Skip to main content

Facebook vs. New York Times

As of Wednesday the New York Times published and investigation about the Russian interference on Facebook. The investigation stated that Facebook had not fully released all their known information about the Russian interference. The investigation also stated that Facebook hired a private company to dig up extra inside information on their competitors. Mark Zucerberg, the CEO of Facebook, responded to these claims in a rather defensive way. He responded to the claims saying that he ensures everyone that they ended their relationship with this company (CLICK HERE to read a CNN article about Facebook’s response to the investigation).

This recent incident raises the question on the governmental regulations with social media’s. As of now, social media is a very new thing to the government. There are regulations in place with social media and the internet in general, but there are still gray areas when it comes to speech and advertising on the internet. The US government honestly doesn’t exactly know the basics of social media, making it harder for representatives to fully understand how hard it is to regulate things like hate speech and harassment on the internet. These problems make it very hard for there to be perfect governmental regulations when it comes to advertising and social media.

Do you think that government representatives fully understands what goes on on social media? Do you think that Facebook wasn’t completely forthcoming with all of their information about Russian interference in our election or no? Do you think that the government will begin to make more new regulations when it comes to advertising and hate speech on the internet?

Comments

  1. I haven't read the entire New York Times piece yet, but I did read a source this weekend suggesting that social media should be regulated by the government. Do people have any thoughts on this? The government regulates all kids of things -- should social media be one of them?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Song of Solomon

I think that one of the most challenging parts of this book is really knowing what is true and what is not. The specific story regarding Ruth and her father. Macon says that the relationship between Ruth and her father was too close. Macon explains that her father delivered Ruth’s girls and when he died, he saw Ruth laying naked sucking on her fathers fingers. On the other hand though, Ruth said that when her father died she was not naked and she was simply kissing her fathers fingers. These stories are the complete opposite of each other. Macon explains this story as a creepy sexual encounter that Ruth and her father had. Ruth explains it as a moment of grief and her saying her final goodbye to her father. The story told by Macon is so outlandish and crazy that it seems impossible, but at the same time that doesn’t sound like something a person would just make up. The version that Ruth told is much more believable and realistic, but Macon’s story is just so outlandish I dont know why ...