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.
WRONG. Yes we most certainly are dealing with bad actors. Social media is controlled by leftists and they are evil thru and thru.
Facebook cannot be trusted.
I look at it this way: Facebook is the Soviet Union of the Internet. Just as repressive towards dissenting opinion as the old Soviet Union and banning users/shadow banning etc.. is the same thing as shipping dissenters off to the gulag's or to Siberia.
>>Social platforms looked very different five years ago let alone ten years ago.
How does it look different than the old myspace of the 2000s? Except for all of the ads in the margins, in the newsfeed, etc?
Evil cannot control itself, they throw out bullsh## to get you off the scent. When it smells like doo doo it is doo doo
Because our Constitutional right to freedom of speech is now monitored and CONTROLLED by these social media giants; Facebook, Twitter, Google ...businesses, companies who think they have the right to indoctrinate, manipulate and control the actions of every human being in America and eventually the world.
They have an agenda for the future and WE have no right to speak up or oppose it.
Can you imagine the day they take over Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T….. your phone services, and suddenly block you from using your phone to speak because they've monitored your calls and decided they didn't like something you've said in a conversation?? That's what they're doing now on the social media pages.
I'm becoming increasingly concerned of where we are going as a country when theses social media networks by their design are becoming the platform for all of our speech and communication and they are taking over control of every conversation and every word out there.
I believe they should be prohibited from doing this as a concession to our Constitutional rights. We as American citizens have the right to speak!!!
Can never trust Zuck.
You should go read the Gulag Archipelago again, it wasn’t just dissenters after a short while, it was anyone to fill the quota. It always eats it’s own in the long run. Trust me when you read it, now, you can see the only right answer is to resist at every corner these commie bastards, if you don’t they will mass murder the populace.
You raise an interesting point, let's follow this to its logical conclusion.
First to go, the open dissenters.
Second to go, anyone who isn't 100% intersectionally aligned with the progressive leftists (like those who run Fakebook, Twitter, SnapChat, etc..) Disagreement on any single issue, even if a progressive leftists, gets one shipped off.
Third to go will be the "passive dissenters." Those who don't say a word either way.
Finally the quota's must be filled and anyone who's left that's not in the progressive left clique must go.
We can argue the order in which people will get shipped off to the gulag's. What's not arguable is that eventually this is what'll happen should the progressive left not get forcefully put down.
I have never used Faceplant. As time goes on I’m more glad than ever. It’s like a badge of honor.
As a non Facebook user I ask, why exactly can Facebook not be trusted?
As I understand the site, it is for communication among users. Do you mean you do not trust the users with whom you communicate? Does Facebook interfear with the communication?
I'm probably banned for a lot longer now because I wrote FB questioning their sanity and stated that they are probably big fans of revising history and removing statues too. A four year old post....unfreakingbelievable.
The first few years Facebook was fun reconnecting to old friends. Then around the time “The Won” took over it became a sewer of libtard filth. I didn’t delete my account because I figured it would at least cost them something to maintain an unused account. For a short while I tried to engage the retards but it really was impossible. I reached my limit when a feminist who claimed she was a lawyer tried to claim healthcare is a human right. She claimed to have graduated “with honors” from a prestigious Law School. I told her she should try to get her money back.
How did “self regulation” work out for the gestapo?
Same.
Re: “we are not dealing with bad actors “
Wrong! We are fighting the communist Borg.
Wealthy business leaders with access into your lives, hard drive farms and leftist behavior can NOT be trusted. Ever.
He’s joking, right?
I use Facebook, as a professional artist, to connect with the art community. Art events and “meet-ups” post there.
However...I would be very hesitant to post anything political on the site. I would likely be banned and that would cut my access to a very important network system.
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.