Facebook
says it is banning “dangerous” users. Mark Zuckerberg hopes to single-handedly and arbitrarily clean up social media like the Wild, Wild
West needed a cleansing back in the 1800’s.
The only problem is that it is unAmerican to censor the voices of
others. He may not violate the legal protections of the First Amendment, but he
certainly destroys the spirit of it.
Here’s
the problem: Facebook has abusive
posters, people spewing hate, sharing unfounded, extreme views, cursing at one another, and
debasing peaceful public dialogue.
Potential
solutions; shut down Facebook and no one posts anything. Not a good idea. Why punish all for the excess of the
few.? It’s also not happening because 2
billion users make FB worth a zillion bucks and FB isn’t going anywhere.
Another
solution: educate users on the FB
policies, encourage users to clean up their acts. It’s been tried. It hasn’t worked.
Another
solution: Label questionable users-sites
as being problematic. If you do that, it
probably doesn’t stop anything but it creates a distorted system of someone decreeing
one view is better than another, without any deep studying of the matter.
Facebook’s
solution: Attempt to sanitize FB by some
loose standard of what can be said. thought, and viewed on FB. This is not helpful. Who are they to say what is good or bad? How about what people say with links and
videos from other platforms that are sent as attachments – or people’s comments
to those posts? What if someone on
Twitter is someone FB wouldn’t allow to have a page on FB? Will FB allow them to see the site, to read it
or comment on?
How will society grow unless we debate the issues in public? We can’t hide hate nor should we think it doesn’t exist just because it’s not on FB.
How will society grow unless we debate the issues in public? We can’t hide hate nor should we think it doesn’t exist just because it’s not on FB.
Here’s
what I would be for:
1.
Free
speech. Period. Let anyone say what they want.
2.
Have
a site that follows the haters and fact check things and points out why a
message is unfair, hateful, harmful, or just abusive – educating others.
3.
Encourage
a positive atmosphere online but don’t force people to act, think, and speak
the same on every issue.
4.
Users
of FB should just leave if they find their experience is not to their
satisfaction – but no one should be kicked off for merely stating their views,
provided their views don’t encourage the committing of a violent crime.
5.
The
police should use FB as a tool to identify who is a bad guy and follow the
words to see where criminal actions take place.
I
don’t care for white supremacists or racist people like Louis Farakhan – nor the NRA
or right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, but we can’t turn FB into some reality show where anyone
can be voted off the island. We need to
have free speech that is so strong it can tolerate intolerance and to learn not to hate the
haters. It must be that all can say
their views freely and peacefully -- but people should act responsibly and police
themselves.
Society has to be smart and assertive in fighting back against those it deems wrong or immoral – but it can’t simply just shut their voice down. Everyone has a right to be heard, from death-row inmates and accused terrorists – to those espousing religious, political, economic, or nationalist views that differ from yours. That’s how free speech works.
Society has to be smart and assertive in fighting back against those it deems wrong or immoral – but it can’t simply just shut their voice down. Everyone has a right to be heard, from death-row inmates and accused terrorists – to those espousing religious, political, economic, or nationalist views that differ from yours. That’s how free speech works.
What
if Google decides it won’t finish searches for requests on things it believes
are unhealthy, immoral, or unfair, not allowing you to find out where to buy
alcohol, or visit a strip club, or get your legal pot?
What
if schools decide it won’t teach controversial topics, such as racism, sexism,
or anti-Semitism?
What if bookstores decide not to carry books by or about people they don’t like?
What if bookstores decide not to carry books by or about people they don’t like?
What if the government decides, only certain non-profits can have a protected status, while others can’t?
See
where this is going?
Sure,
some things seem obvious. On a scale of
good and evil, most can spot the worst or best, but where do you draw the
line? If FB applied its standards to other
media, Rush Limbaugh, Fox, and President Trump would all be banned.
Do
we have free speech if it’s one-sided?
Where government used to be the feared source of censorship, book bans,
or media shut downs, we now see it is Corporate America and the social media
barons who are doing the things we feared only an Orwellian government would
entertain?
The
PC police need to hold their fire. Sure,
speak out for and against the things you believe we need to hear about, but
never lobby to take away the precious freedom to speak freely.
We all lose when speech is silenced, threatened, or erased.
We all lose when speech is silenced, threatened, or erased.
Catch Me At Book Expo America May 31
Don’t Forget To Give Back
DON”T MISS THESE!!!
Some key principles to rally your book marketing around
How to write powerful, effective book advertising copy
that sells tons of books
So what is needed to be a champion book marketer?
The Book Marketing Strategies Of Best-Sellers
How authors can sell more books
No. 1 Book Publicity Resource: 2019 Toolkit For Authors
-- FREE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.