Business
Opinions
Facebook has blood on its hands.
And she makes a lot of money from it
The idea that Facebook and Twitter should maintain freedom of expression is fundamentally wrong.
These are private companies that make money from bad news and extreme and violent content.
They closed Trump's account because of bad public relations and nothing more.
It is necessary to enshrine legislation that will limit their power
Tags
Twitter
Facebook
Dr. Mike Dahan
Sunday, 17 January 2021, 17:09
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
Residents of the Tzahala estate
More than two million Israelis have been vaccinated against Corona; ...
Traffic congestion throughout the country following the placement of barriers to enforcement ...
Trump: The impeachment process is causing a great deal of outrage, but we are not ...
Netanyahu paid tribute to Sheldon Adelson: one of the greatest contributors to the people ...
Tightening the closure: 25 roadblocks were set up on roads throughout ...
Livnat Poran - Walla Studio!
NEWS
Despite the closure: In Talmud Torah "Hachmat Shlomo" in Jerusalem ...
Professor Amnon Amusement
Shulamit Gilan Manpower
Netanyahu: Even when we release the economy in March, we will have to be careful ...
In the video: Trump condemns the attack on the Capitol, in parallel with the overthrow (Photo: Reuters)
The suspension of Donald Trump from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms following the incitement to a coup against the Legislature has led to widespread debate about freedom of expression and the power of social networks.
First, and in order to put things in order, it is important to make it clear that no obligation of freedom of expression applies to these platforms, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution certainly does not apply to private companies.
They are not the town square, but commercial and private companies whose whole purpose is profit.
Any content, whether political or not, that is posted on social media is posted out of kindness, not out of right.
Facebook was not born out of some altruistic vision of connecting humanity and reviving public space.
The goal of the company, like any business company, is profit.
As much as possible.
The business plan is simple.
The platforms trade in attention and personal information.
The research teaches us, and Facebook itself admits, that the most appealing, most fascinating, most viral, and most lucrative content, is extreme and violent content.
As early as 2018, Facebook researchers revealed that 64% of members of extremist groups were referred there by Facebook's own algorithm.
Why?
Because it pays off.
is very.
In this context it can be said that Facebook has blood on its hands, and not just in the US. In Sri Lanka, Myanmar, the Philippines, Libya and other countries. In Myanmar they also contributed to ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Rohingya. Facebook has a central role in political radicalization, and what happened on Capitol Hill is an example. What Happens When the Internet Becomes Flesh and Blood - on the one hand inciting, and on the other hand providing the infrastructure for violent organizing.Social media acts as a catalyst for political extremism, shutting people in content resonating boxes, part based on conspiracy theories and pike news, enabling people to realize their darkest impulses In fact, a mirror image of liberalism.
Good to know (promoted)
The medical service that will save your life in case of a heart attack
To the full article
It is allowed to limit it, the question is where it comes from.
Trump (Photo: Reuters)
Dr. Mike Dahan
The expectation of freedom of expression stems from confusion.
Without noticing, the public space, that imaginary space of free, uncensored discourse, has migrated from the written press, public broadcasting, and many other places, to social networks, and even more so in the past year, following the corona.
Along the way, he also lost legal protections against censorship and in favor of free expression.
Social networks were happy to host the already non-public space, as long as the content complied with the policies of each platform.
Grace, not right.
Therefore, there is no obligation to host Donald Trump or any other personality on these networks.
Once the product became toxic, and in this case Trump and his aides are the product, the company shunned them because it threatened to damage the company's own reputation.
For them, this is a public relations problem.
There is no censorship, malice or silence here.
Of course this is Trump - the briefing room in the White House is within walking distance of him, and journalists and networks will be happy to broadcast his words, immediately and live to the whole world, even when there is no president.
The question here is not whether or not it is appropriate to suspend Trump from the platforms, but an examination of the immense power, especially in the political and social context, that these platforms have accumulated, and whether these should be the main mediators of political expression.
The solution lies in regulation and legislation - legislation to prevent monopolization of the platforms and maintain privacy, impose responsibility on companies and their owners for the content published on the platform (as a building must comply with strict building regulations and is under supervision), new regulation (with teeth) that requires transparency about how people are routed. , The existence of human and automated mechanisms within the companies to prevent users from paving the way for extremist groups, mechanisms to prevent the distribution of Pike News and to prevent external parties from doing their part in networks, such as Cambridge Analytics and state bodies, and the obligation to publish semi-annual transparency reports.
The regulation imposed in the EU has already managed to curb the power of the networks a bit, so we know it is possible.
It is important to remember - local legislation applies to companies, obliges them and they also know how to adapt to the requirements of the law.
Only in this way can we, perhaps, regain the public space and the liberties that accompany it.
Dr. Mike Dahan is a lecturer at Sapphire Academic College
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments