Facebook Co-founder: Zuckerberg Is Too Powerful, Exercises Speech Control Over 2B People
The co-founder of Facebook says itâ€™s time to break up the social-media behemoth because it is a dangerous, out-of-control corporate predator that threatens the country.
But Chris Hughesâ€™s long piece in the New York Times also says Facebook tycoon Mark Zuckerberg is too powerful, that no one man should control what Zuckerberg controls.
Zuckerberg, Hughes wrote, is dangerous on two main counts: His two-fisted iron grip on the social-media market, in which he has virtually zero competition, and, most significantly, on speech. He not only controls access to what should be a growing market of new competitors, but also what people can say to each other, and to the world.
Col 3:1-3 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
The more Satan controls the more chaos he will enslave the reprobates into. Ultimately his aim is to control everybody and every organisation which feeds into the mortal mind, intelligence, cognizance and comprehension.
This really is Orwellian Big Brother in action in a scope which not even Orwell could ever have perceived.
So called artificial intelligence and these programs are used by Satan to bring mankind under his complete despotic control.
The reprobate has no chance to avoid this his conscience is seared. 1Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;"
Seared = (Greek) 'To burn in with a branding iron.'
Facebook banned a post quoting a section of the Declaration of Independence for hate speech. Later they retracted their action by republishing the banned post, but stated that it could be considered hate speech according to Facebook standards. They definitely control way too much speech.
Interesting statement, and one that ought to gain traction in the social media free speech debate. Hughes argues that Facebook was supposed to be a place where free speech could flourish.
But speech is regulated at some level. Some speech is defined as criminal based on its content when measured against laws and ordinances. Some speech is defined as immoral based on its content when measured against a standard. How those standards are crafted and maintained is the problem from a free speech standpoint. Who makes those standards and what tribal group is represented in the standards are major issues.
Hughes is arguing, from the snippet I've seen, that FB is a dangerous monoploy and needs the government to help break it up. Perhaps he's right. There is a self-regulating alternative, though. Don't use it.