Facebook Forced Conservatives to Sign Confidentiality Agreements Before Summit About Censorship

Facebook Forced Conservatives to Sign Confidentiality Agreements Before Summit About Censorship

Hah! This is rich with irony.

On FOX news Tucker Carlson of the Daily Caller slips up and starts to mention Confidentiality Agreements then catches himself.

Censorship on a meeting about Censorship.

If Zuckerberg has nothing to hide, why keep what was said in the meeting secret? It appears that Facebook is now the Main aggregator for forwarding news from other sites which then gives those sites traffic. So much for stopping the huge Corporations from preventing news they don't want people to know about aye?

*Trigger Warning*
If Mark Dice Triggers you, skip to 2:17 of the video

Isn't all discrimination bad?
Where is the outrage for this type of discrimination?

it's not censorship if you are stopping the Hitler Youth. Or whatever the left is calling the right today, to get people to join their tolerant causes...or get bullied, threatened, or attacked.

a reply to: shooterbrody

What are you saying, no ones been outraged when this news came out?

That said, this is a tough call since conservatives said they were censored while FB says no such censorship exists. It's hard for me to believe either camp so the moral of the story is stop using FB.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: shooterbrody

What are you saying, no ones been outraged when this news came out?

That said, this is a tough call since conservatives said they were censored while FB says no such censorship exists. It's hard for me to believe either camp so the moral of the story is stop using FB.

That was the underlying issue. No matter what political ideology one may adhere too, it is very dangerous to allow a Corporation, to select which news is "News worthy"?

How soon will it be before Facebook becomes the "Ministry of Truth"? Perhaps the views favor one flavor today, yet that pendulum could swing the other way.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: shooterbrody

What are you saying, no ones been outraged when this news came out?

That said, this is a tough call since conservatives said they were censored while FB says no such censorship exists. It's hard for me to believe either camp so the moral of the story is stop using FB.

OH MY
NO WAY
Stop using facebook? Kinda like stop using the pizza place that wont serve gays? Or stop using the bakery that wont make a gay wedding cake?

Thanks in advance for the insight into your onesided social beliefs.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FOR SOME(as long as we agree with your views)

I'm just going to toss out a different perspective here:

Perhaps Facebook feels as if their proprietary algorithms + editors do a pretty good job of presenting a balanced view of any particular story.

Perhaps they feel as if they have empirical data to "prove" that this is the case.

Maybe they have put together a neat presentation which -- they hope -- will illustrate the ramifications of this data (and its effects in real world applications, like soandso's newsfeed) but they don't want details of their proprietary software shared in the national media where competitors might use it to gain an advantage.

If each of the statements above are true (or even mostly) true, there are perfectly valid reasons for an NDA in this case.

a reply to: Swills

I don't think FB is "censoring", its "promoting" liberal news sites to the top of its "news" feed.
Its a lot like Google having changed its search algorithm to produce a result it deems most "factual, accurate, correct".

I don't see this as much different from what the MSM Cable news services do.

One "viewpoint" to rule them all.

a reply to: seeker1963

The expression of free speech no longer exists.

Just obey, and please, no more micro-aggressions.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Exactly. We would have to see the NDA, but it is most reasonable to assume that the NDA covers any proprietary information that may be divulged during the course of the conference.

I would bet that FB is just protecting it's personal property rights.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Swills

I don't think FB is "censoring", its "promoting" liberal news sites to the top of its "news" feed.
Its a lot like Google having changed its search algorithm to produce a result it deems most "factual, accurate, correct".

I don't see this as much different from what the MSM Cable news services do.

One "viewpoint" to rule them all.

Exactly.

Those with a Progressive slant on things will defend Facebook today. What if tomorrow the narrative changes and the information deemed as Truth by the Corporation decides to change up in a different direction?

Talk about how the power to cause an uprising/social engineering sitting right in the palm of their hands can be used to promote any kind of agenda those in power so choose to do! You would be in denial to say that does not happen. One example "The Iraq War"? There are many others for those who choose to see them.

a reply to: seeker1963

You're being drama queens and reading way too far in to this.

It's probably an NDA to protect Facebook's intellectual property and I find it amazing that people would use this as a chance to play victim.

Special little snowflakes...

I never had a Facebook account and never will, for many reasons.

My concern is that the newest generations are growing up with Facebook as a fundamental part of their life. Way too many young people are growing up with the false perception that Facebook "is" the real world.

If Facebook picks and chooses which points of views are relevant and pushes their own agenda, then they are potentially influencing the future of the world. That is way too much power for one company to wield.

Of course MSM does the same thing. But I don't think that MSM captivates youth in the same way that Facebook does.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

You're being drama queens and reading way too far in to this.

It's probably an NDA to protect Facebook's intellectual property and I find it amazing that people would use this as a chance to play victim.

Special little snowflakes...

Awwww, did I trigger you?

Why are you not able to accept a different perspective other than your own?

This is a conspiracy site, perhaps Facebook is more suited to you?

Throw out the name calling is so mature and telling.

a reply to: seeker1963

This is a conspiracy site, perhaps Facebook is more suited to you?

I don't do Facebook and the 'it's a conspiracy site' is the newest and lazy excuse for not using critical thinking.

You're blowing this out of proportion.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

This is a conspiracy site, perhaps Facebook is more suited to you?

I don't do Facebook and the 'it's a conspiracy site' is the newest and lazy excuse for not using critical thinking.

You're blowing this out of proportion.

Address the topic and STOP attacking me please.

I was not making this about biased political bickering but how Facebook operates!

Address the topic and quit trying to derail the thread!

a reply to: seeker1963

I did. This is not about censorship of conservatives. It's about protecting intellectual property. Private property rights.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

I did. This is not about censorship of conservatives. It's about protecting intellectual property. Private property rights.

It goes beyond that. Why else would Tucker Carlson start to say what he did and then stutter to overcome his slip up?
I agree that signing a Confidentiality Agreement for Intellectual property is a no brainer! What about everything that doesn't involve those algorithms though?

The fact that he had to adjust because he started to talk about the agreements suggests there is more to the story.

a reply to: seeker1963

The fact that he had to adjust because he started to talk about the agreements suggests there is more to the story.

No, it suggests that he was about to talk about something he should not have been talking about.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

The fact that he had to adjust because he started to talk about the agreements suggests there is more to the story.

No, it suggests that he was about to talk about something he should not have been talking about.

There is no violation of going against a Confidentiality Agreement by saying you signed one. That is what Carlson stopped himself from saying. The question is why would he be afraid of saying he signed one?