5 ms·

Let's be real. Social media doesn't have a choice. They are pre-empting orders for the government or they have already received them. There's a direct line from

by bko 5y ago

Let's be real. Social media doesn't have a choice. They are pre-empting orders for the government or they have already received them. There's a direct line from the white house to social media platforms. Youtube and Google is a business after-all. And the federal government could make it very hard for them to continue From a press conference from July 15 2021 > Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms. > MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic. > In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there. https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-would-government-censorship https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-would-government-ce...

WalterBright 5y ago
Since the government is leaning on them to do it, this is clearly a Constitutional right to free speech issue.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fredgrott 5y ago
  read it again WE do NOT HAVE FREE we have instead a limited notion of free political when and where it does not immediately cause death of others as that would be denying them life and pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence. Big difference
- bko 5y ago
  To be clear, I don't know about this case in particular, but the current administration has admitted to be in direct contact with social media platforms to tag "problematic" posts. And they may not even need to because the implicit threat is there. I used to be part of the "its a private platform" group, but I asked myself the question, what would actual government censorship look like. And I couldn't think of an answer that would make what we have today not censorship.
  - crazy_horse 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - barnesto 5y ago
      Trump was removed from all forms of social media, but tell us how you hate conservatives and their empty rhetoric. Guess that also means that the Trump administration was in close contact with the tech companies to ensure they banned him.
      - crazy_horse 5y ago
        He was removed when he wouldn't just give up power like a normal loser, but he sure as hell prodded them for 4 years and it sure as hell got him elected.
      - pvaldes 5y ago
        He practically removed himself by being unable to behave in a normal way. Can't blame other than himself by what happened. The capitol issue was just the last nail in his social coffin. Is too late to play the damsel in distress and the victim here.
    - bko 5y ago
      > The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. [0] On your other point, I don't see how "they've always done that" means its not a first amendment issue. Finally, conspiracy theories are covered under freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is not "empty political rhetoric" [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
- DenverCoder99 5y ago
  If the social media platforms in question are taking down posts on the recommendations (or demands, take your pick) of the White House's senior staff, then I think it's fair to say that they are State Actor's.
  - JakeAl 5y ago
    Or when they are being paid by the government, which is indeed the case with covid messaging, just like they do all other MSM. Hence the lawsuits against Facebook for censorship because they are acting as agents of the state.
  - indymike 5y ago
    If they are, they need to stop.
- nradov 5y ago
  That is essentially the novel legal theory behind Donald Trump's lawsuit against several social media companies. He claims that by following federal government censorship requests they are essentially acting as an arm of the government, and thus users should be entitled to 1st Amendment free speech protections. There is no case law to support Trump's claim so I expect he will lose, but I guess we'll see. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/07/1013760153/donald-trump-says-he-is-suing-facebook-google-and-twitter-for-alleged-censorship https://www.npr.org/2021/07/07/1013760153/donald-trump-says-...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by bko 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago

Since the government is leaning on them to do it, this is clearly a Constitutional right to free speech issue.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fredgrott 5y ago
read it again WE do NOT HAVE FREE we have instead a limited notion of free political when and where it does not immediately cause death of others as that would be denying them life and pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence. Big difference
bko 5y ago
To be clear, I don't know about this case in particular, but the current administration has admitted to be in direct contact with social media platforms to tag "problematic" posts. And they may not even need to because the implicit threat is there. I used to be part of the "its a private platform" group, but I asked myself the question, what would actual government censorship look like. And I couldn't think of an answer that would make what we have today not censorship.
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - barnesto 5y ago
    Trump was removed from all forms of social media, but tell us how you hate conservatives and their empty rhetoric. Guess that also means that the Trump administration was in close contact with the tech companies to ensure they banned him.
    - crazy_horse 5y ago
      He was removed when he wouldn't just give up power like a normal loser, but he sure as hell prodded them for 4 years and it sure as hell got him elected.
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      He practically removed himself by being unable to behave in a normal way. Can't blame other than himself by what happened. The capitol issue was just the last nail in his social coffin. Is too late to play the damsel in distress and the victim here.
  - bko 5y ago
    > The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. [0] On your other point, I don't see how "they've always done that" means its not a first amendment issue. Finally, conspiracy theories are covered under freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is not "empty political rhetoric" [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
DenverCoder99 5y ago
If the social media platforms in question are taking down posts on the recommendations (or demands, take your pick) of the White House's senior staff, then I think it's fair to say that they are State Actor's.
- JakeAl 5y ago
  Or when they are being paid by the government, which is indeed the case with covid messaging, just like they do all other MSM. Hence the lawsuits against Facebook for censorship because they are acting as agents of the state.
- indymike 5y ago
  If they are, they need to stop.
nradov 5y ago
That is essentially the novel legal theory behind Donald Trump's lawsuit against several social media companies. He claims that by following federal government censorship requests they are essentially acting as an arm of the government, and thus users should be entitled to 1st Amendment free speech protections. There is no case law to support Trump's claim so I expect he will lose, but I guess we'll see. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/07/1013760153/donald-trump-says-he-is-suing-facebook-google-and-twitter-for-alleged-censorship https://www.npr.org/2021/07/07/1013760153/donald-trump-says-...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]