The Future Is Here!
Digital Global℠ Forum

Register
Join
+ 38 more

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#1
Rate Post
5.00 star(s)


So the question is, should our govt start regulating social media? If you ask me, then you are asking for trouble, if our govt regulates social media, then would that not be some form of attack on free speech? Isn't fake news a form of free speech; Isn't the end user responsible for source verification? If you want a solution to these fake news sites, then simply stop following links to these news sites that are obviously fake to begin with. There is only one way to make sure the news is legit for the most part, then that is to watch your local news stations, or CNN, or some other recognized news channel, some site called newsnow.com. a lot of this comes down to common sense! People visit these over bloated "inquirer" type fake news sites, then they start spreading that crap like gods holy gospel, so is facebook really responsible for "fake-news"? not really, why should facebook impede what free speech is all about? Is Facebook responsible for allowing a 3rd party company access your private data? YES! however, if you want to kill of these fake news sites, then simply stop visiting these sites, and stop spreading that junk through other social media outlets. If our govt takes over social media, then I can assure you that this will not be a good thing! This would be something like our govt killing free speech by regulating what is said on social media. Do you really want the govt to get involved? This would be an attack on free speech.

Facebook Scandal
Facebook Fake news
Facebook political scandal
 
Last edited:
#2
I am also totally against any kind of government regulation on social media or on what they call fake news. This is not a new thing, it just has a new name. It used to be called a “rumor” when someone was saying something that might or might not be true, and likely was not true.
Publications like “The Enquirer” have always carried these sensational, but totally fake, new stories with headlines like “Aliens Killed JFK”, or something similarly ridiculous, Nobody cares.

We all knew the stories were just stories written so that the newspaper made some money by selling the story. Now, all of a sudden, only government-authorized sources should be allowed to print news? No, I don’t think so.

Once the government starts to control what can be written and published, then what we say (or think) cannot be far behind; This is the way that the government gets control. They find something that they can stir the public up against, so the people are happy to have it controlled and stopped. Once that is accomplished, then they go after the next level, and soon, we have lost all of the rights to live our life as we see fit, and read what interests us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#3
I am also totally against any kind of government regulation on social media or on what they call fake news. This is not a new thing, it just has a new name. It used to be called a “rumor” when someone was saying something that might or might not be true, and likely was not true.
Publications like “The Enquirer” have always carried these sensational, but totally fake, new stories with headlines like “Aliens Killed JFK”, or something similarly ridiculous, Nobody cares.

We all knew the stories were just stories written so that the newspaper made some money by selling the story. Now, all of a sudden, only government-authorized sources should be allowed to print news? No, I don’t think so.

Once the government starts to control what can be written and published, then what we say (or think) cannot be far behind; This is the way that the government gets control. They find something that they can stir the public up against, so the people are happy to have it controlled and stopped. Once that is accomplished, then they go after the next level, and soon, we have lost all of the rights to live our life as we see fit, and read what interests us.
First, the govt just needs some type of excuse to take over social media, then they will try to find a way to make money on what they control. The govt always says what they are doing is a good thing, but it almost never turns out that way, and you never know, if the govt takes over, then you could end up paying a "social media fee" when you signup for a social media account, as they will need to pay people to control social media.
 
96
39
Credits
0
#4
I would have to say "yes", partially but not on fake news issues but on issues of large scale scam sites, illegal networking activities, ponzi schemes, investment scams, cryptocurrency scams etc. which gives social media platforms a bad image. This kind of schemes are prevalent in social media platforms and should be policed and taken down so that good honest people wont be victimized.

When it comes to fake news well, it will die a natural death eventually because people would realize that it's fake. And no one with a right mind would believe a news in social media without cross referencing or googling it. The important thing to me is that social media platforms should safeguard and police their sites to weed out con artists , scammers and scam sites and other illegal activities.
 

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#5
I would have to say "yes", partially but not on fake news issues but on issues of large scale scam sites, illegal networking activities, ponzi schemes, investment scams, cryptocurrency scams etc. which gives social media platforms a bad image. This kind of schemes are prevalent in social media platforms and should be policed and taken down so that good honest people wont be victimized.

When it comes to fake news well, it will die a natural death eventually because people would realize that it's fake. And no one with a right mind would believe a news in social media without cross referencing or googling it. The important thing to me is that social media platforms should safeguard and police their sites to weed out con artists , scammers and scam sites and other illegal activities.
I think those that run fake news sites are a level below that of a scammer, and I see no indication that fake news will be going away anytime soon, unless fake news is outlawed, and if that is the case, then lawsuits would come out ie: You are violating our free speech amendments, and maybe facebook.com will change their name to something like fakenewsfacebook.com, and even if these type of sites are kicked off facebook, then fake news sites will just adapt into other advertising platforms that may care even less then facebook, in other words, if there is a will, there is a way.
 

maestro

Well-known member
98
27
Credits
0
#6
It is like I said before in a certain thread that I can't quit put my finger on, we are already screwed, social media has already influenced us whether we like to admit it or not. I know the larger percentage will oppose to this but the only thing we can really do is give a better guidance to the next generation. That's our best bet.
 

