Freedom goes both ways

I love how excited leftists are to defend big tech companies against the ordinary Americans.

Remember, they're the party for the little guy. They speak truth to power!

I love how the party who said if you don't like a businesses policies, you should vote with your wallet now wants to regulate them.

Social media should not delete posts. But their current practice of reviewing and flagging false or misleading claims when someone reports them? That feels like a good place. Spin that how you want, that is a public service.

I caveat that on them continuing to post their sources so people can evaluate the claims.

"But their current practice of reviewing and flagging false or misleading claims when someone reports them?"

Where have they once flagged a false or misleading claim from Joe Biden?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=joe-biden

https://www.snopes.com/collections/2020-election-claims-on-biden/

And a good fact check on Trump (I'm sure there is more than one, but i'm not spending time on it)

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/social-media-posts-misquote-trump-on-immigrant-family-separations/

My personal opinion is the left currently respects fact checkers, so if you are courting us, you try not to tell outright lies. The contrast between the number of lies or exaggerations Trump tells is currently a selling point. Not telling outright lies is not the same as being honest. People still say things that are true, but are misleading, lest you think I'm blind to that distinction.

Hey retard, do you know what the word "monopoly" means?

Where's the "monopoly"?

Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.

I do. There are differences between classic monopolies and Facebook/Twitter. One, being online it should be relatively easy to move to a different platform. Two, someone could create a competitor with little effort and have it be available worldwide in short order. There are probably open source templates out there that could be used to do that.

Yes they have a tendency to buy up competitors, but that could be solved by just not selling.

I think they are more like fast-food chains than Wal-Mart. You can compete on quality and innovation.

They aren't judging truth from a place of unquestionable authority. It's not "lies, don't question me". They "show their work" and I have not had anyone point me to a fact check that was wrong.

My understanding for Facebook specifically is they only flag claims that represent as truth instead of opinion, and only when a user reports it.

So, "Democrats worship Molech!" Opinion (dumb opinion)
"The FBI arrested Democratic leaders mid human sacrafice in California last week!" < presents as fact

And what about when they pressure banks and payment processors not to work with their competitors?

"Just start your own FaceBook."
"Just start your own YouTube."
"Just start your own Google."
"Just start your own payment processors."
"Just start your own global banking network."

Kind of breaks down somewhere along the line, doesn't it?

This feels like we are expanding from my point, but I'll go along.

Yes, if they pressure their 'suppliers' not to work with competitors, that is one of the traits of a monopoly.

But if they were to be broken up they they would probably just break up the integrated services. Facebook Payments; Facebook Videos; Facebook Posts; etc. I don't think that is going to help with the fact checking.

You won't be able to compete with them at everything, but if you want to share information and pictures with no fact checks? You can do that. Are they going to have all of the features of the industry giants? No. They spend lots of money to develop or acquire those features.

I'm not minimizing the momentum that Facebook and google have. I tried to switch once and well, the best social media in the world only works if people are on it. But there is nothing forcing people to post to Facebook, search with Google, etc.

Banking...not sure how that relates.

I for one like the fact checking. I fact check things anyway, so having a link that tells me it has been checked and where they verified saves me a little time. Not a ton, because I still generally verify if it is something I care about. But for ridiculous claims, it is helpful.

Anyone willing to accept a fact check blindly isn't treating Facebook posts themselves with the skepticism they deserve and therefore need the protection. If you could show bias in the fact checking, then we could talk. And BTW, bias in fact checking means letting lies stand for one side and not the other. Or actually being inaccurate in checking. Just pointing out the number of times someone was fact checked and flagged may just mean they are a liar.

Aren't conservatives moving to @parler_app? What's funny is that app has been banning liberals. It seems they aren't really setting out to be a better a free speech platform. People moving are looking to not be contradicted.

It blows my mind. If my beliefs can't stand up to criticism or are based on falsehoods, I adjust my beliefs. I don't ignore the criticism or facts. Its one thing to say "well, I still don't believe it." Its another to call the information false.