Mfcttrf

There's a lot of discussion in the past years on whether or not Facebook is using their platform to promote a certain political agenda and influence elections. Facebook denies such accusations but even if they did try to influence things behind the scenes, wouldn't it be perfectly legal? There are certainly media channels out there that actively promote certain political parties but no one is summoning the editor of Fox News or CNN for questioning in the Senate.

So what's the big deal about Facebook allegedly influencing politics? Aren't they protected by the First Amendment in being free to promote anything they please?

1) They would be absolutely allowed to promote any political agenda as a publisher, but not necessary as a platform. It's contentious whether famous Section 230 allows them to find a perfect sweet spot:

• shielded from any liability for content posted by crazy users as if they were merely a platform;




• having huge editorial discretion in selecting what to publish, as if they were a publisher.

2) Implicit expectation of being a neutral platform. Think like discovering that your mobile phone company treats customers differently pending on the issues they discuss or their political views. Even if it could be legal, it would still raise some eyebrows.

3) Convenient scapegoat. While attempts to regulate Big New Media to promote freedom of speech and platform neutrality is more right wing stuff, chance to blast some disliked CEO is enjoyed by politicians regardless of their views.

4) Uncharted waters and near market monopoly. Think this way, when Rockefeller started his oil trust, his business plan was technically speaking perfectly legal. Just such power abuse lead lawmakers to update and extend list of illegal practices.

5) Chance to grill on other unrelated issues like privacy violations or tax avoidance.

Facebook can and does actively promote a political agenda.

They even formed a Political Action Committee, FB PAC, through which they donate money to various politicians and PACs (and contrary to right-wing narrative, they have been known to give more money to GOP causes).

They also sell advertising space on their website for political ads, though this is a case of them promoting someone else's political agenda for money.

As for the user-generated content.

Social media websites give people the privilege (not a right) of using their services, typically free of charge, and that privilege can be revoked.

They have the right to delete any content they wish for whatever reason they want, or even no reason whatsoever. This is how they are able to block or delete things that may be legal but unpleasant.

• spam


• pornography


• horrific or disturbing content (use your imagination)


• links to malware

How does the First Amendment apply?

The First Amendment protects people from the government by limiting what the government can do. That's why contrary to popular belief the First Amendment doesn't protect you from being banned from a website.

Now if the government were to try to force a website to accept someone as a member, they would quickly run into an issue with the First Amendment right to Freedom of Association which guarantees an organization the right to exclude people from membership (even against people of Protected Classes, which political views definitely are not).