30
30
0
You've undoubtedly seen the headlines that bring back middle school social studies lessons. The Facebook Papers? While the Federalist Papers (https://rly.pt/FederalistPapers) helped establish the United States as a country independent from outside rule, the Facebook Papers (https://rly.pt/FacebookPapers) shed light on how far we’ve come from our Founding Fathers’ fight. Hundreds of pages written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison ultimately convinced the masses that ratifying the US Constitution (https://rly.pt/Constitution) was the only way to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The Facebook Papers address how the media monolith promotes injustice, disrupts tranquility, enables offense, and detracts from the general welfare of our great nation. Thousands upon thousands of internal documents seem to suggest that Facebook is responsible for a great deal of harm.
Exactly what kind of harm are we talking about? Here are four key issues being raised from the digestion of the Facebook Papers by 17 news organizations:
1. Promoting Injustice: https://rly.pt/30lSxE8
“Stop the Steal,” QAnon and Three Percenters, to name a few, have a platform in which to organize and spread messages of hate and misinformation. Facebook, according to the papers, knew about the January 6th insurrection on the Capitol as it was happening but did nothing to stop the attack on our government.
2. Disrupting Tranquility: https://rly.pt/3Dh2EZG
Civil War is pretty much the antithesis to tranquility and yet Facebook is playing a major role in the violence erupting in Africa, namely Ethiopia. Citing the platform’s inability to support local languages, the Papers address increasing violence in developing countries that goes hand-in-hand with increased use of social media.
3. Enabling Offense: https://rly.pt/3qCgimD
Defending VIPs and giving almost six million users the ability to sidestep content sanctions, Facebook misled its oversight board which ultimately allowed troves of offensive content to be disseminated across it’s platform.
4. Detracting from the General Welfare: https://rly.pt/3c9hGEM
Over half of online recruitment in active sex trafficking cases last year occurred on Facebook. This information isn’t new. Apple threatened to pull Facebook’s products from it’s app store in 2018 due to human trafficking concerns.
The Facebook Papers bring some ugly truths to the forefront with regard to human behavior. I’m not interested in your thoughts on the Facebook Papers, but rather how 21st century technology factors into the laws and ideals that serve as the backbone of our great nation. The Federalists succeeded in their efforts to establish a government like none seen before it in history. However, opposition was fierce and thus was born the Bill of Rights. The compromise allowed anti-Federalists to limit the power of the government. The very first Amendment protects the right to free speech. https://rly.pt/FreedomOfSpeech
Hamilton and Madison did not have the internet in mind when defending the constitution or amending the document. We no longer live in a world where one’s voice is only heard by those within shouting distance. Your right to free speech ends when it infringes upon another’s basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Should the government hold Facebook accountable for harmful speech disseminated on its platform? If the technology grew faster than Facebook’s ability to control it, should it be shut down until effective safety measures are put in place? I encourage you to share your thoughts by respecting your right to free speech and using it kindly, thoughtfully and responsibly.
Exactly what kind of harm are we talking about? Here are four key issues being raised from the digestion of the Facebook Papers by 17 news organizations:
1. Promoting Injustice: https://rly.pt/30lSxE8
“Stop the Steal,” QAnon and Three Percenters, to name a few, have a platform in which to organize and spread messages of hate and misinformation. Facebook, according to the papers, knew about the January 6th insurrection on the Capitol as it was happening but did nothing to stop the attack on our government.
2. Disrupting Tranquility: https://rly.pt/3Dh2EZG
Civil War is pretty much the antithesis to tranquility and yet Facebook is playing a major role in the violence erupting in Africa, namely Ethiopia. Citing the platform’s inability to support local languages, the Papers address increasing violence in developing countries that goes hand-in-hand with increased use of social media.
3. Enabling Offense: https://rly.pt/3qCgimD
Defending VIPs and giving almost six million users the ability to sidestep content sanctions, Facebook misled its oversight board which ultimately allowed troves of offensive content to be disseminated across it’s platform.
4. Detracting from the General Welfare: https://rly.pt/3c9hGEM
Over half of online recruitment in active sex trafficking cases last year occurred on Facebook. This information isn’t new. Apple threatened to pull Facebook’s products from it’s app store in 2018 due to human trafficking concerns.
The Facebook Papers bring some ugly truths to the forefront with regard to human behavior. I’m not interested in your thoughts on the Facebook Papers, but rather how 21st century technology factors into the laws and ideals that serve as the backbone of our great nation. The Federalists succeeded in their efforts to establish a government like none seen before it in history. However, opposition was fierce and thus was born the Bill of Rights. The compromise allowed anti-Federalists to limit the power of the government. The very first Amendment protects the right to free speech. https://rly.pt/FreedomOfSpeech
Hamilton and Madison did not have the internet in mind when defending the constitution or amending the document. We no longer live in a world where one’s voice is only heard by those within shouting distance. Your right to free speech ends when it infringes upon another’s basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Should the government hold Facebook accountable for harmful speech disseminated on its platform? If the technology grew faster than Facebook’s ability to control it, should it be shut down until effective safety measures are put in place? I encourage you to share your thoughts by respecting your right to free speech and using it kindly, thoughtfully and responsibly.
