Every nation is regulating them in some way.

But in doing this they can no longer deny you the use of it merely because they dont like what you think or say.

I believe this will happen as a result of the continued censorship.

Only if government gets in on the censoring.

as it stands in any market that relies on funding/sponsorship, there is discretion to pull in the viewers or consumers that appeal to those funders and sponsors.

thats a free market thing, to have that discretion and not have to be dictated to about including every perceivable interest or opinion for each competitor (website, retailer, network... et cetera)

didn't you just start a thread about this yesterday?

It was on a tv program yesterday discussing FB. And. They can give your personal information to Banks and other corporations for advertising purposes on FB.

Not sure if this is correct, but if so, it is not good.

It doesn't do away with censorship, it just puts it in the hands of the government.

Facebook wants access to big banks user accounts.

I value my privacy too much to give Facebook that much control.

They botched it on Cambridge Analytica. I don't see good things coming from this.

Facebook can't do squat on this front. That's why they're asking for banks to hand over the data, which in and of itself is shady. They may make it sound like they're "asking", but given how powerful they think they are, they think they can push big banks like Chase around.

if the government gets involved in this,then these companies will have to fall under the rule of the Federal Communication Comission (FCC),which was started to regulate medias that the masses use to communicate with each,such as TV,and radio.

social media sites are really no different than those are,and should DEFINITELY be regulated in the same way,since they have the ability to cause great harm to the country,and its citizens if they are used incorrectly...

all you have to do is look at the way that facebook was misused during the last election cycle to realize that,since it almost brought our election system to its knees since there was no regulation to keep it from being hijacked by foreign countries to manipulate our elections,and all of the REAL 'fake news' that it gives to people who just assume that the 'news' stories they are reading are genuine,since they are so used to the FCC having oversight over all media to prevent the spread of false stories from happening on a large scale.

so,YES,due to the fact that there are now sites that have even more reach than TV,and radio does,i believe that LARGE social media sites like FB MUST be regulated,for the common good of the country,for which there is already a great precedent in existence,even if you DO happen to think of it as 'censorship',instead of 'public safety'.

OF COURSE they want access to that information!!!
they want acces to ALL the information the can get on EVERYBODY!!!

that's because there isn't enough regulation to protect people's privacy,and their personal information on these websites!

if the government gets involved in these sites,then the personal information that they are allowed to collect,and use,and what they are allowed to use it for will ALSO be heavily regulated,for the good of the people,unlike NOW,where the sites all hide their agendas in tiny fine print that nobody reads,and pretty much do what they please,so,government regulation on these sites will also ensure that people's privacy,and personal rights are protected,which would also be ANOTHER 'plus' for government control over these sites.

Facebook is to blame for it, by allowing third party apps access to their user data once a user download such-and-such app that linked to Facebook.

In other words, users voluntarily gave up their information to third parties by simply installing an app.

Facebook for it's part, shut off that spigot (or so they claim).

Government already HAS your information. Why would you give them more power to regulate your movement, free association, and who you do business with?

that's why I don't use facebook,because I already KNOW what these sites are capable of doing!

and,if they are capable of doing it,then you can pretty much be guaranteed that,without regulations telling them that they CANT do it, they WILL do it!

but,MOST people don't take the time to read all of the fine print,and don't understand what it all means,so they are willing to trade off something that they don't see the value in,or think is as important as it actually is for the 'privilege' of using a site that is DESIGNED to harvest personal information that it can use against people while they are engaging in what they think are 'innocent social activities'
but,all you have to do is realize that if the things that you are freely giving away to them didn't have any value,then why would these huge companies be running these 'free' sites,and making BILLIONS of dollars of profits off of them.

and,just HOW do you associate government FCC regulation of these websites with 'regulating your movements','free association',and 'who you do business with'??

cuz,i just don't see any connection in FCC regulation of a media source,and these things.
you are STILL free to move around the country at will,associate with the people you want to,and do business with whoever you want to.

please explain how you WOULDNT be??
[unless you are wanting to associate with the like of child predators,and anarchistsand associate with people who are harmful to society,in which case,somebody NEEDS to tell you not to do that,if you cant figure that out for yourself!!]

Interesting. and a bit scary !

That was regarding Warners new policy initiative. The law he is proposing is very Stalinist in nature.

This thread is the rebuttal.

Oh, gee. How did Humans ever manage to communicate their ideas before Facebook and Twitter were invented?

Calif. for instance regulated state workers movements by banning them from going to NC officially due to "the powers that be" didnt like how they were voting on bathroom bills. This extended to every state Brown deemed unacceptable.

FB..Twitter et al
Made sure to advertise Ca policy as the correct policy.

They monitor conversation to make sure its being communicated correctly.

I survive very well without either.

to a degree,the government has a small right to censor SOME things,but we are ALL constitutionally protected under the first amendment,which protects free speech,and THE GOVERNMENT is NOT ALLOWED to censor our speech,unless it violates the law,so the worry of government censorship is basically nothing more than paranoid fear mongering,and is pretty absurd.

BUT,some things,which are illegal,dangerously antisocial,or harmful to the greater good of the public,like child pornography, DESERVES,and NEEDS to be censored!!

does anybody disagree with that?

or before cell phones ... I ask that question all the time.


We have developed a cultural addiction, several of them.

No.
But it interesting.
Givt DOES censor speech if you want something from them and give them editorial rights and complete control over final decision.
Happens more than you think. You just just didnt know it was happening.
Case in pount.
Movies.
Likely some of your favorites went through this process.
In fact a lot of tv.