Facebook and Silicon Valley versus responsibility

[hobbyguy]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-unfriended-facebook-backlash-points-to-troubling-new-narrative/

"Mr. Zuckerberg expressed his deep unease with shouldering the responsibility for making tough ethical decisions. “I feel fundamentally uncomfortable sitting here in California at an office, making content policy decisions for people around the world,” he told technology news website Recode."

Meanwhile, in Australia, a lawsuit is proceeding with implications that could spread. Google is being sued based on the notion that they are a "publisher" and therefore have responsibilities in ensuring that content they display is not defamatory and slanderous.

The "wild west" of the internet, with "fake news", bullying etc. has become problematic for society. Paper publishers of information and content have long been held responsible for ensuring that what they publish is within some reasonable bounds. Television broadcasters have some constraints as well.

It raises the question as to what constraints companies like Facebook and Google should face, and what requirements they have to meet in order to do enjoy public trust. Complicated issues. Especially when the "news cycle" has been reduced from days to hours, perhaps minutes.

I would argue though, that Facebook, Google et al do have a responsibility for content, and its veracity.

[Urban Cowboy]

Seems fair to me.

I've held the view for some time now, that as convenient as the internet can be, there are some serious flaws that need addressing, and among those the wild west manner in which people can sign up on a forum and spread complete and utter falsehoods, or defame people with blanket immunity, when if the same were done in print, they would be charged with libel.

I'm all for somehow putting an end, to the flood of fake news, wherever and whenever possible.

Does a newspaper not have to publish a retraction, and apology, if something is found to be blatantly false?

By contrast it seems that even though websites such as this are in fact "publishers", they get around this problem by simply stating they aren't responsible for the views of others. Maybe not, but they are responsible for spreading those views.

[burnedatstake]

information and muzzling is too subjective. ive read alot of views and allegations regarding unions by people in threads that would fall directly under the premise that is being discussed. blatant lies and fantasy. does that mean they should be censored? will that alter their views and their votes? no - the dogmas and partisanship run too deep.