The question Ted Cruz just asked Mark Zuckerberg is the one question I want to know the answer to....
Does Zuckerberg know, or care about, the political leanings "of the 15-20,000 Facebook employees dedicated to content review"?
Because the thing is, that skew matters.
I have no doubt that Zuckerberg and Facebook don't ask people what their political views are in the hiring process. That's not normally how hiring works. When I applied to work at the CATO Institute i had zero questions about my political leanings. Zero.
But that's not necessary for bias to emerge.
What actually happens is that people self-select into particular industries and companies for a host of reasons, the corporate values and tone of the working environment weeds out a lot, hiring managers tend to hire people generally like themselves so even if they don't ask any particular questions, they're looking for people they can work with so obviously finding points of agreement around interests and values help people get jobs in the first place.
And Facebook is located in the Bay Area in California, which has its own skew.
The problem, though, is that if 18,000 of their 20,000 content reviewers all lean a certain way, then the content they flag and the content they review will too.
And that means they're putting more scrutiny on (in this case) conservatives, libertarians, or just non-leftist types, and flagging more right-leaning posts as inappropriate, banning more of those pages.
I see this already in terms of the fact checking system Facebook has implemented.
And the irony of this is that if Facebook does more of the same, the result will be even MORE polarization, which is the very thing they claim they want to prevent.
I'm fine with Mark Zuckerberg ONLY hiring militant leftists, if that's what he wants to do.
I just want there to be transparency. Don't said that you're unbiased, if you're not. Be clear that Facebook is what it is- a great platform that has a bias and if you don't align with that bias, you can get kicked from the platform with no recourse.
Zuckerberg said that he believed for the first 10-12 years of running Facebook that their role as a company was to build tools for people to use to connect with each other.
Now he believes the company should have a new mission: To police the user-base and make sure those tools are being used "for good".
Little does he know, he's headed down an authoritarian path. Did he not take Dystopian Lit at Harvard?
What are your thoughts on how this can turn? Are you already off Facebook completely?
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:Facebook
Countable: Government Made Simple
Steemit blog on a blockchain
libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed
We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions:
Murray Rothbard Suggests
Tom Woods Suggests
Jason Stapleton Suggests
Taxation is Theft Bot
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Do you trust "The Government" or "The Market" more?
I have no doubt that Comcast and other large Internet Service Providers do not have MY personal best interests in mind. Not exactly.
They have this thing called 'profit motive'.
But in a Free Market, if they continue to screw someone over or charge too high of prices, people will stop using their services and it’s an opportunity for another business to undercut them. They go out of business if they can’t offer the best product at the cheapest prices, because someone else will. Because "Profit Motive".
There are entire YELP-like industries designed around measuring how well companies
This entire Net Neutrality Debate is simplified in one question.
Do you trust "The Government" or "The Market" more?
This is the only question you need ask yourself.
Let's discuss all these atrocities they are saying 'could occur'.... Why haven't we seen them from 1994-2014, twenty years with NO NET NEUTRALITY at all, and none of these horrors occurred.
Sure some companies had some fights and guess what they all solved it and moved on. It never affected you for a moment, you didn't even know it happened until the TV or the great Facebook told you about it.
The internet is the most awesome tech ever created, why?
More than two decades to evolve free of regulation, that is why.
Some are too young, you don't remember how regulation has always been the problem and never once been the solution. When phones were highly regulated, great screams poured out when deregulation was proposed. They said it would be 'suicide for our communication networks and capabilities'.
"The corporations will charge you for every feature", "Long distance will triple!", "They will shut your phone off if you say something they don't like!", "they will tap your phone", on and on it went....any of this sound familiar?
Jack Spirko reminds us what telephone service was like before DEREGULATION?
I’m talking about back in the good old days when it was highly regulated?
Here are some facts about that time...
The sheep are so easily led by a terms "net neutrality" and “free and open internet”, it all sounds so nice right?
It actually amounts to one thing "government regulation of the internet", every time you hear or read the term “net neutrality”, translate it in your head to read"government regulation of the internet" and see how much support you have for it in a week or two. Go check out these and other chunks of wisdom at The Survival Podcast.
But what about GEOGRAPHICALLY disparate communities with only one provider?!
First research this: Why aren't there competing ISPs where you live? Does your local ISP have a monopoly that was granted to them from government regulation? Or does the cost of internet infrastructure truly outweigh the population in an area?
If there is no incentive to bring a second company into such a small population, chock that up to your 'cost of living in the boonies."
The argument that "Cheap Abundant Internet is a Right because everything we do is online" will be withheld for another time (it's not).
