• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Censoring people on social media

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
46,485
Reaction score
22,688
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I've posted before about concerns about the social media issue. That we have not really figured out what to do.

On the one hand, we think we support 'free speech' outside of extreme cases, like calling for a march on the capitol to violently halt the peaceful transfer of power in an election. If someone wants to say 'the moon landing was faked' or 'the election was stolen', so be it, the response is for others to say that's wrong.

But as the lies have fooled tens of millions, as they have been deadly, creating a hostility to masks, a refusal to get vaccinated, the public has looked to social media companies to go from being 'just a platform' that isn't in the role of policing content, like a telephone company doesn't police what people say in phone calls, to not allowing especially bad lies.

But it's not clear where that line is drawn or why. In theory, if you post an incorrect capitol for California or a wrong year it became a state, that's false information or a 'lie'; should the company be responsible for determining it's false and taking corrective action?

They write policies about where they draw the line, but they're going to be inherently somewhat arbitrary and subjective, trying to have it both ways between being 'just a platform' except when they aren't and acting as censor at other times; and the risk exists of their censoring simply speech they want to for some reason.

trump is pretty unpopular outside the Republican Party, making his ban go down easier, but is that how it should work, that the popularity of a poster or viewpoint has a role in whether it's banned?

These are hard questions, and this sort of reactive taking action when there's a public outcry doesn't answer them.

Bad policies tend to happen when made in reaction to exceptional events. They're often designed that way - use public outrage over an outlier to get a broad policy passed that overreaches. So if general social media policies are set from the worst item they can find, that isn't likely to be a good overall policy.

These precedents of censoring and banning are onerous as they are more broadly applies. What happens when the social media companies want to silence talk of regulating them? When they want to ban politicians who support policies they don't like?

Interestingly, just today I saw that Bernie has spoken out on this, and seems to have a similar opinion, saying that trump is horrible but he's not really comfortable with the ban.

This is becoming clearer as trump's ban led first to the explosion of Parler, and now it's reported there is a new pro-trump platform coming, which of course will have none of the policing of right-wing lies, showing further how we have not figured these issues out.

Do 'normal' social media sites become sites for non-Republicans, as Republicans flock to alternative platforms? What do we do about harmful lies on alternative platforms? Does profit incentive push mainstream companies to try to keep the Republican posters? It's a mess.

A basic idea on all this is the idea that the idea of 'free, rational discussion by informed citizens' is greatly corrupted by 'big money interests' and other interests (like Russia) who spend large sums to lie to the public on these systems - see Cambridge Analytica and their '5000 data points on every voter'.

Anyway, here's Bernie's interview.

Sanders: 'I don't feel comfortable' about Trump's Twitter ban (cnn.com)
 
a social media site is someone else's living room more than it is a public sidewalk. you recognize the community standards, or you go off and start your own jam. i have done both.
 
I think Sanders has this right:

"tomorrow it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view."

"So I don't like giving that much power to a handful of high tech people..."
 
a social media site is someone else's living room more than it is a public sidewalk. you recognize the community standards, or you go off and start your own jam. i have done both.

That is true. But if two or three real estate conglomerates became monopolies (or oligopolies) and came to own every single residential property in the country, forcing everyone to pay them rent, and put restrictive covenants on what you can and cannot say in your rented living room and who you were allowed to invite into your rented home, I think the locus of power has shifted too far into private hands.
 
Last edited:
I think Sanders has this right:

"tomorrow it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view."

"So I don't like giving that much power to a handful of high tech people..."

He (and I) have the problem right, but that doesn't say what the answer is. One answer could be 'no social media' when no one has the power to shape the opinions of masses of Americans, but that's not going to happen, that ship has sailed, and so the question is how to prevent corrupt interests from having a massive propaganda machine to do harm while balancing it with whatever makes sense on 'free speech'. We're breaking new ground.
 
