SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On January 15th, 2018, World Socialist Web Site reported that users are unable to share a promotional video for a January 16th online meeting, "Organizing Resistance to Internet Censorship."
Facebook has blocked users from sharing a social media video promoting the January 16 online meeting "Organizing resistance to Internet censorship," featuring World Socialist Web Site International Editorial Board Chairman David North and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges. The initial post of the video, uploaded Friday, cannot be shared by any user. Those who attempt to do so receive an error message that seems to imply a technical failure.
Users reported, however, that upon clicking "If you think you're seeing this message by mistake, please let us know," they were presented with a notice that clearly indicates the content had been blocked in the name of keeping Facebook "safe."
WSWS published an open letter about internet censorship and net neutrality on November 25. The FCC repealed net neutrality rules on December 14, 2017.
In this AC's opinion, Facebook is certainly within their rights to refuse to host any content for any reasons they choose. However, for many people, Facebook is the internet.
Should we worry about entrenched services such as Facebook and Google using their positions to suppress information? Does the presence or absence of net neutrality change one's analysis of the situation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @11:14PM
That has happened in USA, on average, every 80 years:
The Panic of 1837 (till 1842); The Long Depression (1873 - 1896); The Great Depression (1929 - 1941)[1]; the Bush-Obama-Trump Depression (since 2007)[2]
[1] A government jobs program had the economy off its back and growing again by 1937.
Lend-Lease (WWII in Europe) was another uptick.
The Draft, after Pearl Harbor, made a bunch of men "employed".
[2] The Labor Non-Participation Rate hasn't gone below 22 percent.
The "Recovery" you hear about from Lamestream Media is a sham, only benefiting a tiny few; most folks continue to do worse.
"Trickle-down" doesn't.
capitalism would encounter a crisis that lead to the government taking over control of the means of production
That would be the logical thing to do: Get rid of the "business experts" who tanked their companies.
In USA, however, it's done differently.
Here, the government (an Oligarchy) takes taxpayer money and hands it out to the too-big-to-fail corporations in trillion dollar amounts and doesn't even attach any strings.
Economist Thomas Piketty wrote a 696-page book examining 250 years of Capitalism and he concluded that Capitalism always results in that kind of Oligarchy.
In Russia in 1917, The Workers got tired of that kind of shit and took a different approach.
N.B. USA, Britain, France, Japan, and a bunch of other Capitalist nations immediately invaded USSR, with Japan not exiting until 1922.
For 7 decades, USSR was forced to redirect resources into military defense when that would otherwise have gone to food and housing and such.
(They never skimped on spending for education, however.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]