There are never really any true monopolies, even Standard Oil would see competitors the moment they increased prices.
The ‘out in the boonies’ problem you have can probably only be fixed with a US Postal Service-style monopoly. But then you’d be getting USPS Government quality Internet.
The problem we have in this case (geographically, only one provider) is the kind of problem that the market corrects for, over time, though. It spurs the next innovation that will reduce the cost of DSL/Satellite solutions which will free us of the old physical fiber lines.
Just think, the 'telephone poles' we are so accustomed to seeing in our neighborhoods are 99% obsolete for telephone connectivity these days. Who has telephones in their house anymore?
Let the market innovate out of your problem. Yes, I know that means it sucks in the meantime.
If the internet would be SO AWFUL without net neutrality why was it awesome from 1994-2014 when we had nothing even approaching "net neutrality" for those 20 years?
If it’s meant to help ‘the little guy’ compete with large media, then why is large media lobbying to get it passed?
Could it possibly be that large media LOVES legislation that they can lobby for that helps them and hurts others?
Could it be that large media firms can afford the teams of lawyers needed to comply with large regulation, knowing that the startup “little guy” can’t?
Most people who hate big business these days don’t even understand that these big businesses have politicians in their pockets in order to protect their market share and protect them from the ‘little guy’ who can innovate to make things better and cheaper for us.
Just think, if government started regulating the net in 1994, you'd still hear modem noises followed by "YOU'VE GOT MAIL" every time you logged on 23 years later!
Thanks Free Market!
Don't Fall for the Following Scare Tactics in Hopes Government can get Involved
Check out more from LibertyLOL:
We wrote earlier this week concerning the banning/throttling of conservative ideas on Facebook, specifically the Being Libertarian page. We noted that as a private company, FB owns it's own servers and can ban speech it doesn't politically agree with. We concluded that as free-market believers, while no law has been broken, we should seek to expose this as much as possible so others are knowledgeable and can boycott or stop using the product if necessary.
Well, it's happening again, this time with Twitter banning Conservative LGBT advocate, Milo Yiannopoulos.
The contretemps has been brewing all week, as Milo engaged in a barbed to and fro with embattled Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones over her Twitter feud with trolls who hated her new movie. At one point the CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey intervened himself, asking Jones to direct message him. Milo himself said nothing racist, though he joked that Jones’ grammatically challenged quips at him were “barely literate”, said America needs better schools and referred to Jones facetiously as “a black dude”.
Milo has been suspended from Twitter before and also lost his verification tag. Will tonight’s suspension really be permanent?
Earlier today Milo said he was not sorry for his dialogue with Jones.
“No, of course, I don’t have any regrets,” Milo told Heat Street. “But feminists on the other hand should have regrets that they have taught strong women that they are victims and attacked people for having different opinions to them on Twitter.”
We'll see how this ends, however, it should be noted that Ms. Jones isn't exactly the perfect angel on Twitter.
For years, one of the main grievances among Twitter users has been the ability of anonymous trolls to send abusive comments to other people on the service.
But on Tuesday, Twitter barred one of the most egregious and consistent offenders of its terms of service, Milo Yiannopoulos, in an attempt to show that it is cracking down on abuse.
The NYT emotionally tear-jerking story ends with some contrived sympathy towards Ms. Jones and sets her up as a victim:
On Monday evening, Ms. Jones quit using Twitter with a final message of exasperation after days of near-nonstop abuse. “I leave Twitter tonight with tears and a very sad heart,” Ms. Jones tweeted. “All this cause I did a movie.” On Monday evening, Ms. Jones quit using Twitter with a final message of exasperation after days of near-nonstop abuse. “I leave Twitter tonight with tears and a very
sad heart,” Ms. Jones tweeted. “All this cause I did a movie.”
We're still waiting for our ban. It's really our only goal at this point.
Liberty Hangout reports that Facebook has shut down "Being Libertarian" a FB page with over 90,000 followers due to the following post:
One thing that separates us from the Neanderthals is that we follow principles. The principle of Free Markey Economics tells us that while banning BEING LIBERTARIAN is quite outrageous, FB is the private property of Mark Zuckerberg and he can do with it what he wishes. A key theme of free market capitalism is that we have the ability to not use a product or support a company that acts in a way we don't agree with. Unfortunately, with FB, we're not rushing to reactivate our Myspace pages any time soon.
I'd recommend sharing this article, sharing other articles that are reporting the same, and getting the word out as much as possible. It's important as we lead up to prime election season that , at the minimum, the politically illiterate are at least tapped into the fact that FB might not always be the most 'fair and balanced' place to start their research. Also, neither is Fox News...
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.
Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.
Find out more!