Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Government Regulation of Political Speech on Facebook

He's got his reasons, but they all suck. And will accelerate Facebook's decline as a destination in cyberspace.


ABC News, screencap

With apologies to Camus, the internet died today. Or maybe yesterday. Or last week, or last year.

The important thing is that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook, is explicitly calling for government regulation of specifically political speech on his platform and beyond. In his quest to limit expression on social media, Zuckerberg is joined not only by progressive Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) but conservative Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who are calling for the equivalent of a Fairness Doctrine for Twitter and similar services.

For those of us who believe in freedom of expression, this is a revolting development. The internet, once championed as an unprecedented engine for free speech of all sorts, is slowly but surely being locked down like a state-owned TV station in Venezuela.

Last week, Zuckerberg took to the pages of The Washington Post to declare, "I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators" on his platform and other forms of social media to prevent unspecified social harms. That op-ed echoed thoughts he aired a year ago, shortly before giving congressional testimony in which he said he welcomed regulation and would even help lawmakers write it. "I think the question is more what is the right regulation rather than 'yes or no should we be regulated,'" he said back then. When grilled by Congress last spring, he acknowledged an uncomfortable truth about mandated filtering and censoring: "When you add more rules that companies need to follow, that's something that larger companies like ours just has the resources to go do and it just might be harder for a smaller company just getting started to comply with." Both he and our elected leaders seemed just fine with that.

Yesterday, in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulous, Zuckerberg said that it shouldn't simply be up to Facebook and other private companies to set and enforce their own rules for participants, especially when it came to political speech. Instead, he claimed that Facebook and other services are now "the digital equivalent of the town square," which invites government regulation and censorship of speech (more on that in a moment). From his colloquy with Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does [political speech or advertising] have to say, "Vote for," or, "Vote against," for example…

ZUCKERBERG: Well, yeah. That's exactly right. All of the laws around political advertising today primarily focus on a candidate and an election, right, so, "Vote for this candidate in this election." But that's not, primarily, what we saw Russia trying to do and other folks who were trying to interfere in elections. And what we saw them doing was talking about divisive political issues. They'd run, simultaneously, different campaigns on social media trying to argue for immigration or against immigration. And the goal wasn't, actually, to advance the issue forward. It was just to rile people up and be divisive. But the current laws around what is political advertising don't consider discussion issues to be political. So that's just one of the examples of where you know, it's not clear to me, after working on this for a few years now, that we want a private company to be making that kind of a fundamental decision about, you know, what is political speech? And how should that be regulated? (Emphasis added.)

If "we" don't want a private company to decide what is or is not political speech, it seems even more obvious that we don't want the government to do so, especially if that means speech can be shut down on the grounds that it traverses campaign-speech laws. It bears underscoring: If the First Amendment protects anything, it's political speech, however hard that might be to define. Whatever their intentions, campaign-finance laws and other attempts to control political speech are always arbitrary and used to squelch rather than expand political discourse.

Elsewhere in the interview, Zuckerberg talks about increasing the number and quality of various reports about what sort of material gets taken down, whether for fomenting violence, influencing votes, or other reasons. However imperfect such a mechanism might be, that sort of attempt at transparency is a far less-destructive way to give users context and information than applying prior restraint to conversations on Facebook or other platforms by having, as Zuckerberg suggests, oversight boards of "40 people, who are experts on free speech and safety" making binding decisions on what is legitimate content and which is not. Especially if some or all of those censorship boards are dictated or overseen by the government. Facebook's "walled garden" would be about as freewheeling as a university safe space offering coloring books and squeeze toys to high-strung college kids on Election Night.

Zuckerberg's enthusiasm for having the government step in right about now is understandable. Since at least the 2016 election, it's a rare week that doesn't bring a new story about some privacy breach or major scandal involving Facebook. Unsurprisingly, the service appears to be losing a significant number of users in the United States, and the average age of users is climbing, which doesn't portend well for its future. Democrats still wrongly blame Facebook for costing Hillary Clinton the election by letting Russian-controlled pages drive down voter turnout while Republicans are, also with zero good evidence, claiming that conservative voices are being suppressed at Facebook and other services such as Twitter. In a move that should freak out anyone remotely interested in limited government, Sen. Hawley of Missouri recently demanded that Twitter submit to a third-party investigation to see if it was suspending more right-wing than left-wing users. In most commercial sectors, that sort of bipartisan Malachi Crunch, combined with market-share concerns, leads inexorably for to calls for regulation by companies worried about declining revenue and position. That such calls are made in the name of the public good only makes them more nauseating.

