Posted on 08/21/2019 4:20:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
On Tuesday Facebook released the results of a study on bias within and by the platform against conservative perspectives and activity on the platform. It was led by former U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and his team at corporate law firm Covington & Burling LLP.
The report confirmed what many had already been experiencing firsthand in the years since social media has become central to global communications, business, governance, and interactivity – that many voices on the right felt subject to arbitrary purposefully targeted restrictions on their ability to operate freely within the terms of services of the platform.
Senator Kyl and his team interviewed a wide variety – 133 - of conservative organizations and persons in regards to their individual various experiences utilizing the platform. While the report does not address whether the concerns are valid, as an interim report it describes the primary concerns conservative persons and organizations have seen, felt, and experienced on the platform.
The report also describes some changes Facebook has made, or is in the progress of making, to attempt to promote a more fair-minded image and operation. These include a proposed independent oversight board for content moderation, a more open and usable appeals process for content decisions, greater transparency for algorithm placement methods, and increased policy change documentation.
The study comes as social media companies continue to face inquiries, risks, and potential policymaking intervention over what their now large – and some would say oversized - role in public communications and discourse and consequently business activity and even civic government.
For better or worse Facebook is here to stay. It has faced numerous challenges from business competitors who are unable to climb over its inertia and network effect, even if other social platforms – such as Discord, Snapchat, Twitter, etc. - have gained substantial and sustained user bases for more specialized interests and purposes.
The American way with regulation of private industry, barring exceptional and egregious violations against the public good, has been to put some parameters on a sector’s activity while letting the sector and free market activity regulate it from then on out.
With social platforms we’ve begun to see this already take place as companies such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as other technology companies who have social operations such as Amazon, Apple, Google, etc., respond quickly to public concerns and attempt to formulate standards and “rules” that give a somewhat expectation of non-arbitrary conduct and practices.
One of the most successful examples of industry self-regulation has been the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) which, as a private organization and through its predecessor self-regulatory organization, has since 1939 provided the securities industry with a level of stability and enforcement but without complete government oversight, intervention, and control.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) remains active and powerful but FINRA provides the industry with informed self-regulation for many day-to-day concerns and resolves lesser issues before they rise to the level of government involvement.
This benefits the industry by allowing them to work amongst themselves, who have the best knowledge of how their companies work, while also easing the burden on the public in the form of government overhead and potentially uninformed policymaking. These self-regulatory organizations respond to the market and public demands because they know that if they ever fail in their oversight function then direct government intervention may be well on the way.
As the social platforms – now generally considered “communications services” as representative of their primary function and role – continue to find their footing with public concerns from parties all over (not just conservatives) over allegations of bad actor activity, viewpoint and other discrimination, and otherwise, we may see increased formation of such self-regulation whether formal or informal.
Amid all this we should remember we are not dealing with bad actors so much as a young industry that has grown fast and hard and in the process has inevitably clashed with many of the legacy societal boundaries and status quo that previously existed. As with many technologies, adaption and adoption is the best course of action as we seek to reap the benefits of these new services and the interconnectivity they bring while reducing the excesses and harms.
Social platforms looked very different five years ago let alone ten years ago. Five, ten years from now I expect they will be substantially different from the present too – and hopefully in even better form.
Remember back in 1968, when fear of government control to stop violence on TV and movies lead to the movie industry saying they would “police themselves” with a joke of a ratings code?
They then refilmed scenes to add more blood, guts, violence and explicit sex to get the coveted “R” rating.
Will FB do the same?
“From my perspective...... FACEBOOK JAIL AGAIN!!
Another 30 days of prohibition on my talking. Commenting on someone’s communication with me on my page is done for a month!…”
Why would you give that group of “woke” leftists, many of them foreign, that power over you? How important is this Facebook thing? It means absolutely nothing, zero, nada, to me, but many live by it. Perhaps I missed something. I’m good with that.
LOL! What nonsense.
It does if you are a conservative, or even discussing an issue from a conservative or biblical viewpoint.
For example, In a discussion on homosexuality if you point out that prior to 1973 homosexuality was seen as a mental disease and was delisted ONLY due to political maneuverings by a known homosexual (Which is a known fact) you will likely be sent to the gulag. Been there, done that.
For example, In a discussion on islam if you point out that moselms are COMMANDED by their scriptures to kill or enslave all non-moslems (which is a known fact) you will be sent to the gulag. Been there, Done that.
For example if you point out that God created man and woman and that they are different and not interchangeable (that is, if you are born a man you will always be a man no matter how much you mutilate yourself) you will be sent to the gulag. Been there. Done that.
Such simple things as pointing out that abortion kills a human being, or that Obama was not eligible to be president, or that homosexuals molest at a far greater rate than normal people, Or even just calling normal people normal people (implying that homosexuals are abnormal) can get you sent to the gulag.
Pointing out that various "people of color" who were shot and killed by police were in the process of assaulting those same police can get you sent to the gulag. Pointing out that certain cultural minorities have far greater rates of incarceration because they commit far greater numbers of crimes can get you sent to the gulag.
I could go on and on. I don't even remember all the various "crimes" I was sent to the gulag for. The common points between all those "crimes" however is that I was speaking provable truth and that I was a conservative.
Basically supporting any conservative point, regardless of how much evidence you provide to prove that point, can get you sent to the gulag.
Responding back to any liberal with any remark that is more confrontational than "have a nice day" even when they have been calling you a "racist white murderer of black people and homosexuals" and that "your parents should have been gang raped and killed before you were born" can get you sent to the gulag.
(Please note that the gulag trip may be delayed by months or years. Like others here I was punished for posts made well in the past)
Facebook must be regulated as a public utility. They censor conservative speech constantly.
Thanks for that
look how well “self-regulation” worked out for Boeing: undocumented software flew two of their latest aircraft right into the ground, fully loaded with passengers ...
I guess it's because it's become a gathering place for people to make friends and have conversations with people from all over the world who mostly have similar interests and backgrounds. People not only share their friendship but discuss events going on in the world.
That's where the problem comes in. The rulers of the media platforms spy on everything you write or share and manipulate it to lessen it's spread to people who don't know better. They are NWO socialists and that's their agenda.
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.