Social media platforms, internet search engines, and other monopolistic guardians of information decided at the very beginning that they would determine which content would be available for public consumption; “false claims or conspiracy theories that have been flagged by leading global health organizations and local health authorities that could cause harm to people who believe them” would be subjected to Facebook’s reject button, according to a January 2020 statement released by the company.
In sum, the two Silicon Valley giants, with little explanation, united to prevent the sharing and dissemination of this article. As Los Angeles Times reporter Matt Pearce put it, “Facebook limiting distribution is a bit like if a company that owned newspaper delivery trucks decided not to drive because it didn’t like a story. Does a truck company edit the newspaper? It does now, apparently.”
The hire speaks to the close relationship between the Biden camp and big tech platforms such as Facebook which frequently weaponizes its service to censor and suppress conservative users and content.
Election Day is less than six months away, and Democrats are scrambling to patch the digital deficits of their presumptive nominee. And behind the scenes, Silicon Valley’s billionaire Democrats are spending tens of millions of dollars on their own sweeping plans to catch up to President Donald Trump’s lead on digital campaigning — plans that are poised to make them some of the country’s most influential people when it comes to shaping the November results.
To begin with, there is a profound and growing lack of privacy online. Cambridge Analytica was able to use a quiz app to harvest the data of users and their Facebook friends without them knowing. If social media companies such as Facebook cannot prevent these occurrences from happening, then the right to privacy online is nonexistent. The second way social media negatively affects American life is that it has degraded the news cycle.
Censored.tv, formerly FreeSpeech.tv, founded by Vice co-founder and Proud Boy founder Gavin McInnes, has been banned across all Facebook-owned platforms, namely Facebook and Instagram.
The platform, which has roughly 15,000 monthly subscribers, is popular for its hosts, who have mostly been banned from popular platforms like Twitter and YouTube—including Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopolous, Joe Biggs, Laura Loomer, and Soph.
July should have been a relief for Facebook. It wasn’t.
The story Fyk is telling, in this case, goes beyond the question of whether Facebook is a publisher or a platform, which has been the subject of a lot of talk lately. The argument Fyk is making is that Facebook acted as a “Developer of information,” thus making Facebook an “internet content provider” by legal definition under Section 230(f)(3), and that Facebook is pretty much competing with its own users and there is zero legal immunity for that.
The argument of publisher vs platform is a publisher can be held liable for things published on their site, while a platform gets immunity.
Just what are some of the methods that tech giants like Google and Facebook can use to shift their users’ attitudes, beliefs, and even votes?
How do search engine rankings impact undecided voters?
How powerful of an impact can search engine algorithms have on our perceptions and actions, without us even knowing?
Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.
Here are some of the elements of America’s growing social credit system.