6 ms·

These makes Congress look like such a clown show. Like Fox News doesn't coordinate with conservatives? It's complete grandstanding, and nothing more. Complete

These makes Congress look like such a clown show. Like Fox News doesn't coordinate with conservatives? It's complete grandstanding, and nothing more. Complete waste of time. Regarding YouTube promoting right wing content mentioned in other comments, I haven't seen that. I watch science and space, maker and tech shows, along with live music. I have never seen what the commenters are complaining about. I get the same recommendations over and over again, which is a bit annoying. Maybe because I ignore most of the algo recommendations I'm missing something.

cudgy 3y ago
I don’t understand the analogy. How are Fox News and Facebook analogous in this situation? The claim is that citizens are being forcibly censored on a social media platform does not equal a news organization coordinating willfully with some politicians.
brightlancer 3y ago
Congress is always grandstanding but that doesn't mean they don't have a point: "A copy of the contempt report asserts that Zuckerberg and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, have "willfully refused" to comply in full with a congressional subpoena stemming from the panel's investigation into any _efforts by the executive branch to encourage social media companies to moderate content_ on digital platforms." There's plenty of evidence that the government was doing that on Twitter -- it is a big deal when the government goes to private actors and gets them to censor people. Sure, the GOP might be hypocrites about this but every single liberal should be lining up to say, "In this case they're right, and we'll hold them to the same standard when one of them is president." The problem is that the Democrats are also hypocrites, both the politicians and their voters are _not_ liberal, and they like the idea of using the government to censor information they don't like.
theptip 3y ago
> Like Fox News doesn't coordinate with conservatives It think the general case they are making is that Fox doesn’t have Section 230 immunity, and is therefore responsible/liable for its editorial decisions. (See: the Dominion settlement.) The claim is that social networks are having their cake (immunity from liability of content) and eating it too (getting to make editorial decisions). The more general issue being that they are using editorial discretion to remove content that the government politely asks them to remove, rather than stuff that any law says they must control. (And the claim is that of course they would not acquiesce if a Republican government made a polite request to remove something they didn’t like.)
- brightlancer 3y ago
  Section 230 is good. Web sites should be allowed to decide whose comments they publish, whose they promote, whose they tank. The problem here is that the _government_ was conspiring with those companies to censor dissenters -- er, I mean "conspiracy theorists". We don't need to change Section 230. We need to stop the government from using private companies to do things it's illegal for the government to do.
  - theptip 3y ago
    What was illegal about the government’s actions in your view?
    - brightlancer 3y ago
      > What was illegal about the government’s actions in your view? That wasn't what I wrote. In the US, the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of the people to speech etc.; the government is generally and overwhelmingly prohibited from censoring people. Instead, we have the US government contacting _private_ (i.e. not government) companies and wink wink nudge nudge having the private companies censor people, _which would be illegal for the government to do directly_.
      - theptip 3y ago
        I see what you mean now, thanks. Strongly agree with the general point around delegation to private companies (eg on surveillance). Personally I think you can make a case for justifying some curtailment of speech during an emergency (specifically sharing outright false or extremely misleading claims, say “young people are immune to Covid”) but again, agreed it should be done through a framework that is legislated and that the courts can challenge/check rather than unofficial channels. I do think there is some grey area though - if the government is also providing coordination (eg CDC) then it’s not crazy to have a direct channel to the major news/social publishers to coordinate messaging in an emergency. And when they are just providing coordination it’s not necessarily censorship (since the companies would be free to do otherwise). Vs if they are buying license plate data for example, they are clearly actually indirectly doing the thing that they’re forbidden from doing directly.

cudgy 3y ago

I don’t understand the analogy. How are Fox News and Facebook analogous in this situation? The claim is that citizens are being forcibly censored on a social media platform does not equal a news organization coordinating willfully with some politicians.

brightlancer 3y ago

Congress is always grandstanding but that doesn't mean they don't have a point: "A copy of the contempt report asserts that Zuckerberg and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, have "willfully refused" to comply in full with a congressional subpoena stemming from the panel's investigation into any _efforts by the executive branch to encourage social media companies to moderate content_ on digital platforms." There's plenty of evidence that the government was doing that on Twitter -- it is a big deal when the government goes to private actors and gets them to censor people. Sure, the GOP might be hypocrites about this but every single liberal should be lining up to say, "In this case they're right, and we'll hold them to the same standard when one of them is president." The problem is that the Democrats are also hypocrites, both the politicians and their voters are _not_ liberal, and they like the idea of using the government to censor information they don't like.

theptip 3y ago

> Like Fox News doesn't coordinate with conservatives It think the general case they are making is that Fox doesn’t have Section 230 immunity, and is therefore responsible/liable for its editorial decisions. (See: the Dominion settlement.) The claim is that social networks are having their cake (immunity from liability of content) and eating it too (getting to make editorial decisions). The more general issue being that they are using editorial discretion to remove content that the government politely asks them to remove, rather than stuff that any law says they must control. (And the claim is that of course they would not acquiesce if a Republican government made a polite request to remove something they didn’t like.)

brightlancer 3y ago
Section 230 is good. Web sites should be allowed to decide whose comments they publish, whose they promote, whose they tank. The problem here is that the _government_ was conspiring with those companies to censor dissenters -- er, I mean "conspiracy theorists". We don't need to change Section 230. We need to stop the government from using private companies to do things it's illegal for the government to do.
- theptip 3y ago
  What was illegal about the government’s actions in your view?
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > What was illegal about the government’s actions in your view? That wasn't what I wrote. In the US, the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of the people to speech etc.; the government is generally and overwhelmingly prohibited from censoring people. Instead, we have the US government contacting _private_ (i.e. not government) companies and wink wink nudge nudge having the private companies censor people, _which would be illegal for the government to do directly_.
    - theptip 3y ago
      I see what you mean now, thanks. Strongly agree with the general point around delegation to private companies (eg on surveillance). Personally I think you can make a case for justifying some curtailment of speech during an emergency (specifically sharing outright false or extremely misleading claims, say “young people are immune to Covid”) but again, agreed it should be done through a framework that is legislated and that the courts can challenge/check rather than unofficial channels. I do think there is some grey area though - if the government is also providing coordination (eg CDC) then it’s not crazy to have a direct channel to the major news/social publishers to coordinate messaging in an emergency. And when they are just providing coordination it’s not necessarily censorship (since the companies would be free to do otherwise). Vs if they are buying license plate data for example, they are clearly actually indirectly doing the thing that they’re forbidden from doing directly.