LWe thank you for your little mercy. Twitter thanks for banning political advertising. Given that such ads are inherently biased, prone, and difficult to identify, Twitter is acting as a great publisher. Politicians can make the most of outlets. That is democracy. Jack Dorsey, however, pointed out that social media is overwhelmed with “micro-targeting, deep fakes, rigged videos, and misinformation,” and those who manage it should keep it as clean as possible. Money may not buy the truth, but you should not drown fairness.
Facebook does not agree Sergeant Mark Zuckerberg declared, "It is not right for a private company to censor politicians or news." He subscribes to a romantic view of social media as a yellow brick road in a digital world town. The road should not dictate who is traveling, but should collect tolls. This includes advertisers, who make a living in Zuckerberg's $ 500 billion empire. This allegation resumes the famous U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Citizens United in 2010, which undermined the freedom of the press and overturned restrictions on campaign finances. Since then, the lobbyist, the entrepreneur, the tycoon, the person with the money has been able to write his favorite during the election. It proclaimed a public season for fake news, targeted advertising and dark money “super packs”. The season gave us Donald Trump and it's not over yet.
There was some argument in the 2010 decision against Zuckerberg's suppression of advertising. If you don't need advertising, let the reader do that. Do not censor the web. Suppressing one form of discussion can shift other kinds of power, in this case the "elite media" editor. The democracy of the web must be freely broadcast, poor and rich. This would have caused ice to break in the digital age, in the 90's and 90's. If you let it do everything, world peace will appear as in the algorithm of heaven. It did not turn out that way. From a part of Instagram where the British teenager Molly Russell died to persecution against the British female MP, a day without new malice is on the door of social media.
We can all benefit from the digital revolution. We can also see that bad driving is good. As shown in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, the theme of Shoshana Zuboff of our time, we gain invasion, harassment, obscenity and extremism with thousands of horrible appearances.
Zuckerberg often claims that he is not a "publisher" is self-reliant garbage. His platform, as I know it, is a device for presenting information and opinions to the public sphere for profit and benefit, like the definition of publishing. To allow users to do this anonymously and without responsibility, you need a license for the blind and slander. Pollute the debate and corrupt democracy.
The free market is a blessing to human society, but since Adam Smith tends to pursue monopoly and self-interest. Social media is no different. State Cover He makes the same argument as the US Total Lobby. Facebook kills people without killing them. As Edward Snowdon's revelation shows, the boundaries between social media and public surveillance, whether capitalist or state, can now desperately permeate. Like other markets, this market must be regulated. It's a misconception that it's still not the case for Western democracy.
Anyone who explores this area can easily lose in technology and jargon, but should try. Smarter people, including Zuckerberg himself, recognized that things were going bad. This year, Facebook, Google and Twitter lobbied the British government to introduce a mechanism for dealing with “online damage”. They are reluctant to accept the responsibility themselves.
I think this is a matter of regulation that has not been seen since the initial discussion of nuclear weapons. We must somehow separate the public from the private digital realm. It is necessary to control those who trade personal identity and behavior. We need to define the concept of causing online damage apart from causing crime. We assume the obligations and responsibilities for digital "publishers" for the accuracy and legality of third-party content, as in traditional publishers.
As in all public forums, there should be no anonymity for those who expect access to public discussions. Facebook and others accept de facto moral responsibility by filtering and censoring "inappropriate" content. They finally accept that showing teens how to take their lives is not a freedom of speech, but a threat to the public.
Now they have to accept that regulators should dictate the rules of democracy. Otherwise it will turn into an online throne game. The publisher has a duty not to spread lies. One reason mainstream media, such as the BBC, the New York Times, and this newspaper continue to gain popularity is because the information is reliable. Some editors are ideal for balancing their results with fairness and accuracy. The material was not randomly ejected or set as a target to check for individual biases. As early web lovers predicted, editors are not outdated. They are needed.
The British media fought against national regulations in addition to the laws on monopoly and judiciary. I think it's not a principle, it's right, but because statutory regulation isn't justified by media misbehavior or imbalance, or yet. Self regulation works. It is not the mainstream media that drives out classy people in current politics. Zuboff calls it "Psychic Paralysis of Strip Search Technology." We did not begin to grasp the power or the strength of the invincible. Today's robbers value our privacy and integrity as an individual, not our money. It can not be left unregulated.
• Simon Jenkins is Guardian Columnist