GOOD MORNING FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: THE FIRST VIDEO FOR TODAY IS A FRAGMENT OF A LONGER VIDEO CALLED "THE META TAPES". IT'S A COLLECTION OF VIDEO CLIPS, TAKEN BY HIDDEN CAMERA TO HIGH LEVEL EMPLOYEES OF 'META' (THE PARENT COMPANY OF FACEBOOK). IN THEIR EXPRESSIONS, THEY CANDIDLY DESCRIBE HOW THE CENSORSHIP WORKS IN THOSE 'MAINSTREAM' SOCIAL MEDIA SITES, USUALLY TAKING DOWN, SHADOWBANNING, ADDING FACT CHECHING OR ADDED COMMENTS TO DEBUNK OR TAKE AWAY THE CREDIBILITY OF MATERIAL. THEY USUALLY DO THAT TO CONSERVATIVE OR RIGHT WING MATERIAL OR POSTS BY USERS. AS PRIVATE COMPANIES, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR OWN EDITORIAL POLICIES AND NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I'M NOT A LAWYER BUT, IN MY OPINION, THE FIRST AMENDMENT GRANTS TOTAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, NOT INSIDE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS LIKE CHURCHES, MEDIA COMPANIES, etc. HOWEVER, IF A PRIVATE COMPANY RUNS A SOCIAL MEDIA SITE, FREELY PERMITTING ANYBODY TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT WITH THE PURPOSE OF OPINING, DISCUSSING AND SHARING AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIAL WITH OTHER PEOPLE, THAT SITE BECOMES THE 'PUBLIC SQUARE' AND SHOULD ABIDE BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IN MANY CASES, THEY EVEN CANCEL AND CLOSE ACCOUNTS OF CERTAIN PEOPLE, BASED SOLELY ON OPINIONS EXPRESSED AND IDEOLOGY. I KNOW BY MY OWN EXPERIENCES. IN THE NEXT VIDEO (AFTER THIS ONE) I'LL EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THE NEW TRICKS USE FOR CENSORSHIP IN SITES LIKE 'X' (FORMERLY TWITTER), WHERE THE OWNER (ELON MUSK) PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
GOOD MORNING FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: THE FIRST VIDEO FOR TODAY IS A FRAGMENT OF A LONGER VIDEO CALLED "THE META TAPES". IT'S A COLLECTION OF VIDEO CLIPS, TAKEN BY HIDDEN CAMERA TO HIGH LEVEL EMPLOYEES OF 'META' (THE PARENT COMPANY OF FACEBOOK). IN THEIR EXPRESSIONS, THEY CANDIDLY DESCRIBE HOW THE CENSORSHIP WORKS IN THOSE 'MAINSTREAM' SOCIAL MEDIA SITES, USUALLY TAKING DOWN, SHADOWBANNING, ADDING FACT CHECHING OR ADDED COMMENTS TO DEBUNK OR TAKE AWAY THE CREDIBILITY OF MATERIAL. THEY USUALLY DO THAT TO CONSERVATIVE OR RIGHT WING MATERIAL OR POSTS BY USERS. AS PRIVATE COMPANIES, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR OWN EDITORIAL POLICIES AND NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I'M NOT A LAWYER BUT, IN MY OPINION, THE FIRST AMENDMENT GRANTS TOTAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, NOT INSIDE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS LIKE CHURCHES, MEDIA COMPANIES, etc. HOWEVER, IF A PRIVATE COMPANY RUNS A SOCIAL MEDIA SITE, FREELY PERMITTING ANYBODY TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT WITH THE PURPOSE OF OPINING, DISCUSSING AND SHARING AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIAL WITH OTHER PEOPLE, THAT SITE BECOMES THE 'PUBLIC SQUARE' AND SHOULD ABIDE BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IN MANY CASES, THEY EVEN CANCEL AND CLOSE ACCOUNTS OF CERTAIN PEOPLE, BASED SOLELY ON OPINIONS EXPRESSED AND IDEOLOGY. I KNOW BY MY OWN EXPERIENCES. IN THE NEXT VIDEO (AFTER THIS ONE) I'LL EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THE NEW TRICKS USE FOR CENSORSHIP IN SITES LIKE 'X' (FORMERLY TWITTER), WHERE THE OWNER (ELON MUSK) PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
English
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Greek