Facebook : legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer

Facebook : legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer

Facebook censorship
All in one: Legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer

Facebook : legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer – Facebook becomes a contender in the realm of the business of the law.  That is not a good state of affairs.   Facebook assumes the roles of police, judge, jury and executioner, even that of the legislators (legislators means lawmakers, our legally elected, legal representatives, who “hammer out the laws” that our employees – the police, the judges, and our jailers and executioners of our system of jurisprudence – install, monitor adherence to, judge the quality of performance on and administer, are put in charge of performing the duties required to ensure that punishment ordered by judges is administered properly).    Facebook takes on all of those roles and the duties that come along with them by assuming power over and control of interpersonal communications in a very large sector of human discourse in the whole world. That will force us a long way from established legal and legislative practices that evolved during the course of many thousands of years of civilization.

The assumption of the new Draconian powers that Facebook exercises over a large part of humanity in all of the world is a significant achievement for a corporation that began to offer its services on February 4, 2004.  The assumption of those Draconian powers did not pose much of a problem, initially.  The powers of the roles that FB assumed for itself evolved gradually but at an enormously quick pace, much faster than anything comparable ever did in the history of mankind.  They grew and keep on growing ever larger and more oppressive, much like those do that the UN or the EU wish to put into place.  Such powers are presumptuous, whether installed and executed by any non-elected, nongovernmental, corrupt, bureaucracy, or by a public social media service run by a corporation out to make astounding profits.

The extent of the Draconian powers used by all organizations who assigned themselves the roles of legislator, police, judge, jury and jailer depends on the rate of growth of such organizations.  That rate of growth is substantial but also substantially different with respect to whether the organizations wishing to have the Draconian powers are bureaucracies or corporations.  The growth rates for their respective Draconian powers differ enormously.  There is a good reason for that.

Facebook’s power to censor — Does it rival those of the UN or of the EU?

The UN bureaucracy (founded in 1945) and the EU bureaucracy (its first foundations were laid in 1948) acquired their powers through slow, time-consuming negotiations with mostly democratic nations.  Facebook is a corporation with a vested interest in avoiding all negotiations with all governments, because democratic governments are seen as a hindrance to speedy progress and to growth of profit.  Circumventing of all negotiations with democracies ranks high on the list of priorities of corporations such as Facebook.  That is all the more so because the impact of the services they offer grows at a much higher rate than the understanding that the politicians and bureaucrats of the democracies have who need to be able to comprehend a very important circumstance.  It is extremely dangerous and destructive to give a corporation that offers services to the public the ability to exercise its power without any guidelines or supervision that those guidelines are being adhered to. 

The next section will address the problem that speech codes limit the right to free speech.

Back to index for this article series


See also:

(Visited 73 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Censorship, Civil Rights. Bookmark the permalink.