General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAOC just made Mark Zuckerberg look like a deer in headlights.
@AOC, the youngest and most social-savvy member of Congress, just made Mark Zuckerberg look like a deer in headlights.
Watch her full series of questions below.
VIDEO:
Link to tweet
Wounded Bear
(58,436 posts)blm
(112,919 posts)They went to work.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)With some notable exceptions, Congress came across as prepared, serious, and thoughtful especially compared to prior outings, when technological illiteracy reigned supreme. ... But almost all of the questions no matter the issue area centered on the overwhelming question of trust. One member suggested that Facebook had lied. Another said Facebook was often found at the scene of the crime. ...
Freedom of expression is really hard at least really hard if it means anything, Congressman Jim Himes said, bringing up catastrophes like Facebooks role in facilitating the massacre of the Rohingya people in Myanmar. Tell us what investment youre making so that this freedom of expression which you enable is a good thing rather than a bad thing.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/23/20928859/libra-hearing-congress-mark-zuckerberg
"Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) later echoed those (Maxine Waters') concerns that Facebook permits a lower standard for truthfulness and decency for politicians, adding: It is hate speech, its hate, and its leading to violence and death threats in my office.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)and admit that both Democratic women were outstanding against that little shit Zuckerberg? So petty.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Is a force to be reckoned with. Especially doing cross examination of a hostile witness like Zuckerfuck.
George II
(67,782 posts)...both came up with their questions themselves. They didn't solicit questions from anonymous sources on twitter.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I saw that video this morning. She was great too.
ffr
(22,644 posts)simply because they wouldn't know what or how to ask an effective question like she can.
On Zuckerberg & Facebook. Anyone with an account on Facebook should seriously consider taking it down, simply from the use your information provides in misinformation campaigns used on that platform. Fuck fakebook!
brush
(53,467 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)
for what goes on his platform. He's a publisher and should have editors fact checking everything that goes on his site.
Everything!
He comes off as a hands-off, right-leaning jerk who doesn't care what he publishes as long as the money keeps coming in.
This is exactly one reason why Mayor Pete and all our candidates should steer clear of being associated with him.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Should every post be regulated?
This site is fundamentally the same. Not a public entity, not a broadcaster using FCC airwaves.
Under which power of the government would you require such 'fact checking'?
TomSlick
(11,032 posts)A good start would be to remove the special protections in federal law for internet "platforms" and apply the same regulations to Facebook, etc,. as apply to other publishers.
The concept of regulations applying only to broadcasters using the airwaves is antiquated. Very few people pull television from the airwaves anymore. Nevertheless, the FCC regulates broadcasters.
I get the statewide newspaper in Arkansas over the internet - the only way it is available outside of Little Rock. That newspaper will eventually only be available state-wide over the Internet. When that happens, it will nevertheless be held to the same rules as other publishers. Facebook, etc., are no different. They are publishers and should not have special protections written into federal law.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The FCC has the power to regulate the content of broadcast television because it uses public airwaves. Regulation of a public resource for public good.
When devices do use public radio frequencies (wifi, cell service, etc), it falls under FCC mandate. The internet does not use such airwaves.
Therefore, the FCC has no power to regulate the content of websites, generally.
Do you want the FCC scrutinizing *your* posts? Fact-checking you? What if one of your posts is not factual? Should the FCC remove it?
TomSlick
(11,032 posts)"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
I am responsible for my posts. If I defame someone in a post, I am liable. If I suborn perjury, threaten violence against a public official, incite insurrection, etc., in a post, I am criminally liable. If I commit one of these acts and it is published by a traditional publisher or broadcaster, it is also liable. However, if I post the defamation, or suborn perjury, incite insurrection, etc., on an internet platform, e.g. Facebook, it has no liability.
I appreciate the difficulties of internet platforms reviewing all posts before they go on line. However, they should be required to pull-down any tortious or illegal post when it is brought to their notice. Regulation of internet platforms would not be simple but that does not mean it should not be done.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You can't hold ma bell responsible for the idiot screaming at you over the phone.
What power of government allows the regulation of speech on a private website?
Do you want DU to have such a filter, then?
TomSlick
(11,032 posts)A traditional publisher or broadcaster is civilly or criminally liable if it republishes tortious or criminal speech. An internet platform would be similarly liable but for the statutory exemption cited before. I do not think that an internet platform should be held to the same standard as a traditional publisher or broadcaster but neither should it have no standard at all. At a minimum, when an internet platform is placed on notice of tortious or criminal content, it should be required to pull it down.