But Zuckerberg is ultimately being shortsighted, especially when he claims that Facebook and other social media platforms are actually functioning as "the digital equivalent of the town square." Up until now, the courts have ruled that in fact social media platforms are more like shopping malls. That is, they are private spaces that don't have to allow for freedom of speech the same way that an actual town square does. In a case decided late last year, a U.S. District Court ruled that YouTube, owned by Google, had every right to decide what sort of videos appeared on its service and whether they could be monetized or not. The plaintiff in that case, the conservative video producer Prager University, argued that YouTube and other services were effectively public spaces that should have to abide by broader First Amendment guarantees. Which is exactly how Zuckerberg is now characterizing Facebook—as a "town square." Inviting government oversight into his business might help lock in Facebook's dominant market position for a few years—remember, he's willing to help them write the regulations!—but ultimately that sort of collaboration merely forestalls a business's decline, it doesn't eliminate it.

More importantly, producing more and more rules that allow for more restrictions on speech for an endlessly proliferating number of reasons will hasten Facebook's value as a place where people can go to share anything more interesting than recipes and death notices. In the name of preserving some vague notion of community, it will create a dessicated space that has less and less value for all of us. That's not a tragedy, really, as websites come and go (RIP, My Space, et al.).

But it is a waste and a loss nonetheless. The far-better solution is for platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to help users develop stronger media-literacy skills so that we can all more easily spot rotten information and develop critical reading skills while also providing more-robust tools to block material we don't want to see. The brilliance of social media is that it creates an infinite sandbox where we can find more and more interesting places to play while avoiding bullies and blowhards, however we subjectively choose to define them. That was the animating spirit of the internet and it's a dream whose passing we should all mourn.

NEXT: Michigan State Students Filed Bias Incident Reports Over Some Really Petty Things

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Well OK then, also this…

      Mark Zuckerberg is a slut and a whore for regulation, so long as his company is bigger, and can afford more lawyers, than the next company…

      “Bro fox, PLEASE do NOT throw me into the brier parch!!!”

      1. Let’s all listen to the foxs’ views on modern henhouse security.

      2. It’s worse than that. He is angling for turning Facebook into a utility. Where it will be regulated as such. Then it can never go out of business and will potentially receive our tax dollars. He knows of this doesn’t happen that they will eventually go the way of MySpace.

        1. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 7000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
          Check For info Here,

    2. THINK ABOUT IT?..
      Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

    3. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 7000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
      Check For info Here,

  1. For those of us who believe in freedom of expression, this is a revolting development.

    “Revolting”? Probably not.

    1. Revolting, and 100% expected and predicted.

  2. Advertisers won’t let Facebook give the people the content they really want, and Facebook can’t justify the multiple on its earnings that its shareholders want without giving the people the content they want.

    In short, their advertising driven model is doomed.

    Even radio has gone to a subscription model (SiriusXM) like television did with cable and HBO. Who wants to be in terrestrial radio anymore? It’s mostly for Tejano music, sports blab, and right wing cranks anymore. That’s Facebook’s future, right there. They’ll be the AM radio of the internet.

    P.S. Their p/e ratio is about even with the S&P 500 average, too.

    1. Interesting ideas…. but I wonder how valid? Suppose they did let anything be posted, with their own members rating posts for fakeness, bigotry, NSFW, etc. Have a half dozen preset categories, plus allow arbitrary tags for those who want to look at them. Let members set filters for each preset category, both positive and negative: I don’t want to see anything which has 5 votes for bigotry; I don’t want to see anything which doesn’t have 5 votes for non-bigoted.

      No censoring whatsoever except by members and their filters; and of course for court-ordered censoring, such as military secrets, doxing, or libel / slander.

      I’d think advertisers would like that. They could prevent their ads showing for any filter they want, whether for virtue signaling or any other reason.

      People would learn what filters would keep them happy. Underage accounts would have filters set by parents.

      Most people would only set filters once they got disgusted by some post.

      1. “I’d think advertisers would like that. They could prevent their ads showing for any filter they want, whether for virtue signaling or any other reason.”

