3 ms·

Imagine you were wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, and were being dragged through the mud in the court of the press. You may have an option to present your

Imagine you were wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, and were being dragged through the mud in the court of the press. You may have an option to present your side of the story, one which is highly persuasive. Yet this is actively suppressed on the town square of today, Facebook and Twitter. You aren't even allowed to raise funds on platforms like GoFundMe. As a result, the general public's first impression of your story is never challenged, and it becomes accepted as truth, despite being blatantly false. Does Facebook have no obligation, even if only a moral one, to let you at least defend your own reputation when it allows literal defamation about you to be published unmolested?

Benjammer 5y ago
Was this suppressed on Twitter? What about the NYT publishing an objective analysis of the situation? Aren't we discussing Facebook, specifically, here? In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Facebook is orders of magnitude larger.
- spurgu 5y ago
  To be political, this has more implications on the censorship in general. So what if one censors/distorts more than the other One is supposed to be a news agency, the other is supposed to be an information sharing platform for private individuals. There is some conflict here whenever you decide to pump a specific narrative.
- baryphonic 5y ago
  There have been reports of people banned from Twitter for tweeting e.g. "Rittenhouse did nothing wrong." [0][1] > In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook? I guess you could go with alternative college newspapers? The town crier method? Creating a blog? My point isn't necessarily that you have zero way to attempt to give your side of the story –after all, Rittenhouse's attorneys, people who saw the videos & defended Rittenhouse in public and even the NYT all produced content and were able to spread it among themselves–, but that your enemies have a tech-amplified bullhorn to distribute false claims about you (most of which are "opinion"), which you have been deprived of. In my opinion, it's not hard to see that in the absence of additional rebuttal context, especially the kind that disrupts the original framing, people's first impression will become hardened into "their truth." [0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-for-saying-kyle-rittenhouse-did-nothing-wrong-after-his-acquittal/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-fo... [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle-rittenhouse-tweet-glorifying-violence https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle...

Benjammer 5y ago

Was this suppressed on Twitter? What about the NYT publishing an objective analysis of the situation? Aren't we discussing Facebook, specifically, here? In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?

mensetmanusman 5y ago
Facebook is orders of magnitude larger.
spurgu 5y ago
To be political, this has more implications on the censorship in general. So what if one censors/distorts more than the other One is supposed to be a news agency, the other is supposed to be an information sharing platform for private individuals. There is some conflict here whenever you decide to pump a specific narrative.
baryphonic 5y ago
There have been reports of people banned from Twitter for tweeting e.g. "Rittenhouse did nothing wrong." [0][1] > In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook? I guess you could go with alternative college newspapers? The town crier method? Creating a blog? My point isn't necessarily that you have zero way to attempt to give your side of the story –after all, Rittenhouse's attorneys, people who saw the videos & defended Rittenhouse in public and even the NYT all produced content and were able to spread it among themselves–, but that your enemies have a tech-amplified bullhorn to distribute false claims about you (most of which are "opinion"), which you have been deprived of. In my opinion, it's not hard to see that in the absence of additional rebuttal context, especially the kind that disrupts the original framing, people's first impression will become hardened into "their truth." [0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-for-saying-kyle-rittenhouse-did-nothing-wrong-after-his-acquittal/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-fo... [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle-rittenhouse-tweet-glorifying-violence https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle...