But Facebook isn't a monopoly. Nor is it a press outlet. Nor is that what you were talking about in your previous message. You were likening hate speech to free speech. I was saying that it's not a free speech issue as long as the speech is about the government. Speech that affects other citizens isn't the same thing.
Then, we were talking about Rotten Tomatoes having the right to remove anything from their website that affects the bottom line. Just like your blog doesn't have to publish left wing articles, Rotten tomatoes doesn't have you include or mention any outlets or scores they don't want to.
To your completely unrelated point about Facebook and the social media oligopoly I have a few questions and comments.
Where did Facebook ever say they were fair and balanced?
In fact, how could one insinuate anything of a "fair and balanced nature" of a platform with 2 billion people on it adding content to it 24 hours a day that exists to make money for its shareholders?
What would you see done about the oligopoly of social media and big tech companies. I think the only options are grassroots campaigns to show the problems with these networks and importance of supporting smaller alternatives OR government intervention which would force these companies to break up. I'd love to hear other solutions though.
Based on your original post you're most concerned with allowing places for hate speech to flourish unchecked. Luckily there are alternatives for that already like Gab: https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@cryptonewslife/gab-censorship-proof-free-speech-social-media-network
Ultimately, social media isn't "free." Nor is it a public utility. We all pay for it with our attention to ads and our freely given ideas and data. The platforms are owned by people who let us use them and who can ban people as they see fit or manipulate what is inputted into their networks.
I am using Facebook as an example..... if you say you are neutral but then only publish left wing articles, then you might not be neutral... that is what Facebook does... and others do this too...
Some people think Facebook is like a public utility, like a monopoly, regardless of whether they are or not. They say they are neutral but they deactivate right wingers and more....
Yeah, social networks, websites, etc, can do what they want like you said but that does not mean they are right or just in that and there is more that people ignore in those details.............. you might be missing the point..... government is working with Facebook and other websites in doing very big bad things in this world.....
My point is that no one is neutral, especially a corporation. As we've seen time and time again, corporations do what they must to make money. In the case of facebook that even went so far as using addictive design methods to lure people to their product time and again. In a sense, they were a massive driver to the wide launch of free-to-play gambling mechanics with Farmville and their host of other games in the mid oughts.
Meanwhile, Facebook is NOT a public utility. Anyone using the platform is making the platform money. Period. That money is not controlled by any coalition or governing body chosen by an electorate. The idea that Facebook is a utility is disingenuous.
"Deactivate right wingers" is also disingenuous. Rush Limbaugh has a page. Sean Hannity has a page. Tucker Carlson has a page. Fox News has a page. Breitbart has a page." All of these entities have millions of followers. Who is getting deactivated, and what about their message caused this situation for them?
What does "right or wrong" have to do with this? The government will work with whomever they must to retain power. We already know that. We already know the government was doing plenty of bad things long before Facebook came on the scene. You clearly don't think a company controlling it's platform is "bad." You just don't like when they control it in a way that doesn't align with your values. Because as much as we can malign Facebook, we can also say it's been used to foster a litany of public debate and grassroots organization.
The problem is that some people are incapable of public debate without personally attacking, threatening, and dehumanizing others. Such speech is unacceptable and does infringe on the rights of other people or businesses. There's not really a middle ground here as a corporation. That type of speech costs them money and they will take whatever steps necessary to deal with it as is their right under the law.
You might be ignorant of how big and bad the censorship is and worse. Look at the algorithms and the shadow banning and look at how the corporations are working together with the NWO and with governments and they are doing all sorts of things. YouTube terminated my YouTube channel. And Twitter banned Milo and Roger Stone. Twitter said I was a Russian bot or spy. YouTube is banning people. They are doing so many things. They are hiding reports about what so many Muslims are doing in Europe for example. It is so bad. And you seem not to know this or you are lying and you do know what I am talking about. Soros was trying to ban the DrudgeReport.com WEBSITE in Europe and in other countries. You seem not to get what I am trying to say. You are stuck in something retarded. You are missing out on global revolutions.
Number 3, yeah, we do better as humans as we do Steem and Bitcoin and blockchain and other things to be independent from the empires and as we go after decentralization and everything.