Summary: calls for the breakup of Facebook are coming more often and faster than we had a right to expect. Facebook represents an almost textbook example of the kind of monopoly power against which Sen. John Sherman (brother of the Gen. Sherman who redeveloped the hell out of downtown Atlanta in 1864) inveighed so strongly back in 1890. Facebook’s well-nigh unilateral control over speech and viewpoints, as well as its evident desire to control the political discourse of the United States, makes it a prime candidate for Sherman Act intervention. It’s time to take Gospodin Zuckerberg’s toys away from him and have him sent to his room with no supper.
What conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the following official text from Facebook?
"We base our policies our Community Standards on input from the people who use Facebook around the world, as well as experts.”
First, let us hone in on the word “experts.” That tells us that Facebook uses a particular group of motivated individuals, usually outsourced in countries of the East Bloc. In short Facebook’s so-called experts are, in all likelihood, motivated East Bloc trolls who consider themselves to have an obvious dog in our American hunt.
“We base our policies are community standards on input from people who use Facebook around the world.”
Second, let’s take that phrase apart. “We base our policies are community standards....” What outsourced East Bloc individual, not fluent in English, composed this ridiculous fragment? Again, it’s obvious that Facebook outsources its moderation and community standards enforcement to countries in the East Bloc. They also probably outsource a substantial portion of their moderation to countries in South Asia, particularly India.
At all events, Facebook’s so-called community standards are based upon the “community standards” of illiberal non-American countries. When moderators apply the “community standards” of Bangalore, Berlin, Bucharest, Budapest, Warsaw, or other countries east of Calais, we may expect a significant level of disrespect for American canons of free speech.
Facebook’s well-nigh unitary control of a great deal of speech in our public spaces ought to cause us significant concern for the future of free societies. Facebook’s suppression of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s calls for the platform to be broken up, together with Facebook’s ill concealed preference for Bernard Sanders and its ill concealed de facto undeclared campaign contributions to Donald Trump ought to cause us considerable agita about the extent to which one monopolistic organization can affect both our politics and our freedom.
When Facebook applies the “community standards” of Bangalore, Budapest, Berlin, or Bucharest to conversations in Palm Springs, Palo Alto, Petaluma, or Pasadena, or even Pocatello, something is very wrong.
When Gospodin Zuckerberg scoffs at the idea that Russian intelligence may have been gaming his platform to influence the 2016 presidential election, something is very wrong.
When Gospodin Zuckerberg permits the platform to live stream 17 minutes of the mosque massacres in Christchurch, New Zealand, something is very wrong.
When Gospodin Zuckerberg looks the other way while agents of the Burmese state stir up on his platform genocidal violence against the Rohingya, something is very wrong.
When Gospodin Zuckerberg shades the truth to the United States Congress, and then works assiduously to convey an impression that our representatives are too old and too out of touch to understand the dynamics of his platform, something is very wrong.
In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes suggested that the time was at hand for Facebook to be broken up, to required to spin off the Instagram and WhatsApp platforms, and to be barred from further platform acquisitions for at least three years. In short, it really is time to bring down the hammer of the Sherman Antitrust Act on an organization that, in 2019, represents virtually a textbook example of the evils against which Sen. Sherman inveighed when he carried his initial legislation back in 1890.
The representatives and senators who voted for the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 were not nearly so old and out of touch as Gospodin Zuckerberg might have been pleased to describe them had he been alive when the antitrust bill was under consideration by Congress. The 51st Congress knew full well how dangerous monopoly power could be. They had the fortitude and the hardihood to take on industrial exponents of monopoly power. We should expect similar things from the 116th Congress. It’s well past time to lower the hammer of the Sherman Antitrust Act on Gospodin Zuckerberg and his dangerous monopoly, as well as to send Gospodin Zuckerberg to his room with no supper.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is a lawyer who lives in Cathedral City, California, where he served two terms as a member of the city Council. Mr. Marchand practices law (on the theory that the more you practice, the more you’ll get it right) in the next-door community of Rancho Mirage. His disdain for Facebook is the product of his strong views on monopoly capitalism, and also of his disdain for certain candidates ostensibly running as Democrats in the 2020 election cycle.
No comments:
Post a Comment