Ugh. In addition to these "shiny objects" and high drama on the national level, on the local and regional level in some parts of the country, right wing forces are doing their worst unimpeded according to David Pepper. Plus, there's a new right wing initiative to create a national Spanish language radio network of Fox-type disinformation.
“Like it or not, Trump is a figure of national significance to our politics. Keeping him banned from the biggest social media platform in the world would put Meta in the position of censoring the right and its chief political voice.”
Bullshit argument. A company has no obligation to provide a platform for anyone to speak. Them choosing not to do so isn’t “censorship”. Saying “I’m not letting you use my microphone” isn’t at all the same as saying “You don’t get to speak.” Other microphones are available.
The argument that, with the insurrection two years in the past, the danger has passed is also bullshit. Trump continues to have tremendous influence over his mob and the Republican party, and everything he does and says is directed at destroying our democracy.  
Facebook in the other platforms are letting them back on for one reason and one reason only: $
I don’t think Facebook needs the money it would potentially gain from having Trump back on. I do think that it remains hard for them to be as big as they are and effectively silence the leading figure of one of the main political parties. Politically I don’t see how they could sustain that. If they were a smaller company or not such a monopoly, sure. But that’s not really the case.
“I don’t think Facebook needs the money it would potentially gain from having Trump back on.”
Of course they don’t need the money. Any more than any billionaire needs the tax breaks they lobby so persistently for. And yet, despite how much they have, and despite having so much that they can’t even notice when they get more, they insist upon getting more.
And Facebook has sustained banning Trump for two years. Nothing has suddenly changed that it’s become “unsustainable“. It’s simply that enough time has passed that they think we can get away with letting him back. They banned him partly because there were calls for them to do so, and they feared not doing so would lead to getting regulated. But now they think enough time has passed that they can get away with un-banning him to collect the sweet profits he'll bring and they won't face any consequences for it.
And considering how quick you are to make excuses for them, they are probably right.
“If they were a smaller company or not such a monopoly, sure.”
You’ve got it precisely backwards. As a monopoly, and a wealthy and influential one, Facebook has the resources to do pretty much what they want.
Certainly more so than a smaller company with lacks the money and army of lobbyists. Facebook banned Trump for two years and did just fine. A smaller platform that had to rely on Trump’s use and the income it brings wouldn’t have that option.
A big company can blow off a $5 million client and survive. A small company, where that same $5 million dollar client is the majority of their business, can’t.
That's exactly right, especially as Facebook and Instagram are getting eclipsed by Tik Tok. All the better for them and the stock when (inevitably) they show more revenue and profit after Trump is back as engagement will most certainly increase.
I don’t think it will help our cause to pretend he isn’t there or that he isn’t about to be back in the media everywhere. It may cause discomfort, but it is not the time to bury our heads or cover our ears and shout “lalalalala!”
No one is wanting to pretend he isn't there. That's a bit of an extreme reaction on your part don't you think? And you are being insulting with the lala thing.
We are not burying our heads nor are we interested in doing; especially if we opened up your blog and read the article.
What we do object to is the seeming obsession of the media world with all things trump; especially his image. We have been over- exposed to an onslaught of his name and image since 2016. Does the media ever to stop and ponder that perhaps this constant media obsession with his photo is actually helping his cause?
Write about trump if you must. Use his image if you choose. You have just lost this potential subscriber with your snarky response.
“Everywhere you turn these days, it seems like more supervillains are being sprung from Gotham jail.” Not surprising after Lex Luther took control of the Oval Office in 2016.
Whelp, in light of the free-for-all sea in which we all swim, it will serve those of us intent on discerning truth, on operating from a place of honor and integrity, to change how we receive and interact with information, now predicated on the assumption that it is an entropic array of all the things.
We must become our own filters and crowd source skills and specialties and knowledge in order to steward our own sources and shore okr another against the red tide, as it were.
Eventually, we will learn to see with more acuity amongst the debris.
However, the preeminent challenge lies in how to deliver loftier information to those accustomed to wading within the churn of low information.
As to the "Real Problem" Lief, Crabaser will file a Products Liability (strict liability) next month against META et al aimed directly at malevolent algorithms that cause severe personal damages. The complaint will be filed in US District Court, Northern CA an easy commute for Defendants. We are about a month ahead of the news cycles on this but, much has been learned to date. You do not need a JD to understand FORMER Facebook Manager, Frances HAUGEN is a percipient witness. See also, SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER.
