoly has been dissolved and the Market took off from there.
Every company that has emerged since is still regulated due to their use of radio frequencies and FCC regulated lines.
These diverse companies profiting from the the usage of our ‘airwaves’ are hardly monopolies.
What fraud, be specific. What other things?
The dot.com companies are in bed with the federal government. No government agency is going to touch, let alone interrupt their data mining operations. The information is just too valuable to them, and the pockets of the silicon valley lobbyists are way too deep.
Up until 2010, the internet was the wild west of telecommunications.
Now, just three companies dominate: google, facebook, and amazon.
I don’t engage in anything FB....
I don’t care what happens to FB.......
I’m sure Jacoby’s can hash this all out......
I don’t give a damn.......
You have most things backwards. It was the government that created and protected that monopoly and prohibited competition. Meanwhile Bell Labs invented every core technology needed for computers and the internet. The market took off in commercial aspects, but cell phones and other tech was already done by Bell decades earlier.
How many of us...give $$$ to Freerepublic?
I’d guess the COMPANY.....dominates.
The difference is considering FB owns more than 50% of the market they are in, they are subject to Anti-Trust laws.
This is what keeps a company from buying up all their competitors.
This is why Intel couldn’t simply get rid of its competitors by buying them up.
Anti-Trust laws prevents it.
Right now, the internet is using FB to ID users of other websites. Most dating sites require a FB account.
This already goes way beyond their original charter and heads very quickly to something similar to a Internet Gatekeeper.
Facebook knows it is vulnerable to Anti-Trust right now as every executive in Silicon Valley is required to have Anti-Trust training.
I had it and I wasn’t close to an executive.
They are hoping it all goes away.
The UniParty seems to want it to go away too.
“The US gov’t should declare Facebook a common carrier and explicitly prohibit it from censorship. “
What is the legal logic for that?
Facebook is not needed or required for any health and safety cause. Everyone is free to join, or quit whenever they please.
It is not possible to make a plausible case that they are a common carrier.
If stupid people want to get their news there, that’s their business. They are the kind of people that will never be reasonably informed anyway.
Facebook can allow or deny any posting they wish, based on any criteria they wish.
Just like Jim Robinson at Free Republic.
Its because Heritage knows NOTHING about technology.
For that matter, neither does Faux News.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.