Is Facebook "Censoring" the Internet or is this smart marketing?

12-8-2011 National:

Since my article KETV Omaha Nebraska Requires a Facebook Account in Order to Comment: BIG DEAL or not? I have received dozens of e-mails showing other sites where this is also happening. This is blossoming into a National Freedom of Speech issue, where political and religious commenting, and more, is being censored. How? Read on!

Lets begin with these newspapers (All owned by Gannett Co. which has National websites), recently they have informed readers that, a Facebook account is required in order to comment on stories:

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (Their Notice:)
Binghamton Press and Sun Bulletin (Their Notice:)
The Journal News (Their Notice:)

The Journal News has this to say:

Beginning Thursday, we will start to phase out our current reader comment system. Our new article comments will require readers to employ software powered by Facebook. The era of anonymous commenting on LoHud.com is coming to a welcome end.

Maybe these News sites, and Facebook, need to read what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say about "Annoynmous Commenting" see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, prohibiting anonymity violates constitutional rights.

With that said, how is this censorship being accomplished? Put your technical hat on!

It appears that Facebook has developed what they call "Social Plugins (Click to see them)" which websites and blogs can install on their sites (whether use of 'Social Plugins' requires a Facebook account is yet to be determined). One of those "Social Plugins" is a "Commenting System," which has it's own settings. One setting -if enabled- can allow users of Yahoo, AOL and Hotmail to use their signins, instead of a Facebook signin; it appears the above newspapers do not have this turned on. See the following:

How do I enable users to comment using other login providers?
On the settings section of the plugin, you can choose to enable third party login on your comments boxes. Currently this will enable users to comment using a Yahoo!, AOL or Hotmail account.(From Facebook Developer's blog)

Now, from the Facebook Developers Blog comes this technical piece which also gives us an idea of what Facebook is focusing on:

More Social Relevance:The upgraded Comments Box uses social signals to surface the highest quality comments for each user. Comments are ordered to show users the most relevant comments from friends, friends of friends, and the most liked or active discussion threads, while comments marked as spam are hidden from view. (Also Facebook Developer's blog)

.

Social Signals and Highest Quality Comments, neither of which are clearly defined, but, as best I can figure from a programming standpoint, is, they are using individual account Facebook Friends, who comment the most and where they comment, to decide what is relevant in the world.

Not sure I agree with that method, especially since that seems to bypass local issues in favor of the bigger picture in today's world. The bigger issues (National and Global) are mostly covered by larger News sites with high hit counts (CNN, USA, etc.).

So overall this amounts to either, a clever way to censor the Internet, or a marketing scheme which ultimately wraps more sites (people and businesses) around the Facebook Brand. Illegal? Maybe, since it does amount to censorship of sorts; lawyers need to rally around this and study it more.

It appears, to this writer, that the effect of this scheme is "Internet Censorship" of issues and commenting on them, by Facebook (as to what signins are allowed in their Social Plugin) and Sites using the Facebook Commenting Social Plugin (their setting choices, again, as to permissible signins).

When I started this expose, it was to find out why registered sex offenders were being prevented from exercising their first amendment rights to comment on news and TV sites on issues that affect them. However what I have found is, this is affecting far more than registered sex offenders. This is a global problem affecting millions of people.

Is it legal? Not sure! Its one thing to say, Facebook has a right to not allow someone an account on their site, but this "Facebook Social Plugin" commenting scheme -as designed and made available- encroaches and maybe abrogates Freedom of Speech rights of millions of people. Is it time for Congressional Hearings? Advocates of free speech rights need to jump on this wagon and get Congress to review this scheme!

Finally, I can understand why individual websites would want efficient ways to handle the needs of a website (i.e., a commenting system for one), but when efficiencies erode constitutional rights, its time to get priorities straight! "Annoynmous Commenting" is a right! McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

I am hoping others will jump in and look at this scheme and add their opinions. There is no doubt something needs to be done, but I am sure it is going to take lawyers who have the resources to attack this censorship problem. Will Facebook becomes known as The Government of Facebook?

Thanks,
eAdvocate

PS: PRIVACY ISSUES: Most Facebook account holders do not realize how this affects what they thought was private information, there have been complaints that "Job, Employer, and Location" is showing up on other Facebook accounts; some may be businesses. And there are folks out there who are finding ways to opt-out -for Facebook users- see "How to disable Facebook's Social Plugins" and I am sure there are others. Businesses might want to read "Facebook Commenting Platform: Pros and Cons For Businesses."