[nametakenobv]

You look confused. Probably because people want to call facebook "social media" and Fox News is also called "media".

Fox News produces editorial content. They are entitled to their opinion thanks to the first Amendment. Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias in the very same way that your TV set is not allowed to receive only conservative news channels.

edited for a better analogy.

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11763281 and marked it off-topic.

[solipsism]

Not "allowed"? By whom? I'm afraid it's you who is confused. The first amendment doesn't recognize a difference between "editorial content" and non-"editorial content". Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue.

[nametakenobv]

>Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue.

This is nonsense. When there is concentration in information distribution, the distributor must allow anyone and everyone equal access to the channel.

[gnaritas]

According to what, your gut? If you're going to keep insisting that companies "must" do this or that, you need to cite the law that requires them to do so.

[nametakenobv]

According to anti-trust law.

[gnaritas]

Anti-trust laws are about preventing monopolies, which Facebook is not, and have nothing to do with mandating any kind of fair service for non monopolies. No case can be successfully made calling Facebook a monopoly on social networks, you don't have to use them there are many other options.

[nametakenobv]

Anti trust law does not deal only with monopolies. It is about companies with dominant positions.

Is facebook a company with dominant position?

[gnaritas]

> Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias

That's simply not true; they're allowed to do anything they want.

[mason240]

Literally no one is suggesting otherwise.

[gnaritas]

You are literally incorrect as I literally quoted someone suggesting otherwise.

[mason240]

Where?

[gnaritas]

Try reading the post you replied to.

[nametakenobv]

Yeah, I'm sure there is a congressional probe because they're allowed to do anything they want. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg felt that he had to adress this himself because clearly they can do anything they want.

[gnaritas]

There's a congressional probe because congress is a political body putting on a show, nothing more. Facebook is a private company, they have no legal obligation to be unbiased. They may have business reasons for wanting to appear unbiased, so Zuck is simply managing the company image. Websites are not broadcast stations and don't fall under the same rules as television, calling them a delivery channel is meaningless, there's no such thing in the law.