        I think you’re missing the big picture. The following was about YouTube, but it’s the same problem at Facebook:

        “AT&T’s retreat is notable because it was one of the last major marketers to resume advertising on YouTube, part of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, after a number of them pulled out in 2017 over revelations that their ads there were running near offensive videos. AT&T said in January that it had taken time to be confident that similar problems wouldn’t recur.

        Marketers including Clorox Co. , Nestl? SA, McDonald’s Corp. and “Fortnite” publisher Epic Games Inc. halted their YouTube advertising on Wednesday following reports that their ads were appearing next to videos of young girls that were marred by inappropriate user comments.”…..550778819?

      2. On most advertising platforms, the content is created by the networks–which answer directly to the advertisers. As libertarians have noted for years, advertisers are far more effective in censoring content to match the tastes of their intended audiences than the FCC ever could be. The problem with Facebook (Twitter and YouTube) is that the offensive content in question isn’t created by the platform owner in the interests of pleasing advertisers. The problem with Facebook and the rest is that the content is created by third parties–people like us. And we don’t give a shit about advertising.

        McDonalds, Coca-Cola, and AT&T don’t want their advertising to appear in front of posts, videos, and other content that’s about guns, or any controversial topics, really, but guess what people want to make content about? All the shit you can’t see on ad supported television. It was the same thing with television. One of the reasons horror movies are popular with studios is because you can’t get that stuff for free on advertising supported TV–you have to pay to rent it in your home or buy a ticket and see it a theater. McDonalds isn’t about to sponsor The Human Centipede on network television. The problem with Facebook, et. al. is that the content people want to make and see is often the stuff that advertisers will not underwrite.

      3. Mr alpha bet hit the nail on the head. Zuck should have his minions design a sophisticated AI program that helps users create tailored filters. Perhaps from a questionnaire tweaked by the users like/dislike history. Totally in the users’ control.

        1. I imagine a lot of people would be glad to copy others’ filters. They’d be in for surprises every time they changed filters, though; a lot of previously hidden stuff would show up, and vice versa.

        2. Even if some people want to see baby seals being harvested, AR-15 construction videos, arguments against gay marriage, or people making arguments against reparations for slavery, McDonalds, Clorox, Nestle, and AT&T don’t want their advertising to appear to be endorsing any of those things–not even by people who like them.

          They don’t even want their commercials to appear next to controversial comments that people write in response to an argument in favor of gay marriage, against “assault weapons”, pro-reparations for slavery, etc., etc. Their advertising driven business model simply won’t work (on the scale they want) on a platform where content is generated by third parties.

          Ever watch the Jerry Springer Show? Who’s advertising during that? It isn’t McDonalds or Proctor & Gamble. It’s the local ambulance chasers, flight by night professional schools, bail bondsmen, payday lenders, and other unscrupulous types who are already thought of as living in society’s sewers. I saw an ambulance chaser ad in Vegas recently, and his catch phrase was, “In a wreck? Need a check?”

          1. Facebook can’t grow their earnings by only appealing to advertisers who don’t give a shit what people think about them. Their growth comes from doing targeted advertising for clients with deep pockets.

            A year ago, Facebook’s p/e was at 32. Now it’s around 22. Given that valuation on their earnings, they’re missing out on about $200 billion in market cap because the market is questioning whether they can grow their advertising the same way ever again.

            I see no reason to doubt the market wisdom there. Their p/e is about the same as the S&P 500 now? There’s probably more of a downside risk for Facebook if their advertising model won’t let them sell ads for any more of a premium than other advertising driven models.

            I don’t see how they grow in the future without rent seeking.

          2. P.S. Greatest PI attorney commercial in history?


          3. Even if some people want to see baby seals being harvested, AR-15 construction videos, arguments against gay marriage, or people making arguments against reparations for slavery,

            Oh. Those people. The bitter clingers, the deplorables. If only the internet was limited to progressive content, advertisers could safely run their ads and provide funding.

            This is the “community standards” argument: “Everyone wants this movie banned because it’s too popular.” If lots of people are interested in building AR-15s, the only reason advertisers have for avoiding that content is because the pecksniffs will out them to the prohibitionists who wouldn’t be watching the content, and therefore think no one else should be able to see it either.

            Mr. Zuckerberg wants the government to censor content for two reasons. First, so he won’t have to make a bunch of people angry enough to find an alternative to Facebook; and second, because the government can lock up or shoot people who disagree so they don’t have the choice to start an alternative to Facebook.

