Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
No, because despite their efforts there was still a bunch of that content on Facebook, Twitter etc. A part of the problem for social media companies was how to handle a problem they couldn't scale up to meet.
Eight Democratic representatives issued a letter to social media executives this week demanding clarification how their platforms will protect against "misinformation" and "disinformation" during the 2024 election.
Yet none of this is strong-arming even in the most generous application of the term. Congress asking for how social media companies plan on handling misinformation isn't a threat to their business.
This a reading of the SCOTUS decision favorable to the narrative you want to push. In reality it was more mixed.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Suggesting that the case could be “one of the most important free speech cases to reach” the Supreme Court “in years,” Alito would have ruled both that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their lawsuit and that “the White House coerced Facebook into censoring” at least one plaintiff’s speech.
The lawsuit centers on “jawboning,” a term used to describe informal efforts by government officials to persuade someone outside the government to take action. In this case, the plaintiffs – two states with Republican attorneys general and several individuals whose social media posts were removed or downgraded – challenged the Biden administration’s efforts in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. They argued that the administration’s actions had violated social media users’ rights to free speech.
A federal judge in Louisiana ruled for the plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty agreed that federal officials had violated the First Amendment by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media platforms’ content moderation decisions. Doughty issued an order that limited the extent to which the White House and several other government agencies could communicate with social media platforms.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of […]
I mean, you can go around in circles or focus on what the actual outcome was. I don't disagree that the court didn't view this unanimously, but in the end what is the most relevant is the outcome of the ruling, which as it relates to the government cooperating with the private sector in the manner it did, was not ordered to end.
Lack of “concrete link” doesn't denote the supportive of the White House / Executive branch actions, as you appear to be claiming.
Further, “the White House coerced Facebook into censoring” at least one plaintiff’s speech", so the executive branch did coerce, at least in one instance, and probably there were more.
I was fishing for a citation from you to support your claim that social media companies 'didn't follow all of the recommendations the government suggested.'
That scaling up problem was specific to censoring, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning of the conservative content the company's leftist staff didn't like. They got caught too often showing political bias.
Yet none of this is strong-arming even in the most generous application of the term. Congress asking for how social media companies plan on handling misinformation isn't a threat to their business.
I mean, you can go around in circles or focus on what the actual outcome was. I don't disagree that the court didn't view this unanimously, but in the end what is the most relevant is the outcome of the ruling, which as it relates to the government cooperating with the private sector in the manner it did, was not ordered to end.
The 'market cap of many of these companies' does not equate to funds available for a legal defense against federal prosecutors and, on top of it, complying with congressional demands. You can chuckle all you want, but it a is well known used by Dems to make the process the punishment, and this would be an example of that. Other examples would be what Penny had to go through, as well as others suffering at the hands of Dems lawfare campaigns.
So Facebook currently has $70b in cash and cash equivalents, Alphabet (Google's parent company) has about $93b, and X has about $1b. Do you think none of these companies could mount litigation in their defense or sue the government if they felt they had to? Companies suing the US government has happened in the past, and the more notable one is TikTok.
Sure. All of which falls under protected speech, which you appear to want to eliminate, provided the speech doesn't align with the left's political positions, political opinions and political ideology.
This idea that COVID misinformation was just something on "the left" is incorrect, since you had Republican politicians and others who align with the party not toeing that particular line. There are vaccine/medicine skeptics on "the left" as well. As for protected speech, what isn't guaranteed is one's speech on a social media platform because it is a private business which has its own free speech rights it can act upon.
The idea the government censored in this instance misses the mark, and mainly because the decision to act on flagged content was left to the social media companies. To leave the important bit out of the role of these companies and protecting their interests is a bit too convenient.
It appears that you are defining 'a better signal to noise ration' (sic ratio?) as the leftist echo chamber of self affirmation and no dissent. Well, you do you.
Not at all. That it happened to be conservatives who were mainly posting the content in question doesn't mean they were targeted because they were conservatives, but because of the content they posted. Conservative posters on those sites who did not post that content were not banned.
