The President's tweet: "The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation."
I don't know of the radical left controlling Facebook, Instagram, etc., but these are all private companies.
1. Unless Congress enacts some legislation on who can or cannot say what on these websites, what specific power does the Executive branch have?
2. And if they do have the power, does this mean the next administration (if liberal) could technically censure Rush Limbaugh and Rush Hannity for not being "fair" (whatever that means)?
Edit: I'm genuinely curious why the downvotes. Looks like I'm getting censured for asking a question that maybe isn't so convenient.
>what specific power does the Executive branch have?
They could just go after any company that doesn't bow to them for something like antitrust. Hell- make something up. Legal battles cost money and business and Uncle Sam has basically limitless cash to use for this.
Please don't "show people a mirror" here. Confronting people with your image of their bias is only going to provoke flamewar. Perhaps if you were their therapist or spiritual advisor, something more might be possible. Here we are in the opposite situation: on the the internet, at the shallow end of the pool.
I've often wondered what the precedent is when the president is the one sharing so called "fake news".
Does propaganda count as "fake news"? Who gets to decide what is and isn't real? I guess those with the most power are immune to rules about what they can and can't share.
Trump could literally tweet to inject yourself with bleach and I doubt twitter would remove the post.
>Trump could literally tweet to inject yourself with bleach and I doubt twitter would remove the post.
Trump is a special case. He's the President and his personal Twitter account is a de-facto official channel for communicating policy. The American people have a Constitutional right to hear what their leader has to say (even if it's batshit insane) and to "petition government for redress of grievances" (which is why he can't block critics anymore.)
Is there a way to prove it was flagged or removed by Twitter?
This is the problem with censorship - the very nature of doing it enables the complainers to be victim, even if you didn't actually do it!
Twitter should unabashedly not delete anything unless it is a direct call to violence or an imminent threat to public safety. If they do wish to curtail misinformation, they should label it with their rationale.
"This video makes a series of factually incorrect statements" or "This video is full of bullshit and lies and you're a fool for believing it" or something. Clearly, there is a lot of misinformation/disinformation made to sow division, and Michelle Malkin/the alt-right, Fox News "truthers" are as awful as they come. But the very possibility that Twitter could or would remove a video, not discuss it or list a reason why, is itself fuel for the alt-right's garbage.
There is no easy solution, no easy win against misinformation. I believe, though, that light is usually better than dark with these people.
I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral. Perhaps Twitter does have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. That doesn't make it right.
And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. Perhaps we should have legislation that governs the actions of social media platforms, that scales with the size of their userbase, to maintain cohesion and some respect for truth.
Enter all the concerns about "who decides truth and fairness" and all those hazards.
Again, I didn't say it was an easy discussion, or even that there are any answers. But there are increments between "just let Michelle Malkin and her ilk lie and stir people up with literal, provably false untruths and hatred to the detriment of American society" and "blackball everyone who doesn't toe the liberal zeitgeist".
Knowingly violating the terms of service you agreed to when you chose to use a free service like Twitter also seems to have some moral implications. I don't see how you can draw some moral equivalence between the two. If one party involved is already acting in bad faith then how is it fair to put the onus of morality in the situation on the other party?
> And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason.
So you're saying if you owned a website the government should have the authority to force you to host content at your own expense? This would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
If government provided social media, people would be up in arms about the potential for abuse and data surveillance. Meanwhile, when corporations sell their data to other corporations and governments, all is good.
There's like suffocating irony and the fakers are trivial to spot when you refuse to buy into the spouted ideology.
You're right there are no easy answers, which is why the debate needs to be open, free from bullying and self-serving personal attacks.
The argument in this context is that social media enjoys the legal protections of being a "platform" while operating much more in the mode of a "publisher".
As somebody who (as here) frequently finds his opinions squelched, I'm unimpressed with all of the angst.
No one is forcing anyone to use any platforms, or be in the internet at all.
The idea that the big platforms should be treated more like utilities doesn't seem fully formed.
Child pornography is different than astroturfed political views in that there is direct harm done in its production vs. consumption.
Child porn isn't banned in the US because it's creepy or mentally damaging to the consumer, it is banned because making it is a clear violation of children. IIRC, animated underage depictions are still legal in the US for this reason.
There is no good solution to the disemination of harmful information in a free society other than education. America barely has that, and I don't see any signs of this improving.
Frankly, some of the most well educated people in my social media sphere are still guilty of distributing blatantly false and misleading information. It's just way easier to retween/share some twitter screenshot without even giving it even a small fact-check as long as it agrees with your political leanings.
