[iammisc]

Snowden advocated in favor of the government following their own law (not spying on people without judicially issued warrants). This 'whistleblower' is asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment) by banning individual speech on these platforms.

EDIT: Honestly, I could care less about facebook. Although I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in jail (look at the allegations that his company knowingly experimented on people without their consent), individuals should have the ability to publish on the platform. If bakers must bake cakes, this is only fair.

[mbesto]

> This 'whistleblower' is asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment) by banning individual speech on these platforms.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think she is specifically advocating for that? I believe she is saying specific things should be regulated...mainly the ability to configure timelines, greater control on use by teens, etc.

[iammisc]

I don't wholesale disagree with everything she has to say. As I've stated multiple times on this thread, I believe Facebook should be liquidated and its executives, including Mark Zuckerberg jailed.

I am referring to these points of the testimony:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E...

> The result has been a system that amplifies division, extremism, and polarization — and undermining societies around the world. In some cases, this dangerous online talk has led to actual violence that harms and even kills people. In other cases, their profit optimizing machine is generating self-harm and self-hate — especially for vulnerable groups, like teenage girls. These problems have been confirmed repeatedly by Facebook’s own internal research.

While she is correct that facebook has allowed people to talk that's led to violence (some of it very justified... see the arab spring, etc), and that facebook contributes to division, I don't believe the government should be in the business of regulating the speech of individual users of these websites. Ultimately, that just means the government just gets to squash dissenting voices. Ending the 'dangerous online talk' may today mean stopping violent extremists, but may tomorrow become "Don't discuss anti-government policy messages because it may inspire some people to commite violence" which is a slippery slope.

For example, the whistleblower claims that some online talk amplifies extremism which 'undermines societies around the world'. Some societies deserve to be undermined. Few would batt an eye if Facebook were used by North Korean dissidents to organize around toppling that country's dictatorship.

[ceejayoz]

> If bakers must bake cakes, this is only fair.

SCOTUS decided in favor of the bakers in that case, even if SCOTUS left the underlying question undecided (in either direction).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

[iammisc]

SCOTUS didn't comment on the question, remanded the case back. When another person brought a similar case to the CO board, they found against the baker: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/us/jack-phillips-colorado-bak...

You should pay attention to what's going on before commenting on out of date news.

Also, a similar case in washington of an old lady florist forced to provide flowers for an event she doesn't believe in. This is like asking a jewish deli to cater the nazis.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-couple-wins-case-florist...

In that case, the SC explicitly denied the request, thus de facto legalizing forcing individual people with consciensce disagreements working in their own business to do business with those they disagree with. This is an obvious violation of the individual right to freedom of conscience.

Meanwhile, facebook, a multi-billion dollar powerful corporation, which does not enjoy constitutional rights neither by nature nor law, is given a free pass to exercise its conscience. Sorry... I'll speak for the little guy.

[alasdair_]

> This is like asking a jewish deli to cater the nazis.

No, it is not.

Being a Nazi is a choice. Being gay is not. (Also, legally, being a Nazi is not a protected class.)

[iammisc]

Being a Nazi is a protected class

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...

And having a gay wedding is indeed a choice, and Jack Phillips shouldn't be forced to participate if he believes that his belief in his god makes it so that participating is akin to taking part in evil.

[ceejayoz]

No, Nazis aren't a protected class. The ACLU (correctly) argued that they've First Amendment rights just like everyone else; it has nothing to do with membership in a protected class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States

[iammisc]

Well yess... Being a human individual in this country entitles you to believe and speak how you want. Nazis are still humans, despite their behavior

[kurikuri]

>asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment)

I don’t believe this is the case, isn’t the whistleblower accusing Facebook of lying to its investors and has filed SEC complaints for the matter?