The Internet is simply too important in modern society. It cannot be a lawless environment. I am all about free speech but free speech has never been an absolute right. If, as I believe, Internet platforms cannot be held to exactly the same standard as traditional publishers, we should be able to devise some workable set of regulations.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Well, you can try, but ask Hair Twitler how that's working out for him.
I can say, "Donald Trump eats Ivanka's shit from his gold-plated toilet bowl." And he can't sue DU (and win), either.
But then again, DU isn't CNN. Facebook isn't CNN, either.
If it doesn't apply to DU, it wouldn't apply to facebook. Popularity doesn't suddenly make one subject to regulation.
TomSlick
(11,032 posts)You cannot sue CNN if someone libels you on live TV. However, if CNN replays the libel - if it republishes - then it has also libeled.
You are correct that any regulation applicable to Facebook would also apply to DU. Geese and Ganders.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Should the FCC fine you when you say, 'Fuck' as they do for broadcast TV?
Should Hair Twitler be able to sue DU for my post above?
Yeah, how's that suing CNN going for this little shithead? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nativeamerican/cnn-hit-with-275-million-defamation-suit-by-kentucky-student-idUSKBN1QU0BY
Oops, I called the little asshole a name. I hear he likes to jerk off to kiddie pics. Oops, DU's going to get sued, too, since when you view this post, DU is re-publishing it.
Oh noes.
TomSlick
(11,032 posts)No, the FCC should not be able to fine you for using obscene language. There are different standards for "broadcast" television at different times of the day. There are different standards yet for cable television. There should reasonably be different standards for internet platforms. I make it a point to not post anything I would not want my mother to read but everyone has different personal standards. DU has standards as outlined in the Terms of Use. These standards are enforced by the Administrators and jurors.
Anytime someone asks "can they sue me?" The answer is always yes. Anyone willing to pay the filing fee and a process server can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything. Whether the lawsuit will survive dismissal or summary disposition is a different question. Whether the case will draw Rule 11 sanctions is yet another question.
Calling Trump a vulgar name is not my style but it is not actionable. Matters of opinion are generally not defamatory. Moreover, under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, it is very difficult for a public figure to maintain an action for defamation.
brush
(53,467 posts)in other areas of publishing?
It's fairly apparent that they haven't caught up with quick advances of online publishing. As for facebook and DU being basically the same, that's laughable.
What's your angle?
Are you arguing for facebook to continue publishing untruths with impunity? By allowing such in 2016 is one of the reasons we have an unfit, orange liar in the WH.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)No matter how popular facebook is, it is still not a government-ran website, nor does it use public airwaves, a la broadcast television.
Just like you can say, 'fuck' on cable television, the FCC can't say shit for me yelling 'FUCK' on facebook, or here on DU.
brush
(53,467 posts)people want to put on its site. Zuckerberg, if he had anything driving him besides profit margin would want his platform to edit/police itself, which is what publishers and journalist pride themselves on.
Newspaper and broadcast TV sites employ editors to do that exactlyyou know, standards and practices and pride in what goes on their site.
You'd think he'd want that, and you too btw.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Kindly keep your fingers out of my mouth, thanks. My words come out just fine. Besides, I don't know where your fingers have been.
What I like, or don't like, or have a problem with, or don't have a problem with- is fucking immaterial.
The government has no power to regulate the content of speech on a private website.
brush
(53,467 posts)the truth. Not rocket science.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Go watch it, then come back and tell me it's not about 'the government'.
brush
(53,467 posts)He's a publisher and one would think he'd have pride in what is published under his name.
You have no idea.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,021 posts)brush
(53,467 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,021 posts)This part is especially relevant:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Facebook can (and should) do screening, but can't be considered the publisher of the RW/Russian bot crap. Zuckerberg can ruin it for everybody else by allowing that shit to become a national hazard and emergency.
brush
(53,467 posts)bothered policing what appears on his siteeven after what happened in 2016.
He's got to be a trumper IMO to not even care if lies run on his platform.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It's clear that what's being talked about is government regulation.
