| >Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach". The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity. HN is transparent, Breitbart is transparent. You know their opinions, you know their agenda. But this is not the case with FB which pretends to be neutral, and this is the issue. >This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations. Do you remember the anti-trust suits against Microsoft ? You can't pretend that a company having the influence FB has is just a corporation like another. When you have this size, you have added responsibility / expectations since your actions directly impact a significant part/aspect of the country. Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point. The citizen should at least pay attention to what is happening. |
They're not policing what you share with your friends, just what you can do on their platform. They are under no obligation to provide infinite reach for whatever drivel you want to share.
If you're sitting in a bar sharing racist anecdotes with your friends, that bar has the right to kick you out if they feel like. It's their bar.
If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else. There's even an alt-right social network you'll fit right in on.
> The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity.
They're completely open about it. They've posted multiple stories about how they're addressing this, will provide links to third-party analysis for any flagged stories, and list the criteria for third-party fact-checking. [0]
> Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point.
No, it does not. The Bill of Rights restrains what the government can do, it has nothing to do with what individual corporations can do.
Do you also think Smith & Wesson should be required to provide free guns, since the right to bear arms is in the constitution?
[0] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/