Protection and promotion of freedom of expression around the world is one of the often declared goals of the US democracies. Arguments of this kind can be used to support major political decisions and pressure on these or other state, regardless of what is the real cause of such pressure. A special case of the implementation of the ideology of freedom of speech is the struggle against censorship in social networks that is also understood as a struggle for human access to any information (the struggle for transparency). This study focuses on grounds and in ways of censor social networking site Facebook, in a situation of the unchallenged dominance of liberal ideology. Also, the opacity of Facebook will be considered.
Terms of Facebook, as in many other cases, determine the possible order of access to state regulation of the use of the network. Maximum blur of wording that is policymaker website administration in this field, gives a rise to many speculations on how Facebook limits the freedom of speech and silences of those whose speech is not acceptable to the ruling regime.
Much more interesting is to try to trace mechanisms to filter content in an environment where the status of an independent site is under pressure from government agencies. With the adoption of new legislation in Russia that restricts children’s access to certain kinds of content, Facebook showed flexibility by removing some of the pages that do not comply with the requirements of the new law. It is an excellent example of how a maximal generalized rule for the use of the resource allows maneuvering within the local landscape of legislative regulation of network resources.
In April 2010, the Facebook page was closed, the creators of which called for a boycott of BP corporation that was guilty of pollution Gulf of Mexico. After a violent reaction media service, administration restored the page. First of all, this case is testified that the administration of Facebook keeps track of every page that has national significance. In addition, the administration does not hide its influence on the policy of transparency and violation of freedom of speech.
Thus, the policy of internal and external regulation, carried out by the site, is an area of special voltage that is discourse supports the user. Obviously, the occurrence of such stress is unavoidable. In November 2010, Facebook had to distinguish on the basis of the oppression of sexual minorities, namely, administration closed the page, where opponents of homophobia organized a flashmob in the Catholic Church on public gay kiss in honor of the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI to Barcelona. Obviously, the social network infringes on the rights of absolutely all users, regardless of nationality, orientation, color, etc.
In addition, the social network can influence the political ideology. In January 2013, Facebook created a sensation by blocking the account of the representative of the Conservative Party. She said that she was repeatedly blocked, and investigations revealed that even under the conditions of warning for a first violation of the rules of the site, her account is still locked. As can be seen, the administration of the social network censors political views.
In March 2010, Facebook blocked a picture of Gustav Courbet’s “Origin of the World”, which is posted on profile Frode Steinicke. It is worth noting that the original is in the famous Paris Museum d’Orsay, specializing in paintings of the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists. As a protest, number of users posted this picture as profile pictures on their pages. Thus, Facebook limits the freedom of speech in the context of art.
In general, censorship of Facebook users perceived negatively, the social network is accused of aggressive power politics, openly call it censorship at the site level, often require explanation sanctions. The situation around the tight control over content even spawned a particular society that is focused on bringing attention to this issue. It indicates that dissatisfaction is growing every day among users of social networks in the world.
Facebook, positioning itself as an international network, originally refers to the existence of contexts set of rules that governs the provision of services to users. We use the information we have to help verify accounts and activity, and to promote safety and security on and off of our Services, such as by investigating suspicious activity or violations of our terms or policies. This provision sets the priority of the law, and at the same time determines the position of an important player in regulating the content and user activity - US law.
Another dilemma censorship, which has to be solved, is to censor information in some countries or to suspend the activity of social networks as a whole. Facebook acts as a government censor on behalf of a particular country. The website administration is forced to make “silent” users of some countries at the request of the government. These cases require such a decision not always.
At the same time, this set of rules, apparently, is more focused on standardization of user actions than on the legal protection of the site by state regulatory agencies. Position purports to protect the administration of Facebook against claims of members according to whatever issues related to the content. Addressing the State in this context looks like an element of rhetoric that allows promoting a policy platform. The democratic effect is achieved due to the packing rules and regulations in regards to the format of the user. We are passionate about creating engaging and customized experiences for people. We use all of the information we have to help us provide and support our Services.
It is also interesting that the basic document of Facebook is “Facebook Principles”. The Data Policy only reveals these principles into legal language and provides the necessary compliance with the law. To avoid conflicts between the users and the administration Facebook hereinafter it is necessary to a set of rules and the change position primarily. Also, it is necessary to improve these two documents and make them clearer.
However, it may interfere with one caveat. Despite the fact that Facebook is an American company and is subject primarily to the laws of the United States, a policy of social networks implies the need for compliance with the laws of the countries in which its registered users. This fact, however, does not prevent the authorities of different countries from periodically completely blocking access to the site or in any other way in part to limit the freedom of information in it.
To summarize, it should be noted that freedom of speech of the social network Facebook has been heavily censored. The social network has a policy of “opacity”, establishing fuzzy rules and user responsibilities. In many cases, the rigidity of censorship depends on the country in which Facebook operates. Very often, the administration of the social network is faced with conflicts and complaints from users. The reason for it lies in the basis of the social network. Despite the fact that Facebook is going to make life easier for the user, the administration of the site established not enough clear guidance for using. It is necessary not to lose sight of the fact that censorship of Facebook is constantly evolving.
I am a worker on https://papers-land.com/ company. Papers-Land.com is a reliable online company that offers customers from all over the world professional help in writing academic papers. Our specialists are the best in exploring different subjects and creating great academic masterpieces.This comp
Author's Score 0.1
Up Votes 1
Down Votes 0
Voted on 1 articles
Comments on Facebook Freedom of Expression and Opacity