Which the government has no power to do.
brush
(53,467 posts)in journalism it's about professional standards and pride in what you published, not being dependant on the government. Zuckerberg can institute those standard to police what goes on his site but it's clear he has no intention in doing that.
You'd think that since facebook reaches a fourth of th world's population he'd take responsibility in making sure what goes on his site is truth and fact as much as possible.
Guess hiring some editors would be a drain on his humongous profit margin.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)lostnfound
(16,138 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)lostnfound
(16,138 posts)Its a mechanism handing out powerful megaphones to inflammatory lies
Say whatever you want to 10 people IRL or to a crowd of 100; thats free speech.
Allowing people to spread lies and conspiracy theories to millions of dumbasses is like yelling fire in a crowded theatre
Judge the question by its fruits. Trump in the White House, white supremacy on the rise, western democracy being dismantled by rightwing nationalists
You dont think thats a good outcome, so you?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I will never agree with curtailing speech I don't like, because sooner or later those in power will feel the same about speech I do like.
lostnfound
(16,138 posts)lostnfound
(16,138 posts)We can have a country covered in litter and rotting trash, so that Russians and white supremacists can blab on and spread their disease. Lots of little bits saying Like! Like! Like!
I wouldnt go into that cesspool of Facebook to speak louder if you paid me. And Im no good at it anyway.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. and likely make the accuser pay court costs.
Can you sue ma bell for your idiot brother for slander on the phone?
Of course not, that'd be fucking stupid.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)i actually have an idiot bil
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Governmental or otherwise.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The government doesn't get to set aside the first amendment when some counter ticks above some imaginary point.
"Oh, can't regulate religion? Well, we can once you have a million followers!"
That's the thing about a principle. It has to apply universally, or it's not a principle, it's just a preference.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)and quite simple point. good grief
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Of course not. That would be moronic.
Can DU be sued for libel when I say, "Donald Trump beats his children with a gold-plated rope."
Of course not, that would be stupid. I could be, but DU could not.
If it doesn't apply to DU, it doesn't apply to facebook. Just as it wouldn't apply to ma bell if I did it on the phone.
That is a simple point.
Hekate
(90,189 posts)...anywhere online, as you should well know.
Here at DU we have the TOS and a self-policing system that keeps the trolls in check, but we are a relatively small group, especially when compared to FB.
"Under what power of government?" Well, since common decency and a sense of the social contract are not working for Mr Zuckerberg, he needs laws to regulate his business.
So do oil companies that spill their crap all over my beach. The oil companies (to extend the comparison) may think my unusable beach and its dead and stinking sea life are not their problem, and that their only responsibility is to their shareholders, but there are in fact a body of laws that say otherwise.
When he allows and even encourages political actors to flood the cyberverse with lies, he is causing immeasurable harm to this country. He shrugs. Cambridge Analytica paid their bills on time and he thinks this is not his responsibility. "My God how the money rolls in" says the old song about a whorehouse.
lostnfound
(16,138 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)We are fundamentally the same, it's a matter of scope.
"Common decency" is codified in what section of US code? What article of the constitution is that, again?
Merlot
(9,696 posts)so no way to target voters. People reading DU understand the difference between a post and paid advertising.
FB is a large international billion dollar company which makes it's money via advertising. they can afford to hire fact checkers.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And DU knows quite a bit about us, if they care to collate the data.
Every day we tell deeply personal stories about ourselves here.
Yes, FB is big. That doesn't suddenly give the government the power to regulate speech there.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)DU is also not collection our data for sell to said advertisers. Cookies do that on our computers
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I would posit that DU is an incredible collection of our data. It's only though the good will of our overlord that it's not sold.
But it's his site, he can do with it as he chooses. Our choice is to use it, or leave. That's about it.
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)Suckerberg!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)at least where one man was concerned. Come on, Joe. Surely it's wrong to deny the validity of this, along with the serious grillings of many other Democratic members. They're all fighting for us.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)His gardener? Just look at that dork! How can anyone take him seriously?
tenderfoot
(8,424 posts)We're talking to you Trey Gowdy, DT, Boris Johnson, Zuck....
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Lars39
(26,093 posts)Polybius
(15,235 posts)I swear I have only seen one other person with it.
blugbox
(951 posts)at140
(6,110 posts)it's methods, regardless of how AOC made Zuckerberg look like deer in headlights.
As CEO, he has all the power behind him with a Billion users of FB.