The Question Facing Facebook
All the Companies Quitting Facebook
“A boycott of advertisers on social media is gaining momentum, and Facebook is the primary target. Marketers are expressing unease with how it handles misinformation and hate speech, including its permissive approach to problematic posts by President Trump.”
—-NYT 1 July 2020
Facebook, the largest advertising platform in the history of mass media, has been enabling the normalization of hate speech since its inception.
Every stripe of hate group has maintained a Facebook page including anti-Semitics, anti-Zionists, and Holocaust deniers, White Supremacists, White Nationalists, and assorted domestic terrorists who advocate violence against everybody who ‘doesn’t belong’.
Zuckerberg makes huge profits from the racism, bigotry, conspiracy theories, and hatred that is bandied about and exchanged on his platform like bubblegum baseball cards…
Until now, he has refused to make the necessary adjustments to terminate accessibility of his platform to white supremacists and other hate groups because of his profiteering of billions of hate dollars.
The internet advertising boycott is beginning to work. Zuckerberg is being forced to the negotiating table because of recent losses of advertising dollars and stock market value.
Zuckerberg has become the poster boy for those who would argue in favor of internet accountability and regulatory intervention.
Mark Zuckerberg and his Facebook may become the single greatest argument for removal of 1st Amendment protections and immunities currently enjoyed by owners and operators of internet social media publishing platforms.
So, here’s the question:
Should publishing platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter be stripped of protection and immunity from liability for damage, harm, or injury caused by the content they publish and from which they profit?
07/01/2020 @ 8:54 am
Liability is the issue. It’s the best deterrent because it’s so much more dangerous than fines. Though we have to be careful of its consequences because we don’t know what else would be censored. There would have to be clear rules, and liability would have to be limited if the platform made an obvious answer to follow them. If something inflammatory got on a platform and wasn’t found immediately, there would have to be a way not to force platforms to have to pre-approve all content. That wouldn’t be feasible. Perhaps a stipulation that they react to complaints. I’m not sure.
07/01/2020 @ 1:10 pm
I agree with koshersalaami’s “definitely maybe” reply.