That is true. But if a handful of real estate conglomerate becomes a monopoly and comes to own every single living room in the country, forcing everyone to pay it rent, and put restrictive covenants on what you can and cannot say in your rented living room and who you were allowed to invite into your rented home, I think the locus of power has shifted too far into private hands.

i use FB to post pictures of my family. i don't get on there or on Twitter and threaten to annihilate other countries or tell lies about why i don't get to poop in the private residence of the WH anymore. if i want to get all political and stuff, i come here. i don't violate the rules of a social media site. works great. if any site decides that it doesn't want me around anymore, i have tons of other options.
 
Let's say trump sent out a tweet saying don't wear masks, they increase you getting the virus. Let's say that scientists said that is wrong, and estimated 10,000 people would be killed by listening to that tweet.

What is the proper societal handling of that?

- Do nothing. "It's free speech, and that's more important than the 10,000 lives." Just let others also comment saying it's a lie.

- ban trump from Twitter.

- Have Twitter responsible for identifying the lie, policing it, adding a warning to it saying 'the content in this post is a dangerous lie'.

I could go on with possible responses, but none are clearly the 'right' response and none clearly solve the problem, do they?

What if we started to make taxpayer-funded 'trusted institutions' who could post responses to such topics, hoping the public trusts them more, like if the CDC posts something, as much as that was undermined under trump? Sort of an 'official Snopes'?

If we have the companies ban anyone saying, for example, 'the election was stolen' - what if it really was, if trump had gotten Republican officials in key states to steal the election, and people wanted to say that - would they be banned also?

And we can't look to the founding fathers for answers on mass social media propaganda threat policies. As I said, we're breaking new ground, and it's going to get a lot worse I think.
 
I guess I see a difference between differing points of view on most subjects or peddling hate/blatant lies. And the rest of society will have to hold them accountable as to if they want to participate in the social media platform based on how they handle that power.

If Twitter had banned Joe Biden because he questioned Trump's response to the pandemic, that would make me question whether or not I would want to stay on the platform. That would be different than banning someone who repeatedly claimed the virus was less dangerous that the flu, created by Democrats to kill Republicans, and the vaccines were actually tracking devices created by Bill Gates.

Decent people refusing to acknowledge that liars don't deserve an equal seat at the table of public discourse is one of the reasons we find ourselves in the situation we are currently in with much of conservative America fully embracing an alternate reality.
 
Free speech protections are very limited and are only prevent the government from fining and jailing you for your speech until it becomes a credible threat, so being banned on social media is not in any way a violation of your free speech. We are not exempt from social repercussions, losing a job being criticized, or other actions because of our speech on private property that we do not own. I would hope that the TOS on social media sites is applied even;y to all partisan inputs but when any group crosses the line to trolling, making threats to a person or groups of people, supports treason, and sedition then they have crossed the line and need to be removed.

If you don't like the rules then refuse to accept the TOS and leave. Go create your own platform and whine there.
 
Free speech protections are very limited and are only prevent the government from fining and jailing you for your speech until it becomes a credible threat, so being banned on social media is not in any way a violation of your free speech. We are not exempt from social repercussions, losing a job being criticized, or other actions because of our speech on private property that we do not own. I would hope that the TOS on social media sites is applied even;y to all partisan inputs but when any group crosses the line to trolling, making threats to a person or groups of people, supports treason, and sedition then they have crossed the line and need to be removed.

If you don't like the rules then refuse to accept the TOS and leave. Go create your own platform and whine there.

You're confusing "free speech" and "first amendment rights". Free speech is a far broader topic than the first amendment. You really didn't address the topics of the thread.
 
I've posted before about concerns about the social media issue. That we have not really figured out what to do.

On the one hand, we think we support 'free speech' outside of extreme cases, like calling for a march on the capitol to violently halt the peaceful transfer of power in an election. If someone wants to say 'the moon landing was faked' or 'the election was stolen', so be it, the response is for others to say that's wrong.

But as the lies have fooled tens of millions, as they have been deadly, creating a hostility to masks, a refusal to get vaccinated, the public has looked to social media companies to go from being 'just a platform' that isn't in the role of policing content, like a telephone company doesn't police what people say in phone calls, to not allowing especially bad lies.

