On a totally different note. From the perspective of an investor, this censoring of new stories, would make me very nervous, as history has a way of repeating itself. MySpace was once the social media platform of choice for a sizable portion of the internet connected population.
It fell for several reason, the site attempting to become all things to all people, the failure to evolve, and the big one, the perception problem that lead to people believing MySpace was not safe.
From the perspective of Facebook being a publicly traded company, much like many news organizations, the bias in reporting is forgivable and allowable under the first amendment.
From the perspective of Facebook being the quintessential social media service provider, it is not. It would be as if AT&T, Comcast, Cox, or any other service provider suddenly decided what you have access to and what you do not.
They do not realize that the rules and regulations that they created in the past, are the thing keeping innovation from happening now. So heaping a shit load of new regulation on top of old regulation is not going to help, just hinder innovation. The solution is to reduce regulation, and give companies breathing room to innovate, without government regulation and constant intervention.
I was thinking the same thing. It would be stupid for them to allow the news agencies to use the photos, in the end some bot would eventually spot the photo, and issue/send a DMCA take down. The same way it happened in the Buffalo lake effect video ...
constitutes a Federal crime of violence by sending to a person five website links
Read that a few times
I did, and it is really disturbing, on so many levels. The big one being, you can publish, buy, and sell a book like the anarchists cookbook, but you cannot send a link to a copy of it. Seems like a First Amendment issue right there.
Re: This is actually different than the impression I had before
"Why have the bad apples gotten away with it so long, if it's just bad apples?"
It is a systemic problem, based on the fact this sort of behavior was condoned in the past. Social systems, ways of doing things, and long standing traditions, do not change overnight unless you fire everyone and start fresh.
The New Yorker is expressing a view that I hold to be extreme(ist). Extremist content isn't valuable content and doesn't hold any worth. Any content that doesn't hold 'worth' can be silenced without any issue or loss. Therefore the New Yorker can and should be silenced.
I agree. The worth of a paper should be determined by the party in power, and anyone expressing an alternate opinion, should be silenced. They should be jailed, their assets seized, and their children forbidden from ever holding a position in government.
Damn, that sounds like what our government does on a daily basis, to people who do not follow their carefully crafted narrative, or who fall out of favor.
I wonder if anyone working at newspapers worries about things like that?