For the ten-thousandth time: getting banned on Facebook is not censorship. When it gets brought up in other countries, it is the governments of those countries doing it.
Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest.
Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest.
However, it is not a violation of US law.
If that is good enough for you, then so be it.
No.
I don't see how that changes anything. Nobody has to host a link to anyone else's site either in the name of free speech ....
Here, they are demonstrating (among other times) that they do not believe in free speech. It is their right. Just as it is their right to collect user data and resell it.
They have a right to suck and be evil.
Do you have to host other people's content, anything, to belive in free speech?
I don't know what you mean by free speech at this point.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebo...
https://verdict.justia.com/2019/01/09/why-facebooks-hate-spe...
But that seems like an entirely different argument than your idea of "free speech". Related, but not the same.
The ramification being that some people my choose to understand the world differently from you. The answer to that worry is to make compelling points in your favour, or maybe try to understand the other side of the argument. Freedom comes at the expense of security, and security in this instance is overstepping its boundaries.
> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
Marsh v Alabama may not currently apply to digital spaces, but it's not inconceivable that in the future there will be another SCOTUS ruling to clarify this new emerging scenario.
I suspect the conditions that it is offered at will matter. If I offer my land for yoga I probably can still filter someone who tries to hold a practice for their rock band.
ELUAs and such would come into play.
Let alone that I'm not yet sure if SCOTUS as a group really understands technology.
Telling people to divest from facebook is as helpful as telling a chinese citizen to leave china if they don't like government censorship. Especially if facebook becomes entrenched and monopolistic. Also, considering facebook has more power and reach than almost every country in the world, perhaps it's time to think about censorship and corporate power.
After all, government censorship was the norm until we decided that governments have gotten too powerful to allow to exist unchecked. Perhaps it's time to think of large corporations in the same manner.
What makes no sense is thinking Facebook is on the left.
Facebook will be standing right in with the tighty-righty GOPpers when it comes to regulating or taxing it.
>The Atlantic Council’s president and CEO sent a seven-page letter to Hagel Friday that included a list of foreign corporations, governments and government entities that fund the organization. The list includes roughly 100 corporations and 15 foreign governments, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The amount of funding from each entity is not listed.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/282047-atlantic-council-r...
>Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest.
"Country X can do what it wants. If you don't like it, leave."