81–90 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would suggest Facebook supports censorship
It's an ad, not organic content posted by users. If the latter were blocked, I could see it as censorship. Should news be required to run ads that are critical of itself?
Breakup Facebook rhetoric is so counterproductive. It achieves nothing. It solves no problem. The country has real problems. “I don’t like Facebook” isn’t even remotely one of them. I won’t be voting for her, that’s for sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That is, that they've become a monopoly. Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement. I'm not a big fan of Facebook but I don't see where it would be a monopolist.
> Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor opinions unfavourable to it disturbing. There are strong reaso…
Serious question(s), not trolling. Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their Company? How is this any different from a person walking into a store and asking to place an ad inside the store calling for breakup or shutting down of said store? What store owner would ever allow such a thing? Why would (or should) any business allow any sort of propaganda that strikes at the heart of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor opinions unfavourable to it disturbing. There are strong reaso…
Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees. They all hook into the same ad backend anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor opinions unfavourable to it disturbing. There are strong reaso…
Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees. They all hook into the same ad backend anyways.
If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone.
> They all hook into the same ad backend anyways
Hence the call to break them up.
This sort of overreaction to a small calculated provocation just proves the point that FB is a company first, platform second. This was obvious already to many people, but now there's a clear illustration that'll make it harder for FB to simply say they are a neutral platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their monopoly is on discourse and dissemination of information. I'm going to sound a bit paternalistic and anti-capitalist here, because I am. Facebook is no longer just a company, it's an institution that should definitely be regulated. It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true. There was plenty of fake information on facebook around the 2016 election that in…
They own the majority means of discourse and dissemination of information? Newpapers? Television networks? Come on. That's not even close to true.
These traditional forms of media are scrambling for likes/comments just as much as the next influencer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They own the majority means of discourse and dissemination of information? Newpapers? Television networks? Come on. That's not even close to true.
Those other things you list...newspapers, television, networks...they all have a Facebook page and distribute their content through FB. These traditional forms of media are scrambling for likes/comments just as much as the next influencer.
Now compare that with Google -- most businesses need to be listed on Google or they will lose significant amount of business. Facebook is nothing by comparison.
Being popular doesn't make something a monopoly.