3 ms·

COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the d

COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc. But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much.) The whole point of freedom of speech is the censors are notoriously bad at deciding what is “misinformation”, as they were in that case… where they shut down a political story which hurt their preferred candidate but was nonetheless true.

jliptzin 4y ago
Social media != the government
- yourusername 4y ago
  Social media censors partly because of pressure from governments that make it clear that regulation will be coming if they don't do it "voluntarily".
  - jliptzin 4y ago
    Examples of such pressure from the government? Do you mean when Trump threatened to remove section 230 protection from social media companies because he didn't like "the way he was treated" on their sites? https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-proposes-weakening-social-medias-legal-shield https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-...
    - clarkmoody 4y ago
      FB censored the Hunter laptop story during the election at the behest of the FBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
      - jliptzin 4y ago
        That doesn't sound like pressure at all, that just sounds like a tip from the FBI that they could do whatever they want with. Furthermore, they didn't even ban the story anyway. “Basically, the background here is the FBI basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know you should be on high alert,’ ” said Zuckerberg. “ ‘We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that so just be vigilant.’ ” "Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story-right-in-facebooks-lap/ https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story...
    - jwond 4y ago
      The Biden administration have said they are “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation” https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
- fein 4y ago
  The FBI (government) told Facebook (private company) to censor things that aren't illegal, and they did. In this case, social media === government for all intents and purposes.
  - jliptzin 4y ago
    “Basically, the background here is the FBI basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know you should be on high alert,’ ” said Zuckerberg. “ ‘We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that so just be vigilant.’ ” "Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story-right-in-facebooks-lap/ https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story...
    - fein 4y ago
      Which means FB has a working relationship with the FBI doing whatever the FBI says without asking questions. FBI didn't tell them to censor the fake piss dossier on Trump, and that was 100% bullshit. Along comes a Biden run for president, and real, legitimate, truthful damaging information about Biden's entire degenerate family gets suppressed. BIG HMMMMMMM.
      - jliptzin 4y ago
        You're saying Trump's DOJ and FBI threatened FB with _______ unless they blocked the spread of the Hunter Biden laptop story? FB didn't even ban the story though? Even if FB is suppressing information at the request of the FBI, there are hundreds of other news sources out there that people can use. I don't use Facebook, especially not for news consumption. Here's a more concrete example: Trump's DOJ threatened FB with removal of section 230 protection, or complete shutdown in Twitter's case, unless they stop censoring news stories that these companies believe to be false or misleading. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/05/28/trump-signs-executive-order-attempting-to-restrict-rights-of-internet-companies-like-twitter/#558e86a3463a https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/05/28/trump-sign... Private companies should be free to allow or disallow whatever they want at their discretion on their private platforms, left or right. If I owned a social media platform, I would also probably block stories that I think are false, because I don't think that being known as a platform for the spread of misinformation would be good for my brand. I don't complain about Facebook or Twitter's censorship, and I don't complain about Truth Social or Parler, all are private companies that can do what they want as far as I'm concerned. I don't get my news from any of those sources, no one should.
themoonisachees 4y ago
Alright i'll humor you: what proves the hunter biden laptop story? Last I checked some guy said he had it, and that it had damning evidence on it, but for some reason refused to produce said evidence, or any evidence that the laptop was bidens or that there was a laptop at all. You'd think if the contents of said laptop were as damning as they were purported to be, they would be all over, yet the guy who supposedly had it didn't release it. Why?
- cyberlurker 4y ago
  I say this as someone who still thinks it is overblown and fair that the social networks didn't let it get amplified as a distraction right before the election. (It was being pushed by people who trafficked in all kinds of misinformation) It did come out, it was real, and had real emails from Hunter being a total idiot trying to use his Dad to make connections and get paid. It also had nudes and drug use and other embarrassing dumb shit. It is just a distraction though. Everyone knows Hunter has problems and it had nothing to harm Biden’s character if you are an independent third party looking at the evidence. So… this bugs me when it becomes the rally point for “censorship”. Give me a break.
loudmax 4y ago
Media companies are not the government, and they do not have a legal responsibility to promulgate all views. In the case where a majority of the medical community perceives that misinformation and disinformation is directly leading to people dying, media companies may feel they have a moral obligation to publish the scientific mainstream over the fringes. The same goes for political coverage. Fox News is within their rights not to broadcast Senate hearings featuring multiple conservative Republicans alleging that Donald Trump attempted to overthrow the democratically elected government. What Trump attempted on January 6th was treason against the United States. What Fox News promulgates is merely media content to sell advertising space.

