Active Now

Danilo_G
my2cents
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Very "interesting". Allegedly TWITTER HAS BANNED ALL POLITICAL ADS. Facebook refuses to do so knowing many are lies. WHY?
RosieG

Very "interesting". Allegedly TWITTER HAS BANNED ALL POLITICAL ADS. Facebook refuses to do so knowing many are lies. WHY?

The Zuck insists it's all about free speech. I say bullsh** to that it's all about greedy SOB money money money money money hungry. No noble motive can be imputed to anyone who condones LYING as a Constitution right and expect to be taken seriously. It's all about the money honey. Follow the money. You can never have too much and whatever ya gotta do to get more ya do. Period. End of story. Case closed. Which brings up another question which I shall toot sweet forthwidth.

Posted - November 3, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 3719
    Mark Zuckerberg's published reason for not banning political advertisements because that would be censorship, is disingenuous to say the least.

    It would be censorship, or bias, if FB banned one party but not its rival.

    Banning all fairly and evenly, is not censorship.

    Far more likely, it's just a matter of money. FB makes a huge amount of money from advertising fees, including those from political campaigns. 
      November 3, 2019 2:31 PM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Is THE BOTTOM LINE to every bad thing always money Durdle? The BE ALL and END ALL? The HOLY GRAIL of existence? T'would seem so. Methinks the Zuck is a Republican as well. BIG BUSINESS usually is and well he likes the way motormouth has made obscenely wealthy folks more obscenely wealthier. Do I KNOW that for a fact? No. But I surmise it. Thank you for your sober honest reply. I would never expect less than that from you. I shall ask. Run it up the flagpole and see who saluts! :) This post was edited by RosieG at November 4, 2019 2:46 AM MST
      November 4, 2019 2:45 AM MST
    0

  • 3719
    'Fraid so, Rosie; at least it is when it comes to the IT trade.

    Facebook is a business, not a public service. The social linking service is indeed for its users' benefit, but its real clients are advertising-agencies, supermarkets and major on-line retailers. They buy advertising-space on web-sites, but they also buy users' details so as to send them so-called "personalised" advertising - a concept as ugly as that adjective.

    (They are not alone. Supermarkets' so-called "loyalty" cards are for their benefit, not yours, and I refuse to have them.

    Some have also encouraged the development of something that might not have started, direct and instant advertising by phone message. It would read your phone's location and if you are close to the shop, automatically send a message telling you what's on offer that it decides from your purchasing history, would tempt you.)

    If Zuckerberg is a Republican and biases his site to that party, that would mean him censoring the Democrats or other rivals. 
      November 4, 2019 10:50 AM MST
    2

  • 113301
    I have no PROOF but he does not strike me as being a man of the people. He strikes me as being very greedy 24/7. Being a bazillionaire apparently isn't enough. Letting it all hang out with no standards at all is making him be a richer SOB so why wouldn't he? No sweat. He probably feels ENTITLED to grab whatever he can reach for as long as he can without regard to anything or anyone else. A typical REPUBLICAN money hungry greedy hoor. Screw the little guy. I want his and mine too. Sigh. I think it's gonna get worse and I'm not sure it will ever get better. Are you? Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply Durdle! I wonder what's next? Your guess? This post was edited by RosieG at November 4, 2019 11:13 AM MST
      November 4, 2019 11:12 AM MST
    0

  • 3719
    Zuckerberg you mean?

    I don't know his politics but he has come over as arrogant - or a coward.

    The UK's Parliament wanted him to attend an all-party Parliamentary Select Committee investigating some aspects of social media, but he refused out of hand. He did attend a similar Committee organised by the European Parliament, but I don't think they managed to get anything very useful from him.

    Perhaps he knew that a PSC treats you civilly but consists of very bright Members of Parliament, probably with relevant professional knowledge for the particular committee's work, and they don't stand for any nonsense. It is not a Court of Law, but an information inquiry designed to help the Government and Parliament understand some problem of the time. A lot of people who might not have broken the law but were certainly close to it, have shown themselves up when quizzed by a PSC, publicly too as the hearing is normally open to journalists. So perhaps Mr. Z. wanted to avoid embarrassment!  

    I think I agree - it won't get any better whatever happens next!
      November 6, 2019 4:02 PM MST
    0