            1. Facebook’s p/e is average for the S&P 500 at about 22.

              A year ago, when traders’ estimates of Facebook’s growth prospects were higher, the multiple on their earnings put their p/e at 32.

              If Facebook’s p/e were 32 instead of 22 today, back of the napkin, they’d be worth another $200 billion. You think they took a $200 billion haircut because they’re so progressive?

              The reason investors won’t pay such a high multiple for their earnings today is because they don’t expect Facebook’s growth to be what they expected it to be a year ago. There are a number of reasons for that, but one of them is that they can’t seem to get mainstream advertisers to stay on board for fear that their advertising will end up on posts that advertisers do not want to be associated with. Bud’s Gun Shop might not even want their advertising showing up next to gun videos in the aftermath of a school shooting–much less McDonalds.

              1. Growth comes on the margin. Facebook has the market for people sharing photos of their cats with their friends and family pretty saturated. That means the growth needs to come from monetizing more than the safe stuff–and that’s where they’re running into trouble. The advertisers with the deep pockets will not follow Facebook where Facebook needs to go for growth. Hell, they’re scared that the safe stuff isn’t as safe as they thought. That’s a serious problem for Facebook’s growth prospects going forward–regardless of whether the company is actually a communist conspiracy to trick people into not being able to say terrible things about gay people.

            2. No he wants the govt to make the rules so he can tell his employees “sorry those are the rules” when they start demanding some conservative page or person they find “offensive” be banned. He just wants someone else to be the bad guy because he knows the progressive left will never be satisfied until the only people free ton speak are only them.

    2. Unfortunately that ad-based model already killed off the alternative development path for the Internet which was narrow/deep rather than broad/shallow. No new software platform will decide to make their money by licensing their product to the narrow/deep platforms and the broad/shallow platforms will never be able to develop anything beyond time-wasting to sell eyeballs.

      Once upon a time the Internet had a chance

      1. JFree|4.6.19 @ 12:13AM|#
        “…Once upon a time the Internet had a chance.”

        Once upon a time, you might have learned something, but you didn’t
        Care to try again in the hopes that there might be something there worth reading?

  3. Also, Facebook will need regulation to protect them from the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act.

    “Federal charges alleging Facebook Inc.’s algorithm-driven advertising platform violated the Fair Housing Act raise the odds of similar liability for other companies, technology company advocates say.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development accused Facebook of violating fair-housing laws by enabling real-estate companies to improperly limit who can view home sales and apartment rental ads on its platform, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

    . . . .

    Facebook offered advertisers thousands of attributes by which to sort potential customers, including “foreigners,” “Puerto Rico islanders,” “hijab fashion,” “Hispanic culture” and “Christian.” HUD said these and other characteristics served as proxies for protected classes: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability or familial status.…..553851800?

    1. How do you offer targeted advertising using demographic data without discriminating against people because of their race, creed, color, sex, or national origin?

      The correct answer is that you can’t.

      Whether this is as it should be is another question entirely. The fact is that only advertising to the demographic markers that are likely to rent your apartment, buy your home, go to your restaurant, or buy merchandise from your store violate the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, and all sorts of legal precedents going back to 1965.

      They need the government to carve out a regulatory exception to the Civil Right Act, among other things, and I’m not sure they can survive the bad publicity associated with that. If you think the flack they caught for “fake news” was bad, wait ’til it hits the mainstream that Facebook facilitates racial discrimination.

      1. Everything old is new again!

        “The housing I have to offer you, has an excellent view of the beach!!!”

        So you mean to discriminate against the blind, then?

        “The housing I have to offer you, has walk-in closets!!!”

        So you mean to discriminate against those in wheelchairs, then?

        James Bovard documented this kind of crap decades ago in his book, “Freedom in Chains”.

        1. I’m not saying whether carving out an exception to the Civil Rights Act for 21st century advertising technology is a good thing or a bad thing, but I am saying that targeted advertising appears to violate both the spirit and the generally accepted meaning of the Civil Rights Act.

          It is what it is whether libertarians or Facebook likes it or not.

          1. “The housing I have to offer you, is within walking distance of many different kinds of religious services!!!”

            So you mean to discriminate against agnostics and atheists, then?

            This is the kind of crap that we have to put up with, because some scum-sucking lawyers and their greedy sue-happy patrons will do ANYTHING for a buck? And “free speech” be damned? Laws can be passed, and the US Constitution can be ignored some more? More than it is already, more and more, every f-day?

