No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do. Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but it's worth a try.
Absolutely not. Government should have no say what a private entity can/can't do in their walled garden. The fact that over a billion people use it is a different issue.
So you are OK if your boss makes you work 80 hours for the same salary and strip out everything that makes the working condition safe?
People seem to lose sight of that: corporations are REQUIRED to be as ruthless as they can legally get away with, or they are literally in violation of the law in terms of making money for their owners. The law is the ONLY thing that curbs their bad behavior, other than publicity so bad that it (temporarily, until forgotten) causes a sales drop. Yeah, I'd like to see more corporate death sentences handed out, as well…
This is false. There is no such law that requires nothing but ruthless profit optimization. I invite you to disprove my claim by pointing to a relevant piece of legislation.
Safety rules in the working space, I doubt those rules come for free for companies.
> I think the better solution to the problem as it stands is to force people to start hosting their own content I'm encouraged that Tim Berners-Lee is working on this exact problem with Solid (Socially linked data) "a way for you to own your own data while making it available to the applications that you want to be able to use it." http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-we...
you kinda already have an instance of IPFS from the creator of bittorrent, its called btsync. totally p2p. Tho somebody needs to make a 'Solid' layer on top of it. as far as social net is concerned I'd settle for a middle ground social network like ello with irrevocable privacy and non-censorship protections built in from the founding doc itself.
Any centralized social network is subject to moderation because if it's centralized, it can be attacked, fined or shut down by a court. So facebook can't escape that rule and must decide what is acceptable or not and have to anticipate any flak they can get. In the end, moderation is a gruesome job and nobody really wants to do it, and it will be subject to how moderators anticipate public perception, so it's a PR ra…
This particular picture was on the cover of the New York Times. Surely a human reviewer from Facebook must consider this as reason enough to revert the censorship?
I think facebook use bots at one point or another, who automatically moderate thing. The crux of the problem is how users do try to dispute a moderation, and if facebook really bothers to validate automated moderation.
Just imagine the quantity of content passing through facebook, and imagine the amount of people required to review all those report that comes in. I'm sure they off loaded a big chunk of it towards some sort of AI.
> I just wish people would realize that corporations aren't our friends, they're here to make a profit. I wish people would stop saying that corporations are some disparate entity, rather than a collection of people with a defined purpose, like our friends and family members. People just like you in other words. Corporations don't have a mind of their own, nor do they pursue profit regardless of ethics.
> I wish people would stop saying that corporations as some disparate entity, rather than a collection of people The whole point of a corporation is to be a separate entity from the collection of people that have interests in it.
>The whole point of a corporation is to be a separate entity from the collection of people that have interests in it.
It doesn't have a mind of its own, any direction comes from real live people making decisions every day. Or can you point to a single instance where this isn't the case?
Corporations are institutions and like all institutions there are legal and social norms which regulate them. In terms of private corporations (for profit) they have only one norm that trumps all others: profit motive. As this is their primary function, with all else being secondary, you should expect them to act in terms of that. All the appeals to Zuckerberg and the board of director's own consciences is not going…
I'm having a tough time understanding what you're saying. You're saying that the decisions of a company are made due to cultural norms, and not individual consciences? And that Zuckerberg doesn't actually have any power, because the shareholders would out-vote them? And the shareholders make their decisions based on cultural norms? Then where do those norms come from? What leads those cultural norms? I legitimately d…
I'm saying that there's more at work which is beyond the individual choices of each person on the board at Facebook. They have legal obligations to their shareholders, nebulous legal obligations to users, and many other concerns I couldn't list here since I don't know them all. But just of the tension between the legal obligations to their shareholders and that of their users which results in the shareholders having the advantage here. There's little in the way of US law that prevents Facebook from doing what they do since Facebook isn't like a broadcast company or a utility (as per the legal definitions). So the default mode for Facebook's board is to side with investors and protect the value of their stocks, not to protect the privacy of users nor to protect their other civil liberties. You can't just throw away the law whenever you like. At some point, the law has to trump our feelings on an issue like this. And when it's inadequate to handle these edge cases we should take action to reform the law. But that takes time. You can't expect an individual CEO, President, or regulatory chief to make that choice alone if the law doesn't grant them that authority.
This is what you get out from centralizing your communications medium. Sure, we all can easily talk to each other but now you have to assume the host will find something you do or say a liability thus remove it as quickly as you post it. To say that Facebook shouldn't do this comes into conflict in protecting share holder value (which means also avoiding illegal content per local laws). So, you can't have it both way…
??? You absolutely have the right and ability to host your own content on your own page. Facebook is incredibly popular, but it's not the "centralized" communication medium. If you want to make a political statement or whatever, you absolutely can-- presuming you can get people to actually come see what you have to say. People use Facebook or other social media because it's significantly more convenient to do so. And…
No doubt, but the fact file sharing networks were and still are largely self-hosted proves that people will have no issue doing the same to get a copy of some movie or music album. So self-hosting your FB-like wall or Twitter-like timeline shouldn't be much harder. If anything, I think it would be easier since the remaining data that would be stored would be relatively small (thinking of Vine-like videos, photos like you have on Instagram, etc) with the rest just being hyperlinks. Hell, I think you could make them all hyperlinks and put storage in some other distributed protocol if you have to. In any case, it's not a technical problem in my opinion, it's just a problem of making such a platform as easy as installing it on your phone without a second thought beyond are you JamesBond007SexyTimes123 or whatever you silly handle would be.
First, your "claim" is loaded with a false question to begin with. Laws can either be created (legislature), or interpreted (judicial). The basis of corporate law has been founded upon the judicial branch, as well as the requirement to shareholders. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co . (1919) eBay v. Newark https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/3472 (2010) Disproven.
> The case still most often used in law schools to illustrate a director’s obligation is Dodge v. Ford Motor (1919)—even though an important 2008 paper by Lynn A. Stout explains that it’s bad law, now largely ignored by the courts. It has been cited in only one decision by Delaware courts in the past 30 years. > Oddly, no previous management research has looked at what the legal literature says about the topic, so we…
Do shareholders not elect a board of directors? Do the directors not have hire/fire authority over the executives?
Not saying this chain of authority micromanages every decision, but I suspect it's the rare CEO who goes out of his way to upset the board. Or is there some law that allows the CEO to say "You cannot fire me" (outside of anti-discrimination laws or such)?
This is false. There is no such law that requires nothing but ruthless profit optimization. I invite you to disprove my claim by pointing to a relevant piece of legislation.
Safety rules in the working space, I doubt those rules come for free for companies.
Those can also be looked at as cost reduction measures: medical premiums, lawsuits and regulatory fines result from blatant negligence. (as well as other indirect effects such as dissuading anybody competent from staffing your death-trap)