26 ms·
> and even White House statements addressing the JR issue. Which I think you can argue is a problem (to the original question). Dragging company execs to testi
by throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
> and even White House statements addressing the JR issue.
Which I think you can argue is a problem (to the original question). Dragging company execs to testify in front of congress about misinformation and then framing any (in)action as monopolistic (during a time of anti-trust inquires) isn't exactly "free market" either. I'm not convinced that influence has fundamentally changed the outcome in the past year but it seems a bit naive to think the government has no influence in these moderation decisions. It's not hard to imagine an example where this would be less defensible; "WH strong disapproves of these 'powerful' tech companies amplifying content that contains misinformation about our justifications to invade Iraq".
- mattzito 5y agoAs I pointed out elsewhere, the White House didn’t criticize anyone, they were asked about how they felt about the disclaimer that Spotify had added, and the White House said they were in favor of calling out misinformation and uplifting accurate information. That’s pretty different than how you portrayed it.