Was it removed because of its content? Or could removal have been temporary? Or inadvertent? (I have no idea, of course.)
As for the story itself: Frankly, if Joe Biden has nothing to do with it, I don’t think it’s important – but I do agree that it should not be censored.
As for Hunter Biden: He has needed help for a long time and I hope he finds it soon-ish.
What we need is self regulation…everybody should just unplug from these apps.
Not America’s forte!
(I agree with you, of course.)
Yes. It was removed deliberately and intentionally because “This thread is not helping Democratic unity and purpose.”
This is not the first time a thread about Biden has been locked or removed.
Apparently any threads reporting anything about Joe Biden’s record that could be interpreted in a less than favorable light are prohibited.
Sad, but at least they’re not pretending to be something they’re not …
Well, I do remember a thread or seven unfavorable to Joe Biden.
As for the new Hunter Biden story, as far as I can tell it’s not even tangentially about Joe Biden (unlike the old Hunter Biden story asking how he got the Burisma gig).
And yet FB can’t decide to run ads for jobs that only target men, or for housing that only target white people, or carry pages and groups where transactions are done that ditto…
There are plenty of limits on speech in business environments, which FB is (even though it pretends not to be).
(And that’s even before getting into the issue of FB as a global actor attempting to wrap itself in the protections of a particular interpretation of a local ordinance.)
It is not about Joe Biden, except that he found out that he had a new grandchild on his 77th birthday.
It speaks volumes about Hunter’s credibility, however. He is a cheat and a liar.
I agree that he has long needed help. You know that the family has been through some tough times (not of his doing). When young children lose a parent, things can break, often irreparably. When one of those children grows up to lose an adult brother, well, that’s not exactly helpful, either.
Does any of that excuse his behavior towards certain women? I wouldn’t say so.
Beyond that I don’t have much to add at this point.
Then I’m not sure how it falls under…
Right. Because of the transaction, not the speech.
Simon & Schuster prints speech in a business environment. Accordingly, per your argument, it can be banned from printing anything the government deems misogynistic or racist.
Your argument is bad.
It’s actually pretty clear that this sort of government-mandated disclaimer would be illegal content discrimination.
Zuckerberg has said he opposes booting Holocaust deniers from Facebook because “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”
Back in Rod Serling’s day, there wouldn’t be a speech. There’s be a Twilight Zone about an internet mogul ignoring such complaints–and then waking up one morning in striped pj’s, enduring a day in a camp, going to sleep thinking he’ll wake up back in reality–and then waking up the next in the camp, and seeing the American flag flying over it. Blunt, but effective.
But now we have Black Mirror, and ohh, my smart phone is controlling me!
I’m well aware of the nuance here. But if you think that Facebook is exactly equivalent to a regular publisher for first amendment purposes, you’re overreaching. Facebook is simultaneously taking advantage of the safe-harbor aspects of claiming to be a public forum while making whatever viewpoint-based decisions it wants, and that doesn’t work.
If S&S decides to publish something that’s defamatory, or that violates various other rights of private parties, or that contains certain restricted information, S&S is on the hook. As things stand now, there’s effectively no one with a right of action against FB for the things it publishes. And that’s because of government action.
Ain’t likely to happen, but that would work.
I was more than skeptical of these “things” from the git-go, and wanted nothing to do with 'em. E-mail apps seem to work just fine, and plenty of looney shit got propagated there, and still does. 'Course, I’m just a cranky old Luddite…
I wouldn’t pay fifty cents to see Zuckerberg immolate himself with rancid deep far fryer oil, but if he did it on my street, I might put out the fire after a decent interval.
That’s about as far as I go also.
(Not counting this place, of course.)
There has to be something seriously wrong with anyone who would think that it was a good idea to set up a website to rank the women students at Harvard based upon their appearance. It is frightening that such a deranged person has so much influence on public discourse.
If you want a truly frightening picture of what a monstrosity Facebook has become, and how it poisons free speech, I recommend “Zucked” by Roger McNamee. McNamee was one of Zuckerburg’s first mentors and has been a presence in the world of internet development for decades.
He too thought that the concept of creating a public forum for people to share data was amazingly great, until it turned into a nightmare monopoly that monetizes personal information without out permission (even if you’re not on FB) and has almost accidentally, through greed and apathy, morphed into a principle factor in destroying our democracy.
It’s not an exaggeration, nor a doomsday message. It’s a moral lesson with a ton of practical suggestions for correcting this error. He focuses on FB because he knows the executives there, but he says the same applies to Google and Amazon. To me, this issue of technology perverting our society is as critical an emergency as climate change.
Every online platform, including this one we’re currently chatting on, benefits from the safe-harbor provisions of the CDA while making whatever viewpoint-based decisions it wants. Congress could, of course, take away the safe harbor law, and that wouldn’t be illegal viewpoint discrimination. That would make platforms liable for all kinds of actionable content, such as defamation and imminent incitement to violence. But so long as the First Amendment protects Mein Kampf in meat space – which it unquestionably does – it will protect the same garbage online. As it should.
That said, everybody should delete Facebook unless and until they launch their resident Nazis into space.