This 'toxicity' is the mere coming across differing opinions and positions, driven by the left's need of their echo chamber receiving their constant dopamine dose with each affirmation, especially so from false, misinformation and assertions has previously cited.
While I understand the rationale of using social media sites and the internet as the source for LLMs, I think it's safe to say that our digital selves are generally a bad model to base anything off of. Lots of good there, but much more bad.
Social Media 'curation' is far more than 'grouping similar content together', it includes censorship, the shadow banned and outright banning of user's content for reasons other than cited in Section 230 of CDA. All of which the social media companies have been doing.
Curation does not include censorship, since that's something entirely different. As always, you continue to ignore the free speech rights of social media companies regarding the content they deem fit for their sites. I'm not sure why some folks seem to think social media sites are under the same restrictions as the government as it relates to speech.
Since you reference Section 230, a part of its intent was to allow for a wide variety of communities on the internet, where the companies operating these spaces moderate content as they see fit. This means I don't have the right to go on TruthSocial and post unflattering AI images of Trump and not expect their moderation team to take action.
You are citing a publishing example in defense of social media companies' curation, censorship, shadow banning and outright banning?
Isn't this destroying your own argument?
I was fishing for a citation from you to support your claim that social media companies 'didn't follow all of the recommendations the government suggested.'
Facebook is "failing" to tackle COVID-19 misinformation posted by prominent anti-vaccine group, a study claims.
abcnews.go.com
From this one would have to wonder how effective the government itself was at flagging everything and expecting social media companies to be able to scale up and ban all of it.
That scaling up problem was specific to censoring, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning of the conservative content the company's leftist staff didn't like. They got caught too often showing political bias.
Political bias no, but acting on the flagged content, yes. If liberals were to go on Facebook right now and attempt posting pics of people in sex acts, there would be moderation and subsequent bans if they persist. It wouldn't be because they're liberals, but because they're violating ToS.
So Facebook currently has $70b in cash and cash equivalents, Alphabet (Google's parent company) has about $93b, and X has about $1b. Do you think none of these companies could mount litigation in their defense or sue the government if they felt they had to? Companies suing the US government has happened in the past, and the more notable one is TikTok.
No denying that it has happened in the past. Twitter and Facebook had set the course to comply with federal agencies' demands, and once set on that path, they coulnd't very well go back.
since you had Republican politicians and others who align with the party not toeing that particular line. There are vaccine/medicine skeptics on "the left" as well.
As for protected speech, what isn't guaranteed is one's speech on a social media platform because it is a private business which has its own free speech rights it can act upon.
The manner in which Twitter and Facebook 'curated' (censored / suppressed) their user's posts, beyond what Section 230 specifies makes them more a publisher than a platform. The issue is that social media companies vacillate between the two, when advantageous to them, being either.
The idea the government censored in this instance misses the mark, and mainly because the decision to act on flagged content was left to the social media companies. To leave the important bit out of the role of these companies and protecting their interests is a bit too convenient.
Refer to my previous posts about social media companies becoming 'State Actors', enablers of government censorship, when State Actors are required to comply with the same restrictions as the government.
Not at all. That it happened to be conservatives who were mainly posting the content in question doesn't mean they were targeted because they were conservatives, but because of the content they posted. Conservative posters on those sites who did not post that content were not banned.
Parler is defunct, shutdown by AWS because AWS didn't like what was being posted here. Since then, the same people have started their own similar web services platform, on which they built Rumble.
Pretty sure there are dissenting posts on TruthSocial, but not being a user on them I couldn't validate this.
While I understand the rationale of using social media sites and the internet as the source for LLMs, I think it's safe to say that our digital selves are generally a bad model to base anything off of. Lots of good there, but much more bad.
Meh. The act of curation does include the censorship, suppressing, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning, all related to managing the content.
As always, you continue to ignore the free speech rights of social media companies regarding the content they deem fit for their sites. I'm not sure why some folks seem to think social media sites are under the same restrictions as the government as it relates to speech.
No, it's the government pushing social media platforms to censor what they don't like which is the objection.