            I for one say we should protest to the Highest Heavens!!! Time to elect some freedom-friendly politicians, if we can find them, and find other ways to advertise, besides using the services of sluts like Zuckerberg!

            (Also, this is partly the kind of reasons… PC in general… That we have to thank for, for the election of the likes of Trump, who craps all over OTHER rights of ours, like the right to trade freely). Pick your poison I guess, we are NOT allowed to pick NO poison at all! No-poison is not an option open to us!

            1. “Facebook offered advertisers thousands of attributes by which to sort potential customers, including “foreigners,” “Puerto Rico islanders,” “hijab fashion,” “Hispanic culture” and “Christian.” HUD said these and other characteristics served as proxies for protected classes: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability or familial status.”

              If I were a class action attorney, I would be all over this.

              We’re not talking about some two-bit biotech/pharma startup that’s losing money and may have nothing in the bank. You can sue Facebook, one of America’s richest and most hated companies, for discriminating against millions of Americans on the basis of race, color, etc., and all you need is a preponderance of the evidence?

              I might have ads running on BET right now: “Did you or someone you know search for an apartment on Facebook? Call 1-800 S-H-Y-S-T-E-R and get the compensation you deserve!”

              It’s like a gold mine just dropped out of the sky!

              1. “Shyster “?

                They’ll be after you, too!

              2. Might be clear and convincing, but even that standard isn’t “absolutely sure.”

            2. Maybe the Civil Rights Act needs to be amended to allow for 21st century technology?

              I don’t know, but unless the law is amended, I don’t see why Facebook should get special treatment beyond what’s in the law. I don’t know why they should get special treatment but everyone should have to abide by the law either.

  4. What is it with rich dudes and horrible hair styles?

    1. Looks like it was painted on, amirite?

      1. Yeah. It’s cheap android “hair.”

    2. He’s going with an emperor Nero kind of look.

    3. Maybe once you get to be a billionaire, you stop caring about how you look.

  5. “But the current laws around what is political advertising don’t consider discussion issues to be political.”

    That is because the government is supposed to be specifically prohibited from regulating content, you goon.

  6. Twitter and FB might take swift action against “learn to code” but they won’t touch accounts of some lunatic who says “I’m anti termite, not anti semite”. Their fact checkers wrongfully target truthful claims made by conservative sites. It’s beyond dispute that social media sites support free speech selectively – the only question is whether politics is a driving force, and there’s strong evidence that it is.

    Zuck wants the government to do the dirty work for him. “Oh hey, posting stuff like that is against the law now, so there’s nothing we can do”. And FB users won’t be able to escape to alternative sites that respects free expression, if regulations mandate that certain speech be struck down on these platforms. He’s tired of being made a oppressive figure against free speech or a source for propaganda / fake news.

    The douche bag probably had some practice kowtowing to the Chinese government. These people make boatloads of money on information. And a lot of that has no value in the market. Your dog pictures have no value, even if a thousand people like it. The arrogance of people who run social media is astounding. They’rs spitting in the face of users who made them rich.

  7. I’d delete my Facebook account, but I don’t have one.

    1. You should get one just so you can delete it.

    1. For one I have to agree with our resident Klansman Nazi – Mike M (aka Simple Mikey).

      1. Lose some weight Dipshit Dave Weigel, you morbidly obese, Ron Jeremy – lookin’ sack of shit.

        1. Is that PB’s real name?

          1. A d if so, is Dave Weigel a registered sex offender yet?

          2. Yes, he’s the fucking jerkoff who worked here like 12 years ago and now laughably claims to be a straight reporter for the Washington Post.

  8. Well, heck, I’m willing to meet Zuckerberg halfway even if y’all aren’t.

    Since Zuckerberg admits that smaller networks would have a harder time with compliance, and since nobody’s actually worried about small networks, and so it’s clear we’re regulating the companies and not individual speakers, let’s go ahead and regulate political speech only on those social media platforms that have more unique monthly users than, say, 10% of the world’s population.

    So, that would mean Facebook, Facebook-owned Instagram, and Alphabet’s YouTube. And nobody else.

    1. So, that would mean Facebook, Facebook-owned Instagram, and Alphabet’s YouTube would lose users and drop below 10%, avoiding regulation. Then gain users and rise?