But it's not clear where that line is drawn or why. In theory, if you post an incorrect capitol for California or a wrong year it became a state, that's false information or a 'lie'; should the company be responsible for determining it's false and taking corrective action?

They write policies about where they draw the line, but they're going to be inherently somewhat arbitrary and subjective, trying to have it both ways between being 'just a platform' except when they aren't and acting as censor at other times; and the risk exists of their censoring simply speech they want to for some reason.

trump is pretty unpopular outside the Republican Party, making his ban go down easier, but is that how it should work, that the popularity of a poster or viewpoint has a role in whether it's banned?

These are hard questions, and this sort of reactive taking action when there's a public outcry doesn't answer them.

Bad policies tend to happen when made in reaction to exceptional events. They're often designed that way - use public outrage over an outlier to get a broad policy passed that overreaches. So if general social media policies are set from the worst item they can find, that isn't likely to be a good overall policy.

These precedents of censoring and banning are onerous as they are more broadly applies. What happens when the social media companies want to silence talk of regulating them? When they want to ban politicians who support policies they don't like?

Interestingly, just today I saw that Bernie has spoken out on this, and seems to have a similar opinion, saying that trump is horrible but he's not really comfortable with the ban.

This is becoming clearer as trump's ban led first to the explosion of Parler, and now it's reported there is a new pro-trump platform coming, which of course will have none of the policing of right-wing lies, showing further how we have not figured these issues out.

Do 'normal' social media sites become sites for non-Republicans, as Republicans flock to alternative platforms? What do we do about harmful lies on alternative platforms? Does profit incentive push mainstream companies to try to keep the Republican posters? It's a mess.

A basic idea on all this is the idea that the idea of 'free, rational discussion by informed citizens' is greatly corrupted by 'big money interests' and other interests (like Russia) who spend large sums to lie to the public on these systems - see Cambridge Analytica and their '5000 data points on every voter'.

Anyway, here's Bernie's interview.

Sanders: 'I don't feel comfortable' about Trump's Twitter ban (cnn.com)
The less verbose version of the OP:

How can we liberals effectively censor conservative political speech we do not like without it getting out of hand and boomeranging on us?
 
Perhaps, just perhaps, mind you, an unknowable -- the purpose behind the speech -- lies at the heart of the matter. Let's consider the issue in that way and see what happens.

A). Should speech on the internet which has been posted because the poster holds it as a personal belief be banned?

B). Should speech on the internet which has been posted with the specific intent to cause harm to society be banned?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
B). Should speech on the internet which has been posted with the specific intent to cause harm to society be banned?
Who gets to decide what someone’s intent was behind a statement posted on DP at, say, 1:30 in the morning, a Democrat or a Republican?
 
I think Sanders has this right:

"tomorrow it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view."

"So I don't like giving that much power to a handful of high tech people..."
Of course not. He wants only government to have that power (and to be specific, only the right kind of government. Or perhaps I should say “left kind.”)
 
I think the answer can be found in liability for what you are saying on a higher extent and with a financial system of regulations and fees in connection to it. Kind of a tariff system that builds upwards. This would off course demand for the social networks to have accurate personal information on each person on their network and be obliged to enter this information into the system if asked.

It won't be easy to develope such a system and I have no idea on how but free speech doesn't come with a free card to lie or to anonymity.
 
Who gets to decide what someone’s intent was behind a statement posted on DP at, say, 1:30 in the morning, a Democrat or a Republican?

Hi!

I've not the faintest idea!

I posted what I did in hopes of perhaps getting past the right/left nonsense which can [Ed.: and does,] act as a block to critical thinking. I did this so that a neutral presentation would be available. It may be as difficult to do that as it is to discuss political efforts to take control of governmental functions while avoiding a reference to Hitler.

Stay safe 'n well.
 
And the first thing I think has to go is the anonymity. So that people like the one behind Q doesn't recieve the kind off attention from people who kind of live in alternative worlds. I mean with the anonymity gone, he could no longer claim to have "the highest security level" and things like that and he would fall to the ground. It would also make it difficult for other states to influence elections.
 