The issue with social media companies censorship, suppressing, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning are a direct contradiction to their claiming to be a 'platform'.
Since you reference Section 230, a part of its intent was to allow for a wide variety of communities on the internet, where the companies operating these spaces moderate content as they see fit. This means I don't have the right to go on TruthSocial and post unflattering AI images of Trump and not expect their moderation team to take action.
If the social media companies claim to be platforms, Section 230 outlines that platforms are not responsible for their user's posts (Can your ISP be held responsible for the email you sent? Nope). Platforms also don't censorship, suppressing, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning their user's content or their users. Yet social media platforms do exactly this, and it is in conflict with their claims of being a platform. It does align with their being a publisher.
No denying that it has happened in the past. Twitter and Facebook had set the course to comply with federal agencies' demands, and once set on that path, they coulnd't very well go back.
The important thing is they had the choice to do so. These companies have legal recourse available to them and the means to fund them. Of course there's also their lobbying arm which helps shape policy and the candidates they fund in elections. To paint them as powerless misses the point by a mile.
The manner in which Twitter and Facebook 'curated' (censored / suppressed) their user's posts, beyond what Section 230 specifies makes them more a publisher than a platform. The issue is that social media companies vacillate between the two, when advantageous to them, being either.
It does not at all. Section 230 allows for content moderation as the companies see fit. You have yet to make a case that it makes them a publisher outside of just repeating that point. They are not publishers even in the most generous version of that definition. I do understand the argument some others make in this area, but the problem still comes down to social media companies not reviewing and editing all of the content that's on their site, which if they did, would make a better case.
Refer to my previous posts about social media companies becoming 'State Actors', enablers of government censorship, when State Actors are required to comply with the same restrictions as the government.
I remember that argument as well, and I don't agree with that definition either. I will keep going back to the point of companies having the choice of how to act on the information given to them by government.
Algorithms selecting content are not at the users control, since baked into them are other content that is receiving a lot of engagement on a social media site. The important thing to note is content we don't agree with generates more engagement than content we do agree with. This is baked into how content is presented to users.
Parler is defunct, shutdown by AWS because AWS didn't like what was being posted here. Since then, the same people have started their own similar web services platform, on which they built Rumble.
Meh. The act of curation does include the censorship, suppressing, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning, all related to managing the content.
No, it's the government pushing social media platforms to censor what they don't like which is the objection.
The issue with social media companies censorship, suppressing, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning are a direct contradiction to their claiming to be a 'platform'.
Since you have yet to produce anything substantiating the government pushing in a way that forced the companies to comply, this is going to go around in circles. Social media company executives have not claimed this. Also, social media companies have as much right as any business to determine what is acceptable in their place of business. It's why we can get thrown out of a store front property if the owner doesn't like what we say.
If the social media companies claim to be platforms, Section 230 outlines that platforms are not responsible for their user's posts (Can your ISP be held responsible for the email you sent? Nope). Platforms also don't censorship, suppressing, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning their user's content or their users. Yet social media platforms do exactly this, and it is in conflict with their claims of being a platform. It does align with their being a publisher.
The 'all or nothing' choice you are proposing here is a false binary choice. Just because not all of those posts were suppressed doesn't negate or eliminate in any way, that the federal government agencies were, “jawboning” the social media companies, or to use Alito's term, coercion.
From this one would have to wonder how effective the government itself was at flagging everything and expecting social media companies to be able to scale up and ban all of it.
If liberals were to go on Facebook right now and attempt posting pics of people in sex acts, there would be moderation and subsequent bans if they persist. It wouldn't be because they're liberals, but because they're violating ToS.
No argument. Point to the part of Section 230 of the CDA which gives social media platforms the right to censor, suppress, shadow ban, the factual reporting of the Hunter laptop story, where as there are provisions for censoring pics of people in sex acts.
The 'all or nothing' choice you are proposing here is a false binary choice. Just because not all of those posts were suppressed doesn't negate or eliminate in any way, that the federal government agencies were, “jawboning” the social media companies, or to use Alito's term, coercion.
