News   Apr 25, 2024
 321     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 996     3 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 1K     0 

Are Social Media Websites like Facebook and Twitter becoming too powerful?

On Facebook, ironically the most interesting and informative posts occur in smaller privately-moderated groups, away from the public pages.
It's not ironic, IMO, but is what we always did before social media and the mass sharing of our personal sh#t. Small groups of informed, like-minded or open-minded people have always met in small groups to discuss matters of the day.

I disdain how everyone seeks mass attention or group approval of whatever they think or are up to. At 49 years old, I am so very glad that I lived a good portion of my life before social media or the need to air one's laundry on everything.
 
Wikipedia has a very long article on the criticism of Facebook:


Wikipedia, however, does not have an article on the criticism of Twitter yet.

Wikipedia may be user-generated and has its flaws, but in the grand schemes of things, Wikipedia is the best of worst user-generated news websites (and many of the most popular and/or controversial articles are semi-protected at a minimum).

Even Media Bias/Fact Check says that Wikipedia is least biased:


...and more balanced than Facebook News:

 
Wikipedia has a very long article on the criticism of Facebook
This site covers it well too.

 
This site covers it well too.

That website even has a list of companies pledging to stop hate for profit:


Note the businesses not on the list. Many of those companies not on the list continue to fund hate.
 
That website even has a list of companies pledging to stop hate for profit:


Note the businesses not on the list. Many of those companies not on the list continue to fund hate.
I wouldn’t be so fast to give kudos to these companies. First of all, it’s low cost publicity, so the brands get the public’s attention and respect for free. Secondly, the PR and ad firms that these brands hire are more than happy to pull FB ad spend since that leaves more money to spend at their own firms. Lastly, these brands have subsidiary brands and foreign unit’s that are not pulling. FB ads. I look at all this with a cynical, onion peeling eye.
 
MEC, Coca-Cola, Lululemon, Starbucks, and Volkswagen don't want to advertise on a hate-filled website, no matter how mainstream.

The Zuckercorp lost $56 billion in valuation as a result.


It also doesn't help that the Zuckercorp had to rely on Wikipedia for fact-checking.

Meanwhile, Discord and Reddit are shutting down Boogaloo groups:

 
Last edited:
The Anti-Defamation League is behind the Stop Hate for Profit campaign. That organization has done a great job showing that profiting from hate is immoral at best. Hurt the Zucks where it hurts him the most. He can't sell personal information to advertisers who don't want personal information containing affiliation with extremists of any stripe.

No reputable Global 500 company wants to be associated with racists, misogynists, homophobes, quacks, conspiracy theorists, and/or Neo-Confederates. Being associated with extremists will forever tarnish the companies' brand image.

There is a difference between free speech and civil free speech.
 
Last edited:
Looks like Facebook is calling Europe’s bluff.


I'm not persuaded that there's a European bluff.

I find it more likely that Facebook is bluffing.

That's a lot of revenue to forsake for no material reason.

They could easily operate while limiting data transfer between continents.

Doubtless, to the extent users interact between continents, some data transfer would be required, the question would be one of degree and how that transfer is made secure.
 
Looks like Facebook is calling Europe’s bluff.

Will this apply to Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger? If so, then score one for the European Union. Privacy is a fundamental human right.
 

Back
Top