Then you can protest the ISP remain neutral in the interest of Net Neutrality.
But the two aren’t the same thing.
Think of Faceook as a store. Facebook and Walmart art both “places” providing “goods and services”. You can’t go into Walmart with no pants on and buy weed, because they don’t sell weed and require you wear pants in side.
An ISP is like the road leading to Walmart/Facebook. They don’t sell you any products or services, they sell you access to those goods and services. This is why Net Neutrality is important, but also why an ISP is much less likely to do what you fear is possible.
But just because they are both on the internet, doesn’t mean they are the same thing. Facebook or any other site that has a content policy isn’t like a legal precedent. So their decision will have zero effect on what an ISP chooses to do.
But again, ISPs aren’t worried about limiting access to fringe news sites, there is no money in that. If they were to try to black list certain sites, then I will join you in protest.
Well I am sorry if I upset you. I am upset myself. Not by you but by all that is going on right now and what has been going on for some time now. I think we are all rightfully upset.
That doesn’t fix the issue that other, less discriminating people are still exposed to fake news. I fact check the hell out of any meaningful story I read; but lots of people clearly don’t. This is going to be really important with the ongoing campaign of deliberate disinformation (‘small protests’, ‘who won the popular vote’). Twitter and Facebook are media companies, not dumb pipes.
My FB account is only used as a defacto address book/family photo sharing site. I see virtually no “news” stories at all when I look at it. A couple of shared Guardian and Independent posts is about it.
But then I made a point of “liking” nothing, and all the crappy sites that people linked to were permafiltered out.
Because the ISPs are the gate keepers to the internet and beholden to Net Neutrality. Facebooks is just one site on the internet. I Facebook died tomorrow, it wouldn’t be a big deal. If your ISP died tomorrow it would be a huge deal. Just like if you Walmart closed tomorrow you would goto target, but if every road closed tomorrow life would grind to a halt.
They are two different things with two different tasks and two different standards we hold them to.
Nearly every website out there, including this one, has some sort of COC and limits what is displayed. There are notable examples that are mostly a free for all, like 4-Chan, but even they have some limits.
I am not sure if you genuinely don’t see the difference, or are just committed to force a false analogy.
Local ISP arguably has smaller sway over global information flow than FB. All US based ISPs are local while FB at the moment is transnational.
If any US based ISP starts to do this its effect is going to be only limited to geographic area it operates and would not affect for example me as I live in another country yet FB or Google policy does.
I think you are picking one part of the network of information and putting undue importance on it. You still get to use your own brain to try to figure out what is true and what is not. You still get to read multiple sources to see different perspectives and see if the facts line up.
To the extent that they are successful, you are less likely to see stories that are outright fabrications, and to the extent that they are unsuccessful you are less likely to see stories that fit a certain set of criteria that we can’t really know right now.
If they are planning on filtering things to benefit a particular slant or worldview then: 1) they are already doing it; 2) they won’t tell us. I think avoiding accidentally filtering things to benefit a particular worldview (e.g., by putting Hilary’s body count next to a factual story and implicitly suggesting they are alike) is what they are trying to do.
In the US there are very few “local” ISPs. 75% of Americans get their internet from one or 5 main providers. So if say Comcast instituted that policy, they would affect a great number of people. Just like they have with their dealing with Netflix. Which is why Net Neutrality and a law keeping the internet free and neutral is important. Their job is to keep the tubes open for the user to go where they want.
Facebook is a completely different entity, and I am 100% fine with what ever they want to do as far as curating. I personally didn’t like their policy of removing firearm BST sites, but it is their sand box and they can do what they want. If they make enough policies where I no longer see the value in using it, I will stop using it.
But, again, these are two separate issues, and trying to draw parallels isn’t working. Because of the differences in their form and function, I can support one, and not support the other because the world isn’t black and white and context matters.
Sorry I didn’t make my self clear enough. From my point of view any ISP limited to borders of one county is Local. That would make any US ISP local.
On other hand FB has a huge international presence. On agregate US based social networks and search engines have a near monopoly on information flow in Europe.
I respect your opinion but I don’t see enough of a conceptual difference here to be comfortable with this no matter what the intention is.
Well this whole thing begun with the assumption that fake news on FB were in some way capable of swinging the outcome of elections in US. If this is true. If this can decide who gets to preside over the sole remaining super power this makes them very very important.
If this is the case than I wouldn’t it if they would take on the responsibility of ftering the news.
If on other hand I am putting to much importance on them than what the fuss? Why ask them to do anything.
A bit like locking the barn after the horses have lit the barn on fire, bolted, stolen your car, emptied your bank account and run to the Bahamas with your wife.
Interesting read. Thank you for sharing it. Now what I wonder is how does this extends to FB and content shared by users on FB. Who is the speaker in that case?
