>>4552572 (pb)

Thinking about Faceberg, twatter, social media ""content management"" (censorship)

Here's what gets me.

I can understand (but oppose) a small, cash hungry outfit bending the knee to advertisers re: content censorship in order to make money.

Don't like it, think it's a shit way for an American company to act, but I understand it that motivation.

Then there's Faceberg.

Millions of users, millions of eyeballs. Advertisers WANT access to all those eyeballs.

Facebook is in a position of strength.

As the Stud Ducks of Nerd Hill, they are in a position, when advertisors say "hey clamp down on the X, Y and Z" to respond

"Nope, 1st amendment. you don't like it, tough shit. you want access to our user feed for your product/service? Deal with it, we're not censoring shit. Users have ample tools to filter things they don't like and that's good enough."

But they don't do that.

Have they even realized this? Has it even occurred to them?

Are they, those making these decisions, legitimately evil, misguided/ignorant, or just stupid?

>>4554544

know all this, and the lifelog spook thing.

thinking of the mindset that these people have.

it just seems utterly foreign/alien.

>>4554544

but thanks for the info

>>4554575

reminds me - how much are they subsidized?

I know google was/is.

iirc there are things they're not allowed to do (the platform vs media comp thing) like edit content or the funding gets cut - though no one in congress can be bothered to take any action, probably due to being straight up owned by them.

>>4554658

>NSA

Keep an eye on my house while I'm out, k bros? thanks

>CIA

Not as cool as you think you are. You're like flares and an obvious hairpiece at a disco in 2018

>ATF

die skinned in a flaming litter box you lying baby killing arsonist murdering fucks.

>>4554787

State Department's rules, not twatter's