I agrée that the core of the issue lies in how the decisions of what is or is not dangerous are made. I despair that any compromise between the far right and the left is a realistic possibility. I have no resolution immediately to hand to offer. However it may progress, I strongly doubt that it will be peaceful. History offers few examples of major societal changes occurring peacefully. One can argue with evidence in hand that we are already past that point.
I fear this is one of those pivot moments where we have to keep the train from going off the rails while whatever national fever has gripped 1/3 of us passes of its own accord.
Sadly Jay, this is the case all over the world, and in every government. While I laugh at the conspiracy theories that abound about DAVOS, I find that when one peers behind any curtain, regarding taxation, politicians, government, social benefits, etc., one finds the Uber wealthy, either as “consultants”, “business experts”, “patriotic supporters” or “financial backers”.
It is almost impossible to find an average working class citizen in ANY country whose input is requested and /or valued.
It seems as though there is no politician, anywhere, who doesn’t believe that “Captains of Industry” and extremely wealthy capitalists, are the only people who’s knowledge on any subject is far more valuable, than even the actual university educated experts. Apparently, money makes you more knowledgeable, more good looking, more capable, more wise, more honest, and more intelligent than everyone else.
So enraging and disturbing. Jay's logic is unassailable in today's political landscape, but as I read this sentence, " Keeping him banned from the biggest social media platform in the world would put Meta in the position of censoring the right and its chief political voice," I wonder how we would all feel if, instead of Trump, it were Hitler being discussed, still loose in the world and planting hate. I can't see the populace in any way allowing that to happen. Thanks, Jay, for putting horrible news in the most rational light possible.
I don’t like the conclusion I have drawn, but I fear it was inevitable based on earlier decisions and policies set by Meta. The ACLU actually supports this move, too, so it’s got its share of controversy there.
Of course you don't like it which you made perfectly clear. One part of my mind can understand the thinking about this, even from Meta, and esp. the ACLU. I just keep wondering how many more disasters will occur under the waving flag of free speech. I certainly support free speech (after all, FB allows me to spew pretty openly), but in today's climate, I would feel safer if it had a nice little fence around it made of common sense and non-extremism. Because, like the Top Secret papers debacle, some of these are not like all the rest.
Anne, see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444, inciting "imminent lawless action" is NOT protected speech period. New cases on this "black letter" law may further tighten up this judicial rule if it does not apply to 2023 realities of real harm to real people - the imminent targets of violence no matter what the motivation.
"How should our society balance the right of free speech against the dangers of disinformation and violence? ...such decisions shouldn’t be left in the hands of a few people who are largely unaccountable to the public."
Society has always had to judge for themselves. This is nothing new. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the constitutional right to free speech is only in reference to what the government can do. It cannot restrict that right. But any individual can, so it's not really up to society or someone accountable to the public.
At one point, there was a law that the news had to be factual. They struck down that law, so now there is fake news (or spewing of fiction). I'd rather have that law back than worry about who can use a particular web site.
The problem never really was Trump's tweets. It was the way the mainstream press would amplify them beyond all reason as if they were really important. He just wants publicity and the media needs to start acting responsibly, instead of pandering to him. I guess that is too much to hope for.
I would argue that both are problematic. Trump was using his tweets to summon his mob to Washington, promising a “wild” day on January 6. He had planned to unleash them on the Capitol. That’s the tweets, not the media, doing the work for him.
I think allowing Trump back on FB is a pathetic and weak attempt to recover some of the $500 billion that was lost in the last two years. Given how well that worked out for Twitter, I'm a bit baffled by this move, but I will also not hesitate to leave FB too.
There are times when I’m delighted to get The Status Quo and then there are other times when the information makes me ill. It’s not your fault. Thanks for keeping us informed
Ugh. In addition to these "shiny objects" and high drama on the national level, on the local and regional level in some parts of the country, right wing forces are doing their worst unimpeded according to David Pepper. Plus, there's a new right wing initiative to create a national Spanish language radio network of Fox-type disinformation.
The assault of misinformation into Spanish speaking communities is really worrisome.
Already product tested in South Florida, algorithms at work.