Heatman

Well-known member
366
169
Credits
2,580
#7
From the lots going on in the social media from porn, nudity, abuse, hate words and so on, I believe that in as much as we are in a democracy system of government where freedom of speech is allowed, the government still needs to regulate some actions going on in the social media.

Recently, child bullying is going on social media and even the Facebook team is putting up measures to regulate this act. So if government can aid in controlling and putting an end to it, then I'm fully in support of it.
 

to7update

Well-known member
94
40
Credits
50
#8
The government cannot regulate social media, that would be called censorship. Anyone has the right to freely express them-self, considering they are not entering anyone's space, so to speak. It's all a matter of common sense, and as we know governments don't have much, they should just stay out.
 

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#9
The government cannot regulate social media, that would be called censorship. Anyone has the right to freely express them-self, considering they are not entering anyone's space, so to speak. It's all a matter of common sense, and as we know governments don't have much, they should just stay out.
When Facebook got caught up in their little scandal, then the govt was making threats to start regulating social media, and can you do to stop them? However, if such a thing happened, then many lawsuits would be filed, then it would go all the way to the supreme court for a ruling.
 

Heatman

Well-known member
366
169
Credits
2,580
#10
When Facebook got caught up in their little scandal, then the govt was making threats to start regulating social media, and can you do to stop them? However, if such a thing happened, then many lawsuits would be filed, then it would go all the way to the supreme court for a ruling.
The debacle scandal of Facebook knowingly selling people's data for political purposes was a huge mess for Mark Zuckerberg. This made some people to even deactivate their accounts on the social media because they lack the trust of their privacy being protected anymore. I think Mark Zuckerberg was actually summoned by the the Senate. So with case witnessed, I believe that the government may have to force its way into regulating social media.
 

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#11
r
The debacle scandal of Facebook knowingly selling people's data for political purposes was a huge mess for Mark Zuckerberg. This made some people to even deactivate their accounts on the social media because they lack the trust of their privacy being protected anymore. I think Mark Zuckerberg was actually summoned by the the Senate. So with case witnessed, I believe that the government may have to force its way into regulating social media.
It has been shown that Facebook did not decline during their scandal, and just because people say they are going to delete their Facebook account, then that does not mean they will, and if they did, then they probably were not very active or had a lot of followers, to begin with, so if you have 20,000 followers on Facebook, then are you really going to dump all that hard work you have done? Most likely not, and since Facebook grew during the scandal and mark z. made even more money, and this implies that people really have no concerns with privacy issues, if they did, then people on Facebook would have left in droves, even though Facebook is to blame, it was the public that blamed Cambridge Analytica for using the data which Facebook allowed them to access to begin with, and rather than the public punish facebook, they punished Cambridge Analytica which filed bankruptcy.

http://www.eweek.com/security/cambridge-analytica-blames-bankruptcy-on-unfounded-accusations
 

Heatman

Well-known member
366
169
Credits
2,580
#12
r

It has been shown that Facebook did not decline during their scandal, and just because people say they are going to delete their Facebook account, then that does not mean they will, and if they did, then they probably were not very active or had a lot of followers, to begin with, so if you have 20,000 followers on Facebook, then are you really going to dump all that hard work you have done? Most likely not, and since Facebook grew during the scandal and mark z. made even more money, and this implies that people really have no concerns with privacy issues, if they did, then people on Facebook would have left in droves, even though Facebook is to blame, it was the public that blamed Cambridge Analytica for using the data which Facebook allowed them to access to begin with, and rather than the public punish facebook, they punished Cambridge Analytica which filed bankruptcy.

http://www.eweek.com/security/cambridge-analytica-blames-bankruptcy-on-unfounded-accusations
I believe it's was just empty threats by some aggrieved Facebook users showing their frustration at what had happened but they were never going to delete their account with so much hard work put into such account already. Just like you mentioned, someone that has 20,000 followers and makes use of his/her account for social media marketing wouldn't dare delete his/her account because the loss would be more than too much to bear.
 

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#13
I believe it's was just empty threats by some aggrieved Facebook users showing their frustration at what had happened but they were never going to delete their account with so much hard work put into such account already. Just like you mentioned, someone that has 20,000 followers and makes use of his/her account for social media marketing wouldn't dare delete his/her account because the loss would be more than too much to bear.
Absolutely, when something does not go right, then people will come out in droves in order to attest that they will never use that product or service again, however, that is likely not the case, as emotions can be very powerful, and a person is just following or picking up on what the crowd is doing; At first, it was expected that Facebook would decline over the bad publicity, instead, Facebook gained more followers, and Mark Z. made even more money.
 