jliptzin 4y ago

Social media != the government

yourusername 4y ago
Social media censors partly because of pressure from governments that make it clear that regulation will be coming if they don't do it "voluntarily".
- jliptzin 4y ago
  Examples of such pressure from the government? Do you mean when Trump threatened to remove section 230 protection from social media companies because he didn't like "the way he was treated" on their sites? https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-proposes-weakening-social-medias-legal-shield https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-...
  - clarkmoody 4y ago
    FB censored the Hunter laptop story during the election at the behest of the FBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
    - jliptzin 4y ago
      That doesn't sound like pressure at all, that just sounds like a tip from the FBI that they could do whatever they want with. Furthermore, they didn't even ban the story anyway. “Basically, the background here is the FBI basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know you should be on high alert,’ ” said Zuckerberg. “ ‘We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that so just be vigilant.’ ” "Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story-right-in-facebooks-lap/ https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story...
  - jwond 4y ago
    The Biden administration have said they are “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation” https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
fein 4y ago
The FBI (government) told Facebook (private company) to censor things that aren't illegal, and they did. In this case, social media === government for all intents and purposes.
- jliptzin 4y ago
  “Basically, the background here is the FBI basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know you should be on high alert,’ ” said Zuckerberg. “ ‘We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that so just be vigilant.’ ” "Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story-right-in-facebooks-lap/ https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story...
  - fein 4y ago
    Which means FB has a working relationship with the FBI doing whatever the FBI says without asking questions. FBI didn't tell them to censor the fake piss dossier on Trump, and that was 100% bullshit. Along comes a Biden run for president, and real, legitimate, truthful damaging information about Biden's entire degenerate family gets suppressed. BIG HMMMMMMM.
    - jliptzin 4y ago
      You're saying Trump's DOJ and FBI threatened FB with _______ unless they blocked the spread of the Hunter Biden laptop story? FB didn't even ban the story though? Even if FB is suppressing information at the request of the FBI, there are hundreds of other news sources out there that people can use. I don't use Facebook, especially not for news consumption. Here's a more concrete example: Trump's DOJ threatened FB with removal of section 230 protection, or complete shutdown in Twitter's case, unless they stop censoring news stories that these companies believe to be false or misleading. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/05/28/trump-signs-executive-order-attempting-to-restrict-rights-of-internet-companies-like-twitter/#558e86a3463a https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/05/28/trump-sign... Private companies should be free to allow or disallow whatever they want at their discretion on their private platforms, left or right. If I owned a social media platform, I would also probably block stories that I think are false, because I don't think that being known as a platform for the spread of misinformation would be good for my brand. I don't complain about Facebook or Twitter's censorship, and I don't complain about Truth Social or Parler, all are private companies that can do what they want as far as I'm concerned. I don't get my news from any of those sources, no one should.

themoonisachees 4y ago

Alright i'll humor you: what proves the hunter biden laptop story? Last I checked some guy said he had it, and that it had damning evidence on it, but for some reason refused to produce said evidence, or any evidence that the laptop was bidens or that there was a laptop at all. You'd think if the contents of said laptop were as damning as they were purported to be, they would be all over, yet the guy who supposedly had it didn't release it. Why?

cyberlurker 4y ago
I say this as someone who still thinks it is overblown and fair that the social networks didn't let it get amplified as a distraction right before the election. (It was being pushed by people who trafficked in all kinds of misinformation) It did come out, it was real, and had real emails from Hunter being a total idiot trying to use his Dad to make connections and get paid. It also had nudes and drug use and other embarrassing dumb shit. It is just a distraction though. Everyone knows Hunter has problems and it had nothing to harm Biden’s character if you are an independent third party looking at the evidence. So… this bugs me when it becomes the rally point for “censorship”. Give me a break.

loudmax 4y ago

Media companies are not the government, and they do not have a legal responsibility to promulgate all views. In the case where a majority of the medical community perceives that misinformation and disinformation is directly leading to people dying, media companies may feel they have a moral obligation to publish the scientific mainstream over the fringes. The same goes for political coverage. Fox News is within their rights not to broadcast Senate hearings featuring multiple conservative Republicans alleging that Donald Trump attempted to overthrow the democratically elected government. What Trump attempted on January 6th was treason against the United States. What Fox News promulgates is merely media content to sell advertising space.