RE: Massive Hypocrisy As Facebook Deletes Hundreds of Dissenting Voices with Millions of Followers. Obvious Move To Manipulate Politics in the Name of Stopping The Manipulation of Politics!
From @caitlinjohnstone at https://steemit.com/censorship/@caitlinjohnstone/internet-censorship-just-took-an-unprecedented-leap-forward-and-hardly-anyone-noticed
"Any time you try to talk about how internet censorship threatens our ability to get the jackboot of oligarchy off our necks you'll always get some guy in your face who's read one Ayn Rand book and thinks he knows everything, saying things like "Facebook is a private company! It can do whatever it wants!" Is it now? Has not Facebook been inviting US government-funded groups to help regulate its operations, vowing on the Senate floor to do more to facilitate the interests of the US government, deleting accounts at the direction of the US and Israeli governments, and handing the guidance of its censorship behavior over to the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the US government, the EU, NATO and Gulf states? How "private" is that? Facebook is a deeply government-entrenched corporation, and Facebook censorship is just what government censorship looks like in a corporatist system of government."
First, I've never read an Ayn Rand book. Second, if there is government money in Facebook then the solution is for the government to cease funding it, not for the government to regulate it. There is absolutely no reason for the government to be regulating a social media platform. The government should be in no way funding or regulating social media or it ultimately becomes nothing more than a propaganda tool.
Facebook and other social media platforms and indeed any internet site that allows user input all have guidelines for appropriate content (most do anyway). These guidelines may include restrictions on adult content, language, what kind of links are posted, etc. This is NOT a first amendment issue. No corporation is required to provide YOU a platform on which to speak. To say that free speech must be enforced on these platforms really means that they can have no content guidelines besides perhaps removing content that breaks the law (threats, etc.).
The government provides all kinds of funding to all kinds of businesses and individuals. Small business loans, bailouts, tax breaks, government programs for first time homebuyers, etc. Just because the government redistributes wealth doesn't mean everything it redistributes to becomes a public platform or utility. Otherwise first time home buyers could be forced to provide public housing.
I'm not saying I agree with how the big social media platforms are choosing to regulate content. I do not. However, the solution is to move on to another platform and let those fail, not entrench them into monopolies with government control. If you don't like a product, choose another.