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 12
This has always been one of my pet peeves, people claiming violation of First Amendment Rights whenever they don't get to be heard as they want to. The First Amendment isn't freedom to be a jerk, freedom from someone shutting you down on open mic night, or freedom to abuse someone else's social media platform as you like. The First Amendment is freedom from government interaction in your opinions. This is the actual amendment, for people who've never actually read it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
In a nutshell, Congress and cops can't stop you from talking. Unlike some other countries, a person can't go to jail even if they are spitting out hate speech, praying to Hitler as their protector. It's not like that in some countries like France where you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing about a race, or China where you can go to jail for criticizing a public official.
I dislike FB as much as anyone else, but it's still a publicly traded corporation. If you went to a public social place like a community pool, or a privately owned place like a golf course, and started breaking their rules - especially after agreeing to their rules when you joined - that's not an infringement on your rights.
If you come toy house to play on my property and break my rules, I have the right to kick you off. FB is hosted on servers that belong to FB, using code made by FB, to present a profile made by FB. None of this is news when you sign up.
So, when someone says it violates their First Amendment rights when FB invites them in, offers them a seat at the table with their own cubby and says "these are the rules if you want to play" and then that person violates the rules - I say that person hasn't actually read the First Amendment.
So, to be clear, the First Amendment is not for protecting you when you're banished by a business for speaking your mind, that is capitalism, and that's what makes our country great. The First Amendment is what allows you to complain about it without the FBI showing up at your door and confiscating your computer
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
In a nutshell, Congress and cops can't stop you from talking. Unlike some other countries, a person can't go to jail even if they are spitting out hate speech, praying to Hitler as their protector. It's not like that in some countries like France where you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing about a race, or China where you can go to jail for criticizing a public official.
I dislike FB as much as anyone else, but it's still a publicly traded corporation. If you went to a public social place like a community pool, or a privately owned place like a golf course, and started breaking their rules - especially after agreeing to their rules when you joined - that's not an infringement on your rights.
If you come toy house to play on my property and break my rules, I have the right to kick you off. FB is hosted on servers that belong to FB, using code made by FB, to present a profile made by FB. None of this is news when you sign up.
So, when someone says it violates their First Amendment rights when FB invites them in, offers them a seat at the table with their own cubby and says "these are the rules if you want to play" and then that person violates the rules - I say that person hasn't actually read the First Amendment.
So, to be clear, the First Amendment is not for protecting you when you're banished by a business for speaking your mind, that is capitalism, and that's what makes our country great. The First Amendment is what allows you to complain about it without the FBI showing up at your door and confiscating your computer
(23)
(0)
Erika Fitzpatrick
That’s the ideal notion of the First Amendment. It’s supposed to protect the freedom of speech, and not establish a religion. The question is always how the law is interpreted within that clause. And of course that has a lot to do with who sits in government in any era and the balance of power on the Supreme Court.
(2)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
Isn't it interesting that some social-media fact checker, can shutdown scientific discussion just because it offends their, and their employers political ideology and values... I think Randolph Hurst tried that during the last century, and monarchs before him, and the Catholic Church before them... ad-nauseum; those in power will remain in power so-long as they control the masses, by what ever means.
(5)
(0)
SGT Bruce Savage
Erika Fitzpatrick the constitution is writen in english, why does it need to be interpreted? The supreme court is supposed to apply the constitution not interpret it.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Ric Smith
I regret to inform you that you have entirely failed to comprehend how section 230 of Title 47, U.S. Code, OBLIGATES online platforms to publish third party content if they want to benefit from the immunity to prosecution contained in section 230. When platforms begin to edit or control content, they become publishers and no longer enjoy the legal immunity of section 230. Facebook and other platforms want it both ways. They want to control third party content BUT still benefit from the immunity of section 230. They can’t have it both ways.
(0)
(0)
We need to work on getting rid of lies hate espoused by people and organizations. It will be easier said than done.
(5)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Free speech or not You can still be liable for hateful or false information or speech that can directly cause the injury or death of others. There certainly are and can be times that can get out of control and when You speech imposes of the individual rights of others it's NOT valid. We don't all have to agree with everything and have our own views and actually think for ourselves but that doesn't give anyone the right to abuse the Freedoms of others which seems to be a point that hasn't hit home with far too many people.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
It's a very interesting read. I think a lot of people, myself included, don't understand exactly what our rights are, especially when it comes to being detained and searched. I've seed dozens of videos of people recording being what seems to be being detained illegally. Most of them end with the person being taken away in handcuffs. So, I am still confused if I am required to present an ID if I have not given an officer a reasonable cause to believe I have committed a crime. Actually, I think these falls under the 2nd amendment.
Okay, back to the 1st amendment. Apparently, we can say whatever we want unless we try to say it through a private company, then they have the right to block people from saying things that they don't like or believe to be misleading or untrue.
Okay, back to the 1st amendment. Apparently, we can say whatever we want unless we try to say it through a private company, then they have the right to block people from saying things that they don't like or believe to be misleading or untrue.
(5)
(0)
CDR (Join to see)
It comes down to understanding the words as meant in the 1700's. Start with the definitions from those days, and the knowledge will set us free.
(3)
(0)
PFC David Foster
Nikki Thomas - It's not the government doing it. Private companies have the right to serve who they want. The reason Twitter blocks people like Trump is because they don't want to be held responsible and consider him a risk and a liability to their business. The people that own Facebook and Twitter are literally, they can afford an army of lawyers to tell them what they can and can't do, but you are free to sue them, so it Trump, if you think they have broken any laws, civil or criminal.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next