It's a sticky issue, but the truth has always been buyer beware.

Does free speech extend to telling outright lies?

Of course it does, but not slander or libel, otherwise every politician would end up banned from making statements.

The truth is, it's ok to outright lie, most of the time. There are some exceptions, truth in advertising, telling lies when giving sworn testimony, but other that a few cases in our society, lies are not only acceptable and protected speech, they are most often expected, and very often welcomed.

But to the actual topic, of Social Media like Facebook and Twitter, and how much power they have to effect the public narrative by the ways they police speech on their platform. It's dangerous, it is, but I don't know if it's anymore dangerous than the newspapers ever were, or TV news, and other forms of printed press and opinion.

As much as Twitter and Facebook maybe trying to police speech for a public good, what happens when some alliterative platform raises to or near the same level of influence, and what if their motives are not a "public good"?

There is a very real possibility of just such a thing coming to being to undermine free and inclusive society, to tilt the balance of powers to exclusionary and tyrannical rule by the few, over the many.

What would, could, or even should Government do if that became the case?

We say now, that social media platforms are private sector are not subject to "Freedom of Speech", because we may feel their censorship is, al least, trying to serve some public good, but what happen when a private social media platform becomes popular for the very fact that they don't intend a public good, that they outright intend to give some faction an advantage, that they do not intend society to be free and inclusive, they only indent to take advantage of people's fears and prejudices.
 
Last edited:
That is true. But if two or three real estate conglomerates became monopolies (or oligopolies) and came to own every single residential property in the country, forcing everyone to pay them rent, and put restrictive covenants on what you can and cannot say in your rented living room and who you were allowed to invite into your rented home, I think the locus of power has shifted too far into private hands.
But hasn't that situation existed more so in the past? Thinking back to the days when there were few newspapers, radio and TV in a market didn't they have even more control over what was published? Today those three media sources have online comments sections or Twitter feeds where the public has a greater ability to weigh in. In addition to that there are many other avenues for expression, including this forum. I would argue that the venues for expression today are unprecedented, and growing.
 
But hasn't that situation always existed, and even more so in the past? Thinking back to the days when there were few newspapers, radio and TV in a market didn't they have even more control over what was published? Today those three media sources have online comments sections or Twitter feeds where the public has a greater ability to weigh in. In addition to that there are many other avenues for expression, including this forum. I would argue that the venues for expression today are unprecedented, and growing.

There has been no time in the history of mankind where one person could reach millions with almost no effort.
 
When it comes to privately owned and operated platforms, it's their house and their rules. With the exception of discriminating against legally protected classes (e.g. race, gender) they can censor whomever they like and whatever speech they like. They can ban images of MAGA hats and/or bounce anyone who professes support for AOC if that suits their fancy.

Bernie's just going to have to remain "uncomfortable" with that. Facebook and Twitter are not obligated to give anyone a platform, and we sure as hell do not want Washington dictating their user policies.
 
That is true. But if two or three real estate conglomerates became monopolies (or oligopolies) and came to own every single residential property in the country, forcing everyone to pay them rent, and put restrictive covenants on what you can and cannot say in your rented living room and who you were allowed to invite into your rented home, I think the locus of power has shifted too far into private hands.
But Facebook and Twitter have no where near that level of control. Trump is free to tell anyone who will listen that the 2020 election was stolen. No one is stopping him, but Twitter and Facebook are under no obligation to amplify his claims.
 
But hasn't that situation existed more so in the past? Thinking back to the days when there were few newspapers, radio and TV in a market didn't they have even more control over what was published? Today those three media sources have online comments sections or Twitter feeds where the public has a greater ability to weigh in. In addition to that there are many other avenues for expression, including this forum. I would argue that the venues for expression today are unprecedented, and growing.
Yes, the first mass-published newspaper (1830), The Times of London ('The Thunderer'), was influential and controlled what was published.
 
Back
Top Bottom