That wasn't my point though, and it was that content was still getting through filters and ended up on the sites. Of course Alito has his opinion, but it was his and 2 others (Thomas and Gorsuch) against the majority who did not think this was coercion.
No argument. Point to the part of Section 230 of the CDA which gives social media platforms the right to censor, suppress, shadow ban, the factual reporting of the Hunter laptop story, where as there are provisions for censoring pics of people in sex acts.
They have the right to moderate on their platforms, and if they deem something inappropriate on their platforms, they can curtail its access. Per the language in the law:
Section 230 said:
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
They have the right to moderate on their platforms, and if they deem something inappropriate on their platforms, they can curtail its access. Per the language in the law:
You'll notice the very broad latitude of "otherwise objectionable" followed by the material's protection under the Constitution.
Is this you supporting the idea that people having the temerity to hold differing political opinions and positions than the left falls into "otherwise objectionable"?
No, the citation is pretty clear that the Dems wanted the social media platforms in their own pockets modeled on how the Dem's already have their MSM propagandists in their pockets. If you insist to be blind to this, I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you get past that.
Conversely, the Trump campaign was upset because their October surprise didn't land the way they wanted it to which is what I've always felt they were whinging about anyway. You'll note Fox News didn't run with the story when it was originally presented to them, and for many of the same reasons other outlets were hesitant.
Is this you supporting the idea that people having the temerity to hold differing political opinions and positions than the left falls into "otherwise objectionable"?
Nope. It's me citing what Section 230 allows. In the end, it's balancing the free speech of users and the platforms. Owners of the platforms can make decisions around what content they want on their sites. Tomorrow, TruthSocial can make a rule that the name "Joe Biden" is forbidden in posts, and the company would be within its rights to moderate accordingly.
No, the citation is pretty clear that the Dems wanted the social media platforms in their own pockets modeled on how the Dem's already have their MSM propagandists in their pockets. If you insist to be blind to this, I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you get past that.
What I am continuing to challenge is the assertion you're making, because it's speculative. That you continue to make the point that conservatives and not what some conservatives were posting makes you pretty blind to most of what actually happened.
Let's hope that the 3 justices opinion is a sufficient deterrent to prevent government enlisting State Actors to censor speech they don't like going forward.
Conversely, the Trump campaign was upset because their October surprise didn't land the way they wanted it to which is what I've always felt they were whinging about anyway. You'll note Fox News didn't run with the story when it was originally presented to them, and for many of the same reasons other outlets were hesitant.
Nope. It's me citing what Section 230 allows. In the end, it's balancing the free speech of users and the platforms. Owners of the platforms can make decisions around what content they want on their sites.
Not at issue what censorship Section 230 allows. No one should expect nudity or porn or child sex trafficking on social media.
At issue is the platform's decision making about "otherwise objectionable", which, for some platforms, appears to be anything they politically disagree with. This I have issue with, this is why I had issue with Twitter in the pre-Musk days (refused to use it).
Tomorrow, TruthSocial can make a rule that the name "Joe Biden" is forbidden in posts, and the company would be within its rights to moderate accordingly.
What I am continuing to challenge is the assertion you're making, because it's speculative. That you continue to make the point that conservatives and not what some conservatives were posting makes you pretty blind to most of what actually happened.
Let's hope that the 3 justices opinion is a sufficient deterrent to prevent government enlisting State Actors to censor speech they don't like going forward.
Not at issue what censorship Section 230 allows. No one should expect nudity or porn or child sex trafficking on social media.
At issue is the platform's decision making about "otherwise objectionable", which, for some platforms, appears to be anything they politically disagree with. This I have issue with, this is why I had issue with Twitter in the pre-Musk days (refused to use it).
Not just politically, as I've mentioned in some of my examples of an Internet forum about plumbing moderating content that is not on topic. Ultimately, one can think of it in the same context of free speech in a physical business, where the proprietor has a say in what speech is allowed in his place of business.