Heatman

Well-known member
366
169
Credits
2,580
#14
Absolutely, when something does not go right, then people will come out in droves in order to attest that they will never use that product or service again, however, that is likely not the case, as emotions can be very powerful, and a person is just following or picking up on what the crowd is doing; At first, it was expected that Facebook would decline over the bad publicity, instead, Facebook gained more followers, and Mark Z. made even more money.
That is just human nature and I don't think it's going to be changing anytime soon because when one gets so used to one particular thing and it's like an addiction, stopping or quitting it would be almost an impossible task.

There are some people who can't go a day without going to their Facebook account, and there are some who spend more time on Facebook and other social media sites than the time they share with others in real life.

So how can such person just up and deactivate his/her account?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#15
That is just human nature and I don't think it's going to be changing anytime soon because when one gets so used to one particular thing and it's like an addiction, stopping or quitting it would be almost an impossible task.

There are some people who can't go a day without going to their Facebook account, and there are some who spend more time on Facebook and other social media sites than the time they share with others in real life.

So how can such person just up and deactivate his/her account?
Since I do not have a facebook account, then I can not tell you how you would delete your facebook account, even though Facebook seems to be very popular, their business practices are somewhat questionable such as their recent privacy scandal, and not only that, they seem to endorse fake news, unless that has changed, and Facebook appears to have issues when it comes to taxes, however, I am really sure what that is all about. (click the link below.)
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-account-how-to-mark-zuckerberg-a7689226.html
 

KellyGeo

Well-known member
251
124
Credits
1,095
#16
If there is a good reason why the government should involve themselves with regulating social media activities, then I wouldn't totally be against it. In fact, one of the main reasons why I might agree to the government regulating social media activities is as a result of the rate of cyber crime that is on the increase in the world today. Something needs to be done about this and it's the government that can tackle this problem.
 

Heatman

Well-known member
366
169
Credits
2,580
#17
Since I do not have a facebook account, then I can not tell you how you would delete your facebook account, even though Facebook seems to be very popular, their business practices are somewhat questionable such as their recent privacy scandal, and not only that, they seem to endorse fake news, unless that has changed, and Facebook appears to have issues when it comes to taxes, however, I am really sure what that is all about. (click the link below.)
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-account-how-to-mark-zuckerberg-a7689226.html
Alright, I will check out the information which the link would route me to. It's really a strong decision for you not to have Facebook account. I think that I registered on the social media site on 2001, so I have a long existing member on the platform. But just like you pointed out, they endorse fake news and a lot of useless stuff crop up on the site.
 

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#18
If there is a good reason why the government should involve themselves with regulating social media activities, then I wouldn't totally be against it. In fact, one of the main reasons why I might agree to the government regulating social media activities is as a result of the rate of cyber crime that is on the increase in the world today. Something needs to be done about this and it's the government that can tackle this problem.
I doubt the govt could solve much of anything unless they throw a billion dollars for a simple case study that shows that it cant be done, but that is wasting tax dollars is all about; I think the govt is regulating more than they should, and over the years business regulations have made it impossible for businesses to keep operating, then they just end up moving everything overseas and/or outsourcing everything, and why should a business operate in the US under heavy Govt regulations when they can just pick up and move to someplace with fewer regulations, and reduced wages? No wonder companies are moving out.
 

KellyGeo

Well-known member
251
124
Credits
1,095
#19
I doubt the govt could solve much of anything unless they throw a billion dollars for a simple case study that shows that it cant be done, but that is wasting tax dollars is all about; I think the govt is regulating more than they should, and over the years business regulations have made it impossible for businesses to keep operating, then they just end up moving everything overseas and/or outsourcing everything, and why should a business operate in the US under heavy Govt regulations when they can just pick up and move to someplace with fewer regulations, and reduced wages? No wonder companies are moving out.
It's true that the government is clamping down on so many business investments which makes them look for better and favorable countries to set up. Heavy taxes is a major turn off for companies and it's actually why these companies move out. But with the issue of Facebook abuse, fake news and so on, I think that a small intervention from the government would be necessary.
 

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
875
269
Credits
8,905
#20
It's true that the government is clamping down on so many business investments which makes them look for better and favorable countries to set up. Heavy taxes is a major turn off for companies and it's actually why these companies move out. But with the issue of Facebook abuse, fake news and so on, I think that a small intervention from the government would be necessary.
In theory, it sounds good, and you may invite the help of the Govt, however, once you open that door, then you may not be able to close it again, and once the govt has gotten inside the door, then you will start seeing all types of govt regulations coming out, and maybe to the point where you may not even want to set up any type of site anymore, and it seems we are already heading into that direction, and more regulation often drives people away.
 
Top