I read around the election that there's already 300 Spanish talk radio stations that are conservative/extremist/rightwing
Where do these Spanish-language stations stand on immigration? And equal rights & livable wage for laborers?
"Quiero ir a la playa."
“Like it or not, Trump is a figure of national significance to our politics. Keeping him banned from the biggest social media platform in the world would put Meta in the position of censoring the right and its chief political voice.”
Bullshit argument. A company has no obligation to provide a platform for anyone to speak. Them choosing not to do so isn’t “censorship”. Saying “I’m not letting you use my microphone” isn’t at all the same as saying “You don’t get to speak.” Other microphones are available.
The argument that, with the insurrection two years in the past, the danger has passed is also bullshit. Trump continues to have tremendous influence over his mob and the Republican party, and everything he does and says is directed at destroying our democracy.  
Facebook in the other platforms are letting them back on for one reason and one reason only: $
I don’t think Facebook needs the money it would potentially gain from having Trump back on. I do think that it remains hard for them to be as big as they are and effectively silence the leading figure of one of the main political parties. Politically I don’t see how they could sustain that. If they were a smaller company or not such a monopoly, sure. But that’s not really the case.
“I don’t think Facebook needs the money it would potentially gain from having Trump back on.”
Of course they don’t need the money. Any more than any billionaire needs the tax breaks they lobby so persistently for. And yet, despite how much they have, and despite having so much that they can’t even notice when they get more, they insist upon getting more.
And Facebook has sustained banning Trump for two years. Nothing has suddenly changed that it’s become “unsustainable“. It’s simply that enough time has passed that they think we can get away with letting him back. They banned him partly because there were calls for them to do so, and they feared not doing so would lead to getting regulated. But now they think enough time has passed that they can get away with un-banning him to collect the sweet profits he'll bring and they won't face any consequences for it.
And considering how quick you are to make excuses for them, they are probably right.
“If they were a smaller company or not such a monopoly, sure.”
You’ve got it precisely backwards. As a monopoly, and a wealthy and influential one, Facebook has the resources to do pretty much what they want.
Certainly more so than a smaller company with lacks the money and army of lobbyists. Facebook banned Trump for two years and did just fine. A smaller platform that had to rely on Trump’s use and the income it brings wouldn’t have that option.
A big company can blow off a $5 million client and survive. A small company, where that same $5 million dollar client is the majority of their business, can’t.
That's exactly right, especially as Facebook and Instagram are getting eclipsed by Tik Tok. All the better for them and the stock when (inevitably) they show more revenue and profit after Trump is back as engagement will most certainly increase.
I have a request of the author of this blog. could you please not post pictures of trump?
I don’t think it will help our cause to pretend he isn’t there or that he isn’t about to be back in the media everywhere. It may cause discomfort, but it is not the time to bury our heads or cover our ears and shout “lalalalala!”
No one is wanting to pretend he isn't there. That's a bit of an extreme reaction on your part don't you think? And you are being insulting with the lala thing.
We are not burying our heads nor are we interested in doing; especially if we opened up your blog and read the article.
What we do object to is the seeming obsession of the media world with all things trump; especially his image. We have been over- exposed to an onslaught of his name and image since 2016. Does the media ever to stop and ponder that perhaps this constant media obsession with his photo is actually helping his cause?
Write about trump if you must. Use his image if you choose. You have just lost this potential subscriber with your snarky response.
I’m sorry that my response came off as snarky. It was meant to be lighthearted, but apparently did not convey as intended.
Thank you for the apology. I was pleasantly surprised.
I strive to be kind and inclusive but often fail to live up to my own goals, so I appreciate the opportunity to set things right with folks.
It really is such a revolting cast
“Everywhere you turn these days, it seems like more supervillains are being sprung from Gotham jail.” Not surprising after Lex Luther took control of the Oval Office in 2016.
Thanks for being one of the good guys, Jay.
Whelp, in light of the free-for-all sea in which we all swim, it will serve those of us intent on discerning truth, on operating from a place of honor and integrity, to change how we receive and interact with information, now predicated on the assumption that it is an entropic array of all the things.
We must become our own filters and crowd source skills and specialties and knowledge in order to steward our own sources and shore okr another against the red tide, as it were.
Eventually, we will learn to see with more acuity amongst the debris.
