6 ms·

The elephant in the room here is the First Amendment. The government, legally, cannot do anything to censor "hate speech" or "misinformation" on CNN or Fox News

The elephant in the room here is the First Amendment. The government, legally, cannot do anything to censor "hate speech" or "misinformation" on CNN or Fox News. They also can't do anything to censor "hate speech" or "misinformation" on Facebook, but they can certainly harass Facebook into doing it for them.

n8cpdx 5y ago
Not completely true. Historically mass media was regulated. Lying also isn't legally protected if it causes injury (fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example, libel another). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- philwelch 5y ago
  > fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example That phrase comes from Schenck v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could imprison an anti-war activist for disseminating pamphlets.
- bhupy 5y ago
  > fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  “Fire in a crowded theater” comes from the Supreme Court upholding the criminal conviction of a man handing out pamphlets protesting the WW1 draft. Not exactly the precedent I’d reach for if I was trying to argue that governmental regulation of speech is not dangerous.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    Facebook Groups have been host to many organized acts of violence. The Kenosha shooting comes to mind as a recent example where the Group was reported to Facebook and made it through multiple layers of review before being allowed to persist. To say that such speech is protected under the First Amendment is too much of a stretch.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Please point out where I argued that that was protected speech. I think you’ll find that you’ve made up my argument out of whole cloth, which is quite tiresome.
      - mike00632 5y ago
        Facebook: willingly hosts groups that plan and enact violence. You: It's a matter of free speech. Me: Point out that people have been killed. You: I didn't say it was free speech. Like, what do you think people are mad at Facebook over if not all the people dying from the misinformation and violence coming from them?
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        The only thing I can say here that’s within the rules is this: this is completely unrelated to what I actually said. I’m not sure where this conversation you’re paraphrasing happened, but I wasn’t part of it.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      It hasn’t even been legally established that Kyle Rittenhouse did anything wrong. Legally, he is innocent until proven guilty, and he has a case for self-defense for every round he fired that night. To say that the First Amendment doesn’t protect the rights of people to organize and assemble in a public place where one of them is later forced to defend themselves is absurd. People don’t use Facebook to plan premeditated acts of political violence. They use Signal.
      - 5y ago
- riffic 5y ago
  well, the airwaves (which is where the FCC fairness doctrine was applied to) are a limited resource which, without regulation, become quickly polluted by bad actors. print and cable are somewhat more immune to that particular issue.
- danShumway 5y ago
  The Supreme Court only upheld the fairness doctrine in situations where spectrum was limited (Red Lion Broadcasting vs FCC). Even at the time the fairness doctrine wasn't really applicable to mediums in which bandwidth/spectrum is not limited and not licensed to specific broadcasters. It's not clear to me how this kind of regulation would be justified to the Supreme Court in regards to the Internet.
cronix 5y ago
> but they can certainly harass Facebook into doing it for them. I believe you are exactly right here, or at least giving them cover to censor more with "the public's blessing."
CountDrewku 5y ago
And this is exactly what they're doing. In effect they're loopholing the 1st amendment. Bring in Zuckerberg, hound him about removing specific "disinformation" under the threat of future political action if they don't comply. Then they get to throw the private company bs flag whenever someone says it's stomping on the 1st amendment.
ashtonkem 5y ago
Breaking up Facebook would probably be the way to go; it has less troubling side effects than trying to regulate “hate speech” via a clever legal trick.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  The leaker herself says breaking up FB won't solve anything and what's needed is far more resources internally
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I’m strongly inclined to disagree. I generally find that the best way to prevent an organization from abusing its power is to deny it power.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      If we split insta from FB, what incentives change that will cause a change in behavior?
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        It’s my external opinion that the real issue is the combination of the ad sales platform with the social media. If Instagram wasn’t owned by a company with an ad sales program, they would not have the capability to do what Facebook does today.

n8cpdx 5y ago

Not completely true. Historically mass media was regulated. Lying also isn't legally protected if it causes injury (fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example, libel another). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

philwelch 5y ago
> fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example That phrase comes from Schenck v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could imprison an anti-war activist for disseminating pamphlets.
bhupy 5y ago
> fire in a crowded theater being the canonical example https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
ashtonkem 5y ago
“Fire in a crowded theater” comes from the Supreme Court upholding the criminal conviction of a man handing out pamphlets protesting the WW1 draft. Not exactly the precedent I’d reach for if I was trying to argue that governmental regulation of speech is not dangerous.
- mike00632 5y ago
  Facebook Groups have been host to many organized acts of violence. The Kenosha shooting comes to mind as a recent example where the Group was reported to Facebook and made it through multiple layers of review before being allowed to persist. To say that such speech is protected under the First Amendment is too much of a stretch.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Please point out where I argued that that was protected speech. I think you’ll find that you’ve made up my argument out of whole cloth, which is quite tiresome.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      Facebook: willingly hosts groups that plan and enact violence. You: It's a matter of free speech. Me: Point out that people have been killed. You: I didn't say it was free speech. Like, what do you think people are mad at Facebook over if not all the people dying from the misinformation and violence coming from them?
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        The only thing I can say here that’s within the rules is this: this is completely unrelated to what I actually said. I’m not sure where this conversation you’re paraphrasing happened, but I wasn’t part of it.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    It hasn’t even been legally established that Kyle Rittenhouse did anything wrong. Legally, he is innocent until proven guilty, and he has a case for self-defense for every round he fired that night. To say that the First Amendment doesn’t protect the rights of people to organize and assemble in a public place where one of them is later forced to defend themselves is absurd. People don’t use Facebook to plan premeditated acts of political violence. They use Signal.
    - 5y ago
riffic 5y ago
well, the airwaves (which is where the FCC fairness doctrine was applied to) are a limited resource which, without regulation, become quickly polluted by bad actors. print and cable are somewhat more immune to that particular issue.
danShumway 5y ago
The Supreme Court only upheld the fairness doctrine in situations where spectrum was limited (Red Lion Broadcasting vs FCC). Even at the time the fairness doctrine wasn't really applicable to mediums in which bandwidth/spectrum is not limited and not licensed to specific broadcasters. It's not clear to me how this kind of regulation would be justified to the Supreme Court in regards to the Internet.

cronix 5y ago

> but they can certainly harass Facebook into doing it for them. I believe you are exactly right here, or at least giving them cover to censor more with "the public's blessing."

CountDrewku 5y ago

And this is exactly what they're doing. In effect they're loopholing the 1st amendment. Bring in Zuckerberg, hound him about removing specific "disinformation" under the threat of future political action if they don't comply. Then they get to throw the private company bs flag whenever someone says it's stomping on the 1st amendment.

ashtonkem 5y ago

Breaking up Facebook would probably be the way to go; it has less troubling side effects than trying to regulate “hate speech” via a clever legal trick.

fighterpilot 5y ago
The leaker herself says breaking up FB won't solve anything and what's needed is far more resources internally
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I’m strongly inclined to disagree. I generally find that the best way to prevent an organization from abusing its power is to deny it power.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    If we split insta from FB, what incentives change that will cause a change in behavior?
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      It’s my external opinion that the real issue is the combination of the ad sales platform with the social media. If Instagram wasn’t owned by a company with an ad sales program, they would not have the capability to do what Facebook does today.