As for Musk, his has been an interesting adventure in the realm of online moderation. He's had his own run-ins where he tried to block people who posted mean things about him only reversing after public backlash. His free speech absolutism took a turn on the off ramp when it came to the free speech of people in India and Turkey, where any dissenting posts against the leaders of those countries.
Yep, except you haven't shown that conservatives were targeted because they were conservatives rather than the content they were posting that was the problem. Plenty of conservatives on Twitter were not affected, and those happened to be the ones not posting the content in question.
Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows
Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country. They followed up with 18 additional interviews. The journalists worked for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and a number of other newspapers.
What they found surprised them. Even the supposedly hard-nosed financial reporters were overwhelmingly liberal. Of the 462 people surveyed, 17.63% called themselves "very liberal," while 40.84% described themselves as "somewhat liberal."
The media have drifted to the far left on the political spectrum. Yet again, a major study of media bias shows just how far from the center they are.
www.investors.com
The Liberal Media: Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It
Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found that journalists are more liberal than rest of America. This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalist attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years:
Journalists Vote for Liberals: Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every time.
Journalists Say They Are Liberal: Surveys from 1978 to 2004 show that journalists are far more likely to say they are liberal than conservative, and are far more liberal than the public at large.
Journalists Reject Conservative Positions: None of the surveys have found that news organizations are populated by independent thinkers who mix liberal and conservative positions. Most journalists offer reflexively liberal answers to practically every question a pollster can imagine.
The Public Recognizes the Bias: Since 1985, the percentage of Americans who perceive a liberal bias has doubled from 22 percent to 45 percent, nearly half the adult population. Even a plurality of Democrats now say the press is liberal.
Executive SummaryOver the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an...
www.mrc.org
From your citation:
Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted.
I'm skeptical that "a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted" can accomplish "nonpartisan assessments of online publishers", especially give the above citations which documents journalists' left bias.
"When veteran newsmen L. Gordon Crovitz and Steven Brill started their news site rating company, they were prepared for the inevitable cries of bias from both sides. What they didn’t anticipate was that NewsGuard, their company of about 50 employees, would become the target of congressional investigations and accusations from federal regulators that it was at the vanguard of a vast conspiracy to censor conservative views.
Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted. It uses a slate of nine standard criteria, such as whether a site corrects errors or discloses its ownership and financing, to produce a zero to 100 percent rating.
...But conservatives now question the company’s premise. Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, accused the company of facilitating a “censorship cartel,” in a November letter to leading tech platforms. Noting that key legal protections depend on tech executives operating “in good faith,” Carr continued: “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one specific organization — the Orwellian named NewsGuard.”
NewsGuard, backed by legal experts, argues that Carr’s letter may violate the First Amendment by threatening the speech rights of private companies.
“The only attempt to censor going on here is by Brendan Carr,” Crovitz said in an interview."
What a tangled web of repression we weave when the government, under Trump, is going after news organizations for printing what they claim are lies while attacking independent agencies that evaluate disinfirmation.
I was reading about this and the article mentioned misinformation. Most people who say the word misinformation are the most misinformed. I don't need somebody doing my thinking for me.
This really depends on which cherry picking to include or exclude in your sample set.
Could also be that the viewership have finally caught on to the falsehoods they report as fact, and the extreme opinions they keep publishing / broadcasting.
The damaged trust and credibility polling results the MSM rightfully have inflicted on themselves is by their own decisions and actions, i.e. all the damage has been self-inflicted.
Maybe they'll wise up and change, but I'm leaning to that they won't.
Ultimately, one can think of it in the same context of free speech in a physical business, where the proprietor has a say in what speech is allowed in his place of business.
As for Musk, his has been an interesting adventure in the realm of online moderation. He's had his own run-ins where he tried to block people who posted mean things about him only reversing after public backlash. His free speech absolutism took a turn on the off ramp when it came to the free speech of people in India and Turkey, where any dissenting posts against the leaders of those countries.
An exaggeration, sure, but they would be within their rights to do so.
Yep, except you haven't shown that conservatives were targeted because they were conservatives rather than the content they were posting that was the problem.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.foxnews.com