      Where would they end up?

  9. Democrats don’t like the 1st Amendment. So what else is new?

  10. I urge you all to read this:
    The parallels are striking between antebellum censorship of the telegraph and pearl-clutching concerns about social media today. Interestingly, which party is pushing for censorship in both eras?

  11. Yes, comrade. Central committee approves.

    That is all.

  12. Yeah what a dickhead.

    1. Indeed Pedo Jeffy, indeed.

  13. Essentially he’s just too afraid to do it himself, so he’s asking the government to step in and do it for him. He’s ultimately afraid that if he does it, his user base will flee to other platforms. Weak.

  14. Do yourself a favor quit FB and get ublock origin for your browsers. Zuckerberg is not to be trusted, ever.

  15. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>>

  16. ?Google pay 95$ consistently my last pay check was $8200 working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 15k all through ongoing months and he works around 24 hours consistently. I can’t confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern…GOOD LUCK .

    click here =====??

  17. He has it backwards… If anything, we apparently need government to step in to prevent the big guys from deplatforming content creators because they don’t conform to the ever changing and whimsical rules set forth by the Digerati.

    Is it still ok to wear a MAGA hat in a video on YouTube? For how much longer will it be? Tis a symbol of white supremacy donchaknow…

    The problem is actually a lot bigger, but social media provides a convenient online model for the rest of society. When supposed adults get triggered over what kind of hat you wear or what political team you support and then vigorously campaign to have you blackballed from society? all because they don’t like what you have to say, it’s kind of a big problem.

  18. Great points, but Gillespie makes the mistake of claiming “free expression.” No, this is a matter of free speech and free press. Naturally, a free press would retain the right as private businesses to choose what to publish and what to censor. What is scary is when these “private companies” like Facebook and youtube use governmental power to enforce their rules on everybody.

    For a great little video on censorship watch this stossel clip.

  19. “But the current laws around what is political advertising don’t consider discussion issues to be political.”
    Actually, that’s not true. They just rightfully don’t consider them advertising.
    A free discussion of issues is vital for a functioning democratic republic. Limiting discussion of issues because there are people who misuse those discussions to cause strife is like limiting any other discussion because there are Internet Trolls.
    What needs to be done is to find a way to limit the effects of trolling. That’s not something government does well. Government does one-size-is-equally-uncomfortable-for-all well, but not attention to complexity and specifics.
    A variety of venues, each developing their own ways of dealing with trolling is how the Internet got to where it is. I can understand why Z doesn’t want a variety of venues but the defacto monopolies are more of a problem than any attempts by extra-nationals to troll elections.

  20. 55 posts in and no one has referred to him as “Cuckerburg” yet? So confused….

    1. Perhaps because he’s not a cuck, but an aspiring crony capitalist who wants a government-protected dominant position over competitors.

  21. Of course he does. Like a good little fascist.

  22. “…and other folks…”

    Uh, huh, that’s a term Mark never uses in normal conversation, but is a loaded term in this context.

    “…(you know, George, the ones we don’t like, and the dumb fucks)…”

  23. and THAT, right there, is why i no longer use FakeBook.

  24. Mark Zuckerberg is a very good entrepreneur and a genius. In a social environment, political speech often leads to chaos and is detrimental to the stability of the country.

    1. matthe|4.7.19 @ 9:15PM|#
      “Mark Zuckerberg is a very good entrepreneur and a genius. In a social environment, political speech often leads to chaos and is detrimental to the stability of the country.”


  25. As Zuckface and Twitter make it more and more obvious that they are editors and not a platform, I’m really going to enjoy the day when some lawyers decide that that also makes them liable. I can’t think of a more fitting end.

    Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness


  27. The moment government begins to regulate political speech the 1st amendment is dead. There is a problem with bias on various social media platforms which only means others should develop alternatives and challenge them. Asking the Feds to regulate speech is a cop out and Zuckerberg knows it
    He is just trying to absolve himself of responsibility for his employees being overtly biased against conservative points of view. For him it is a win win to have the government mandate the rules

  28. Daniel. true that Esther`s storry is surprising… on tuesday I got a great Smart ForTwo since getting a check for $5857 this last 5 weeks and a little over ten grand this past-month. this is actually the nicest work I have ever had. I actually started 9-months ago and straight away started to bring in over $73.. per-hour. I follow the details here,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.