4 ms·

> slander Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections. Under US

> slander Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections. Under US law, yes, social media companies can do what they want in this particular case. But should they? They are massive and they control narratives. The fact that we have real freedom of speech proves this because we have other channels to discuss and bring attention to this issue. There is another angle: Because of FB/Twitters massive size and control over their audiences, is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? It most certainly is.

tayo42 6y ago
> They are massive and they control narratives. they might only control the narrative on twitter. only around 10% of americans would be a monthly active user on twitter. the world is not twitter, or social media. It might feel like that. Plently of people are still getting their news from other places. the article is still on nypost. > is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? Lets say CNN decides to not publish this story, is that election interference? Now their viewers won't know about it. You could also say its election interference to run an unfounded story in the first place