However, the preeminent challenge lies in how to deliver loftier information to those accustomed to wading within the churn of low information.
As to the "Real Problem" Lief, Crabaser will file a Products Liability (strict liability) next month against META et al aimed directly at malevolent algorithms that cause severe personal damages. The complaint will be filed in US District Court, Northern CA an easy commute for Defendants. We are about a month ahead of the news cycles on this but, much has been learned to date. You do not need a JD to understand FORMER Facebook Manager, Frances HAUGEN is a percipient witness. See also, SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER.
.
I agrée that the core of the issue lies in how the decisions of what is or is not dangerous are made. I despair that any compromise between the far right and the left is a realistic possibility. I have no resolution immediately to hand to offer. However it may progress, I strongly doubt that it will be peaceful. History offers few examples of major societal changes occurring peacefully. One can argue with evidence in hand that we are already past that point.
I fear this is one of those pivot moments where we have to keep the train from going off the rails while whatever national fever has gripped 1/3 of us passes of its own accord.
Sadly Jay, this is the case all over the world, and in every government. While I laugh at the conspiracy theories that abound about DAVOS, I find that when one peers behind any curtain, regarding taxation, politicians, government, social benefits, etc., one finds the Uber wealthy, either as “consultants”, “business experts”, “patriotic supporters” or “financial backers”.
It is almost impossible to find an average working class citizen in ANY country whose input is requested and /or valued.
It seems as though there is no politician, anywhere, who doesn’t believe that “Captains of Industry” and extremely wealthy capitalists, are the only people who’s knowledge on any subject is far more valuable, than even the actual university educated experts. Apparently, money makes you more knowledgeable, more good looking, more capable, more wise, more honest, and more intelligent than everyone else.
So enraging and disturbing. Jay's logic is unassailable in today's political landscape, but as I read this sentence, " Keeping him banned from the biggest social media platform in the world would put Meta in the position of censoring the right and its chief political voice," I wonder how we would all feel if, instead of Trump, it were Hitler being discussed, still loose in the world and planting hate. I can't see the populace in any way allowing that to happen. Thanks, Jay, for putting horrible news in the most rational light possible.
I don’t like the conclusion I have drawn, but I fear it was inevitable based on earlier decisions and policies set by Meta. The ACLU actually supports this move, too, so it’s got its share of controversy there.
Of course you don't like it which you made perfectly clear. One part of my mind can understand the thinking about this, even from Meta, and esp. the ACLU. I just keep wondering how many more disasters will occur under the waving flag of free speech. I certainly support free speech (after all, FB allows me to spew pretty openly), but in today's climate, I would feel safer if it had a nice little fence around it made of common sense and non-extremism. Because, like the Top Secret papers debacle, some of these are not like all the rest.
Anne, see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444, inciting "imminent lawless action" is NOT protected speech period. New cases on this "black letter" law may further tighten up this judicial rule if it does not apply to 2023 realities of real harm to real people - the imminent targets of violence no matter what the motivation.
"How should our society balance the right of free speech against the dangers of disinformation and violence? ...such decisions shouldn’t be left in the hands of a few people who are largely unaccountable to the public."
Society has always had to judge for themselves. This is nothing new. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the constitutional right to free speech is only in reference to what the government can do. It cannot restrict that right. But any individual can, so it's not really up to society or someone accountable to the public.
At one point, there was a law that the news had to be factual. They struck down that law, so now there is fake news (or spewing of fiction). I'd rather have that law back than worry about who can use a particular web site.
The problem never really was Trump's tweets. It was the way the mainstream press would amplify them beyond all reason as if they were really important. He just wants publicity and the media needs to start acting responsibly, instead of pandering to him. I guess that is too much to hope for.
I would argue that both are problematic. Trump was using his tweets to summon his mob to Washington, promising a “wild” day on January 6. He had planned to unleash them on the Capitol. That’s the tweets, not the media, doing the work for him.
🤢
I think allowing Trump back on FB is a pathetic and weak attempt to recover some of the $500 billion that was lost in the last two years. Given how well that worked out for Twitter, I'm a bit baffled by this move, but I will also not hesitate to leave FB too.
When is your FB account being restored?
There are times when I’m delighted to get The Status Quo and then there are other times when the information makes me ill. It’s not your fault. Thanks for keeping us informed