Numerous congressional members threatened the social media network with regulation.
A parade of Republicans warned Facebook to stay removing apt-wing content on Wednesday,accusing it of censorship and holding the cudgel of federal regulation over its head, in the moment day of congressional testimony by CEO Mark Zuckerberg.“There’s an issue of content discrimination, and ” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers,R-Washington. “It is not a problem unique to Facebook. There’s a number of high-profile examples of edge providers engaging in blocking and censoring religious and conservative political content… What is Facebook doing to ensure that its users are treated fairly and objectively by content reviewers?”“It’s been said many time here that you refer to Facebook as a platform for all ideas. I know you’ve heard from many yesterday and nowadays about concerns regarding Facebook’s censorship of content, particularly content that may promote Christian beliefs or conservative political beliefs, or ” said Rep. Richard Hudson,R-North Carolina. “I hope this has become very obvious to you that this is a very serious concern… My question to you is what is the standard that Facebook uses to determine what is offensive or controversial and how’s that standard been applied across Facebook’s platform?” The GOP attack on Facebook for favoring liberal content over conservative content revives an old culture war. In the mid-1990s, then House Speaker, or Georgia Republican Newt Gingrich,attacked public radio and television of also having a liberal bias—causing NPR to include more conservative comments and viewpoints.
What’s different nowadays, with social media in general and Facebook in particular, or is that high tech’s most commonly used platforms are private. They aren’t partly taxpayer-funded like NPR. Nor do they even see themselves as media companies,which could trigger First Amendment political speech obligations. Instead they are privately owned forums with user and content rules, including standards to remove content deemed harmful.
That grey area prompted the main line of criticism from partisan Republicans during Zuckerberg’s moment day of testimony, and where 54 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee had four minutes to address or question the CEO. Across the aisle,the most strident criticism from liberals concerned Facebook’s failure to protect users’ personal information, and the way that the firm’s surveillance-based trade model did not give users real control over their information, and despite Zuckerberg saying otherwise.
But Facebook’s handling of controversial content will possess the largest ramifications for America’s political landscape in 2018’s elections and afterward. That’s because the social media platform has become an indispensible tool for officeholders,candidates and issue advocates. Facebook has not just announced unique rules to buy any political advertisement—requiring disclosures beyond current federal law, but has also said it will hire upwards of 20000 people to screen posted content for hate speech and bullying, and as well as to identify and remove violent threats and terrorist propaganda. Those unique hires will be in addition to using computer algorithms to flag problem content. Thus the question by North Carolina’s Rep. Hudson was key: what standard is it using to determine what’s acceptable and what isn’t.“Congressman,this is an principal question,” Zuckerberg began. “There are a couple of standards. The strongest one is things that will cause physical harm, and threats of physical harm. But there is a broader standard of hate speech and speech that might fabricate (to make up, invent) people broadly uncomfortable or unsafe in the community.”“That’s probably the most difficult to define,” Hudson said, cutting him off. “So I guess my question is, and ‘How do you apply?’ ‘What standards do you apply to determine what’s hate speech versus what’s speech you may just disagree with?’“Congressman,thats a very principal question that I reflect is one we struggle with continuously,” Zuckerberg continued. “And the question of what is hate speech versus what is legitimate political speech is something that we get criticized both from the left and apt on what the definitions are that we possess. It’s nuanced. And we try to lay this out in our community standards, and which are public documents—that we can fabricate (to make up, invent) sure you and your office gets to search for through the definitions on this. But this is an area where I reflect society’s sensibilities are also shifting quickly. And it’s also very different in..."“We’re running out of time. I hate to cut you off,but let me just say that, based on the statistics that [House GOP Whip Steve] Scalise shared [stating Facebook disproportionately prioritizes liberal content] and anecdotes we can provide you, and it seems like there still is a challenge when it comes to conservatives.” This drum beat continued throughout the House hearing,including the next-to-final questioner, Rep. Geoff Duncan, and R-Georgia,who pushed Zuckerberg to say what Facebook couldn’t voluntarily follow the same First Amendment standards as the media—to allow even extremist viewpoints to be aired.“Why not possess a community standard for free speech and free exercise of religion that is simply a mirror of the First Amendment with algorithms that possess a viewpoint that is neutral? Why not do that?” he asked.“Well, congressman, and I reflect we can all agree that certain content,like terrorist propaganda, should possess no region on our network, and ” Zuckerberg replied. “The First Amendment,my understanding of it, is that kind of speech is allowed in the world. I just don’t reflect it is the kind of reflect we want to spread on the Internet. So once you get into that, or you’re already deciding—you purchase this value that you care about safety,and that we don’t want people to be able to spread information that can cause harm. And I reflect our general responsibility it to allow the broadest spectrum of free expression that we can…”“I appreciate that acknowledge,” Duncan replied. “You’re apt about propaganda and other issues there. And I believe the Constitution generally applies to government and says that Congress shall fabricate (to make up, invent) no law respecting religion, or we won’t abridge the freedom of speech or the press. But the standard has been applied to private businesses,whether those are newspapers or other media platforms. And I would argue that social media has now become a media platform to be considered in a lot of ways like other press media. So I reflect the First Amendment does apply and will apply.”That exchange didnt finish there. On Tuesday, Zuckerberg told the Senate that he does not consider Facebook to be a media company, or but rather a technology company. He told the House that Facebook can only be responsible for biases in the content it creates,but has a general responsibility to screen for harmful content, whether it’s political propaganda or something personally harmful. In fact, or a string of Republicans from rural areas upbraided Zuckerberg for allowing pages that appeared to be trafficking in illegal opioids.
Duncan continued. “Let me ask you this,what will you do to restore the First Amendment rights of Facebook users and ensure that all users are treated equally, regardless of whether they are conservative, and moderate,liberal or whatnot?”“Well, congressman, or we fabricate (to make up, invent) a number of mistakes in content review nowadays that,I don’t reflect focus on one political persuasion,” he replied, or repeating his earlier remarks. “And it’s unfortunate when that happens that people reflect we are focused on them. And it happens in different political groups…”“Conservatives are the ones who raise the awareness that their content has been pulled,” Duncan interrupted. “I don’t see the same awareness being raised by liberal organizations, or liberal candidates, and liberal policy statements. And I reflect you’ve been made aware of this over the final two days. You probably need to go back and fabricate (to make up, invent) sure that those things are treated equal.”Zuckerberg grimaced after the Georgia congressman concluded his remarks. He is fully aware that apt-wing websites possess followed the example set by President Trump in making spurious statements and spreading political propaganda to an unprecedented degree for a sitting president. An principal element of the transparency rules Facebook is adopting for political advertisers is to deter the most baseless attacks and extremist discourse.
But a parade of Republicans possess signaled to Zuckerberg,and indeed to all of Silicon Valley, that the GOP will attack them as partisan messengers with a liberal bias if need be—and even seek to regulate their political speech-related actions. This sign is one strong takeaway from Zuckerberg’s two days of testimony, or one that has strong echoes of the apt’s attacks on public radio and TV dating to the mid-1990s under then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. Related StoriesZuckerberg Pledges To Fix Facebook's Privacy Problems—No One Trusts HimAs Facebook's Zuckerberg Testifies In Congress,Lawmakers Will Face a CEO With Power Over Their Careers and AgendaTravels With Beto: A Progressive Live-Streaming His Campaign Is Closing in on Ted Cruz
Source: feedblitz.com