from Humans Are Free:

[Back in October 2019], Zuckerberg gave a talk regarding free speech. He has referred to Facebook as a technology company. He explicitly stated that “We are a tech company, not a media company.”

But then subsequently, in Congressional testimony, he gave a more nuanced answer:

“I view us as a tech company because the primary that we do is build technology and products. I agree that we’re responsible for the content, but we don’t produce the content.

“I think when people ask us if we’re a media company or a publisher, my understanding of what they’re really getting at is do we feel responsibility for content on our platform.

“The answer to that, I think, is clearly yes. But I don’t think that’s incompatible with fundamentally at our core being a technology company.”

Later, in filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from Laura Loomer, Facebook’s attorneys stated that “Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message” and that referring to Loomer and others as “dangerous individuals” and “promoting hate” as constitutionally protected opinions of a publisher.

Zuckerberg in his recent speech at Georgetown stated:

“People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society.

“People no longer have to rely on traditional gatekeepers in politics or media to make their voices heard, and that has important consequences.

“I understand the concerns about how tech platforms have centralized power, but I actually believe the much bigger story is how much these platforms have decentralized power by putting it directly into people’s hands. It’s part of this amazing expansion of voice through law, culture and technology.”

“We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying.

“And if content is newsworthy, we also won’t take it down even if it would otherwise conflict with many of our standards.”

“I know many people disagree, but, in general, I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy.”

“Increasingly, we’re seeing people try to define more speech as dangerous because it may lead to political outcomes they see as unacceptable.

“Some hold the view that since the stakes are so high, they can no longer trust their fellow citizens with the power to communicate and decide what to believe for themselves.

“I personally believe this is more dangerous for democracy over the long term than almost any speech. Democracy depends on the idea that we hold each others’ right to express ourselves and be heard above our own desire to always get the outcomes we want.”

I take the liberty to quote Zuckerberg at length as I believe them to be of merit.

But that raises the question: is Facebook a technology company that promotes free speech and exists as a public forum exempt from liability?

Or is it a publisher with the right of censorship, the right to edit content as it deems at its discretion, whatever the methodology; but must then assume responsibility and liability?

To say you assume responsibility by declaring yourself exempt from liability is an absurd contradiction. It is the assumption of liability that binds the statement of responsibility.

As troubled as I am regarding the hypocrisy and contradictions of Zuckerberg’s words and Facebook policy and practices, it is more troubling that the technology community and many progressives have criticized his speech as they take a much narrower view of what speech should be protected and what speech should be permitted.

Read More @ HumansAreFree.com