Will conservatives join the crusade of Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, as she battles to break up Ma Facebook? Or, will they defend craven capitalistic business practices?
Categories
Break Up Ma Facebook: Will Conservatives Join Sen. Warren’s Crusade?
Will conservatives join the crusade of Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, as she battles to break up Ma Facebook? Or, will they defend craven capitalistic business practices?

8 replies on “Break Up Ma Facebook: Will Conservatives Join Sen. Warren’s Crusade?”
Facebook will be shut down, just like Lifelog was shut down.
Facebook is a way for the CIA to spy domestically in violation of US law.
Define ‘Lifelog’ [DARPA].
“an ontology-based (sub)system that captures, stores, and makes accessible the flow of one person’s experience in and interactions with the world in order to support a broad spectrum of associates/assistants and other system capabilities”. The objective of the LifeLog concept was “to be able to trace the ‘threads’ of an individual’s life in terms of events, states, and relationships”, and it has the ability to “take in all of a subject’s experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mail messages viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone”.
Define ‘FB’.
The Facebook service can be accessed from devices with Internet connectivity, such as personal computers, tablets and smartphones. After registering, users can create a customized profile revealing information about themselves. Users can post text, photos and multimedia of their own devising and share it with other users as “friends”. Users can use various embedded apps, and receive notifications of their friends’ activities. Users may join common-interest groups.
Compare & Contrast.
DARPA senior employees > FB?
DARPA TERMINATES PROGRAM FEB 4, 2004.
FB FOUNDED FEB 4, 2004.
DARPA = FB
Is Social Media a Platform — or a Publisher? The problem is they want it both ways. These agents feign democracy, while applying dictatorial controls to meet out their specific agenda. As the public becomes aware, they first drop their accounts, and then cry out for government intervention; Break Up The Monopolies!
A platform is a place (think Speaker’s Corner at Hyde Park in London), or a company/utility (or now technology) that enables communication and distributes information. A platform is not responsible (legally) for the content that is presented and participants are afforded 1st Amendment protection.
A publisher is a company or person (or technology) that gathers, creates and then distributes content. The publisher might be afforded 1st Amendment rights (think Larry Flint and Hustler magazine). A publisher can limit, restrict, or eliminate content — at will. But to be fair, they ought notify users of their prerogative. Bill made this point clearly.
Should “social media” be Trust-busted?
Are they platforms – but pretend they are publishers; or are they perceived by the public as platforms, but in fact, are acting as if they are publishers? Perhaps with appropriate legislation, could we return this huge segment of the internet to the people?
How about an Internet Bill of Rights? A legally binding document to address the technology never envisioned by the Founders. Ensure it provides the same protections to the citizen that are embodied in the Constitution.
Surprise-surprise! Brazil (the world’s second largest user of Facebook) created such a “Bill of Rights,” named the Marco Civil. While it may not be perfect, it offers an alternative approach to busting up the “monopolies.” The Marco Civil protects freedom of expression, and requires internet platforms to only take down content when served with a valid court order. A number of other key protections are embodied in the over 20 page document. (Copyright-related materials were to be addressed in follow-on legislation). [They enacted the Marco Civil in 2014] A pity the US was not first on this, but it might be a good option to follow.
DISCLAIMER – We do not -FB, Tweet, Instagram. Were these acting as legitimate platforms, we might be encouraged to.
Are they monopolies? No, I don’t think so. There are other platforms out there besides these folks and many of us are using those alternatives. I think the main issue is that they have purported themselves as “platforms” – just presenting the information users post. They have crossed over the line to being “publishers”, a very different thing.
I’m leary about govt telling business how to operate, but the monopoly aspect of Facebook is tied to the network effect. If I want to interact with someone on FB, I have to be as well. If there was an inter-operational method (API in programming) so that Gab could post things that FB saw and Gab users could read friends’ FB posts, we could have competition. As it is now, requiring someone to have a FB account and aggree to the terms reduces that competition.
In the same arena, there is a lawsuit being discussed that would penalize a variety of companies for an agreement they had that let non-Facebook customers’ information be collected by FB and used in their data sales.
I also see a potential problem for Facebook and Twitter down the road with their stated aims of removing “fake news” posts and other “objectionable material” which could lose any safe harbor provisions they might have. Who is to say what is fake news and what is satirical entertainment? If FB makes it their business to remove things and then miss something, could they be liable? The whole reason for safe harbor laws was so that they would not be liable if they missed something. Now that they’re taking responsibility, does the liability return?
I meant to add a second comment. Social Media was created for one purpose. Get the most people on your platform viewing ads. That’s it, Simple! Get people there and keep them there by whatever means necessary. Don’t allow content that could scare them away or allow them to be lead somewhere else. Read into that whatever you like. They do not care about what you think, they only care about what you do. It’s about ad revenue, that’s all.
WHat do you think about this idea. It of course is off the cuff. BUT, Johnny can’t read the TOS, matter of fact no one but the top one percent can read the TOS. All they want is for you to just click “AGREE” and have fun, they’ll take care of the rest. The rest is definitely scary if people “really” knew what was happening.
Maybe a solution would be legislation that requires TOS contracts to be explained via a video and not just legal text. Maybe clearly explained by third party attorney / Bill Whittle, before agreeing to the TOS. Also, just like sexual harassment training, it should be repeated once a year. I have only accepted TOS from Facebook one time. YEARS AGO.
I remember reading years ago about a case involving software ULAs. Some judge ruled that the ULA was null and void because it was multi-paragraphs long, in 6pt font, written in legalese. His conclusion was that it was deliberately presented to be impenetrable to the customer.
I guess nothing came of that ruling.
Still on the fence about breaking up tech companies. Maybe i would be on board with transparency regulations. I would be more in favor of going after payment processor visa master card etc. they have had more to do with stifling competition than tech companies. How many tech company alternatives have had payment processing problems and had to go looking for alternate forms of currency exchange.