In a note published on Monday, Needham & Company downgraded the social network’s stock from a “Buy” to a “Hold” due to a number of factors, including the departures of 11 executives such as Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s push towards a more private Facebook, the uploading and live streaming of “horrific images” such as the New Zealand mass shootings, and regulatory concerns.
“Together, we believe these risks are causing a ‘Negative Network Effect’, as evidenced by senior management departures,” analysts Laura Martin and Dan Medina wrote, referring to, in this case, the negative impact each additional Facebook user potentially brings to the social network to potentially sway other users.
Facebook’s core value as a platform stems from the 2.3 billion monthly users it’s accrued since Zuckerberg founded the social network in 2004. The more users regularly checking, posting and uploading to Facebook, the more user data there is for Facebook advertising to work with.
Add a user verified fact check flag (not the same as the reporting option) with three states: opinion, submitted for fact check, user verified. The default state is opinion on all posts.
Any user can publicly flag a post to be fact checked but that user must also provide the fact check as a comment. (Simply flagging is insufficient since one must be a part of the solution to not be a part of the problem.)
The original post is then automatically moved to a fact check team moderator account so it is seen by all users that follow it as members of a "fact check team". (Comments are disabled when the flag is set for fact check and the original post cannot be liked, disliked, or shared while in this account being "moderated" over the course of ten business days.)
Fact check team members can like or dislike the fact check comment to "vote" in support of the fact check or not.
The original poster is notified their post has been moved to the moderator account as a result of being flagged with a fact check submitted. This triggers two possible actions:
The original poster has the opportunity to provide a single response countering the fact check.
Fact check team members can see the counter response and "vote" on it separately from the fact check.
Over the course of the ten business day moderation period, the "votes" are automatically tallied.
If the response from the original poster has more votes than the fact check submitted, the post is restored to the original poster's account and the fact check flag is set to user verified. The fact check and the counter response become historical (those comments cannot be reshared). This does not prevent the original post from being flagged again for fact checking because sometimes new information becomes available.
If the response from the original poster has fewer votes than the fact check submitted or does not exist, It is marked as fake news and becomes historical in the moderation account (removed from public view and not returned to the original poster's account).
Any critiques, ideas, or takers?
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."
"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."
In the US, there are no publicly owned social media networks therefore free speech rights advocates have no standing in these privately owned social media networks. This means the terms of service and conduct policies of each can outline what is allowed and not allowed. Most terms already prohibit hate speech without calling it that. Enforcement of policy is key to creating an environment for civil discourse which is a goal of most social media networks.
There is an ongoing conversation about hate speech versus free speech, but free speech in itself is a right in the US only afforded in public space and even within that space there are limits associated with inciting riots, facilitating crime, endangering the public safety, libel, slander, defamation, etc defined by existing laws. There is no legal definition of what constitutes hate speech or free speech at the federal level and each case when warranted is challenged in the courts.
In the US, we have people who belong to organizations that foster hate speech by design (Phelps family, white nationalists, KKK, etc) who have won court cases that allow them to protest peacefully. But the moment they engage in criminal activity, libel, slander, inciting riots, etc they are subject to legal restriction. What one believes versus what actions one takes are two different things.
But, the social media space is not public space therefore the owners of private social media space can decide what it allows or disallows. This is no different from a private business, party, school, etc deciding what behaviors it allows or disallows on behalf of their patrons. If I don't like the rules of a restaurant that says I have to wear shoes, I am free to not go to that restaurant. The same is true for social media. Examples of privately owned networks who restrict activities based on the terms of service include: Facebook, Twitter, G+, and more. Users have a right to not patronize services where they disagree with the terms.
Don't let people claiming the right to harass, intimidate, or promote criminal activity is a free speech right stop admins from defining what is allowed or disallowed in the online space created for others to use. Words matter.
Free speech is not a right in any privately owned space. Even in publicly owned spaces speech is limited by law. This is not unique to the US - most civil countries have similar legal restrictions associated with public safety and concerns because it is their responsibility as a government.
Share your story :)
Music variety continues in the Party Zone at IMA Outpost Alpha at our new grid home! Come listen to our entertainers this month: DJ Tek, Singer Rhia, DJ Stone, and DJ Shelenn :)