> There is no good solution to the disemination of harmful information in a free society other than education.
False. Maybe we should ban you from commenting on any of the popular platforms to prevent you from spreading such blatantly harmful misinformation.
... you see how that happens? Party A with access and power doesn't want you to say something, so you get banned. It has nothing to do with misinformation or education.
30 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 83.6 ms ] threadI don't know of the radical left controlling Facebook, Instagram, etc., but these are all private companies.
1. Unless Congress enacts some legislation on who can or cannot say what on these websites, what specific power does the Executive branch have?
2. And if they do have the power, does this mean the next administration (if liberal) could technically censure Rush Limbaugh and Rush Hannity for not being "fair" (whatever that means)?
Edit: I'm genuinely curious why the downvotes. Looks like I'm getting censured for asking a question that maybe isn't so convenient.
They could just go after any company that doesn't bow to them for something like antitrust. Hell- make something up. Legal battles cost money and business and Uncle Sam has basically limitless cash to use for this.
inb4 [flagged]
inb4 [deleted]
Does propaganda count as "fake news"? Who gets to decide what is and isn't real? I guess those with the most power are immune to rules about what they can and can't share.
Trump could literally tweet to inject yourself with bleach and I doubt twitter would remove the post.
Trump is a special case. He's the President and his personal Twitter account is a de-facto official channel for communicating policy. The American people have a Constitutional right to hear what their leader has to say (even if it's batshit insane) and to "petition government for redress of grievances" (which is why he can't block critics anymore.)
Side a: twitter is a private company, and has the legal right to ban or not ban what ever they want for what ever reason they want.
Side b: but i'm a private person who can bitch or not bitch about twitter's use of that right for what ever reason that i want.
...
Rinse
Repeat.
Profit.
This is the problem with censorship - the very nature of doing it enables the complainers to be victim, even if you didn't actually do it!
Twitter should unabashedly not delete anything unless it is a direct call to violence or an imminent threat to public safety. If they do wish to curtail misinformation, they should label it with their rationale.
"This video makes a series of factually incorrect statements" or "This video is full of bullshit and lies and you're a fool for believing it" or something. Clearly, there is a lot of misinformation/disinformation made to sow division, and Michelle Malkin/the alt-right, Fox News "truthers" are as awful as they come. But the very possibility that Twitter could or would remove a video, not discuss it or list a reason why, is itself fuel for the alt-right's garbage.
There is no easy solution, no easy win against misinformation. I believe, though, that light is usually better than dark with these people.
That the irony is lost to someone should raise bright red flags.
And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. Perhaps we should have legislation that governs the actions of social media platforms, that scales with the size of their userbase, to maintain cohesion and some respect for truth.
Enter all the concerns about "who decides truth and fairness" and all those hazards.
Again, I didn't say it was an easy discussion, or even that there are any answers. But there are increments between "just let Michelle Malkin and her ilk lie and stir people up with literal, provably false untruths and hatred to the detriment of American society" and "blackball everyone who doesn't toe the liberal zeitgeist".
Knowingly violating the terms of service you agreed to when you chose to use a free service like Twitter also seems to have some moral implications. I don't see how you can draw some moral equivalence between the two. If one party involved is already acting in bad faith then how is it fair to put the onus of morality in the situation on the other party?
> And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason.
So you're saying if you owned a website the government should have the authority to force you to host content at your own expense? This would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
There's like suffocating irony and the fakers are trivial to spot when you refuse to buy into the spouted ideology.
You're right there are no easy answers, which is why the debate needs to be open, free from bullying and self-serving personal attacks.
As somebody who (as here) frequently finds his opinions squelched, I'm unimpressed with all of the angst.
No one is forcing anyone to use any platforms, or be in the internet at all.
The idea that the big platforms should be treated more like utilities doesn't seem fully formed.
For example:
"Don't delete child porn, just let people know upfront this is bad stuff and you shouldn't watch it."
Loophole for posting all the child porn you want to post and watching all the child porn you want to watch.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Child porn isn't banned in the US because it's creepy or mentally damaging to the consumer, it is banned because making it is a clear violation of children. IIRC, animated underage depictions are still legal in the US for this reason.
That is to say, your example is invalid.
Please don't waste anymore time or energy on my comment.
False. Maybe we should ban you from commenting on any of the popular platforms to prevent you from spreading such blatantly harmful misinformation.
... you see how that happens? Party A with access and power doesn't want you to say something, so you get banned. It has nothing to do with misinformation or education.
It's technical, it's political. I don't see the issue.