This company rates news sites’ credibility. The right-wing wants it stopped

[ElChupacabra]

Hmm. They didn't?

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.

Not only pushing from federal agencies, also pushes from congress.

8 House Dems demand to know how social platforms are preparing to combat 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'

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.

www.foxnews.com

Democrats fume at tech companies, but legislation may be elusive

Social media companies Facebook, Google and Twitter may have done enduring damage to their credibility because of the attack on the Capitol.

rollcall.com

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.

Didn't have to. All they had to do was threaten to, and also add Congressional Democrats per the citations above.

What was the actual threat made? Thus far you've provided nothing supporting your idea of direct threats, and instead only imply them.

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.​

Justices side with Biden over government's influence on social media content moderation

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 […]

www.scotusblog.com

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.

What you're citing is in Alito's dissent, an argument that did not factor into the outcome.

 

[eohrnberger]

No, because despite their efforts there was still a bunch of that content on Facebook, Twitter etc.

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.'

A part of the problem for social media companies was how to handle a problem they couldn't scale up to meet.

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.

What was the actual threat made? Thus far you've provided nothing supporting your idea of direct threats, and instead only imply them.

Implied threats from Congress, meeting with federal agency representative, is all it took.

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.

I view it as a warning shot from SCOTUS to the executive branch as well as the social media companies.

What you're citing is in Alito's dissent, an argument that did not factor into the outcome.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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.

Viewpoints on this differ.

As with most things.

A case for more free speech as opposed to censorship or suppression of that free speech.

That is an opinion. This country has already established that all speech isn't "free" or protected.

4Chan is a fringe and marginalized social media platforms, as it should forever remain to be.

Yet it was the original alt-right leaning playground, which has now expanded to all of the current right leaning social media sites.

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.

I know everything to you is a "leftist echo chamber", but never addressed the exact same dynamic in other sites. So, yes, "you do you".

That 'curated experience is mostly based on user content preferences. ' is a non-issue.

How so?

This already demonstrated as a false assertion / assumption.

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.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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.

So how do you describe what goes on in TruthSocial, Parler, Rumble etc.?

I'm not against people choosing, and that they were wasn't why I raised the point, as I have posted.

So then why the whinging about what "the left" is doing?

Users leaving X because of Grok is a ridiculous excuse.

Is it? People are more conscious of what their data is being used for, and some may not want it used this way if they can opt out.

I'll agree that it'll be interesting as to what results this will bring.

It's the old data rule: garbage in, garbage out.


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.

 

[ElChupacabra]

So now you trust what companies have stated? I guess only when politically or ideologically convenient.

Without evidence demonstrating otherwise, yes. What is the basis of your distrust?

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?

Interesting but inaccurate insight of what I posted.

You are dropping the user population aspect again. Same as in the earlier discussion on what was, and was not, considered being part of the MSM.

Not sure what your point is here.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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.'

Their lack of being able to keep all of this kind of content makes that pretty clear:

Facebook 'failing' to tackle COVID-19 misinformation posted by prominent anti-vaccine group, study claims

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.

Implied threats from Congress, meeting with federal agency representative, is all it took.

Absolutely baseless.

I view it as a warning shot from SCOTUS to the executive branch as well as the social media companies.

Ok.

 

[eohrnberger]

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.

This idea that COVID misinformation was just something on "the left" is incorrect,

I think you may have misread that part of my post.

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.

As with most things.


That is an opinion. This country has already established that all speech isn't "free" or protected.


Yet it was the original alt-right leaning playground, which has now expanded to all of the current right leaning social media sites.


I know everything to you is a "leftist echo chamber", but never addressed the exact same dynamic in other sites. So, yes, "you do you".

How so?

The obvious difference being at the user's selection and control.

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.

What you are describing isn't how it was.

 

[eohrnberger]

So how do you describe what goes on in TruthSocial, Parler,

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.

Rumble etc.?

Rumble is open to all, and does not censor.

So then why the whinging about what "the left" is doing?

Pointing out characteristics of the left, with an example of what was being pointed out.

Is it? People are more conscious of what their data is being used for, and some may not want it used this way if they can opt out.

Yes, because Grok has only recently been rolled out, the left's departures were prior to that, if I recall correctly.

It's the old data rule: garbage in, garbage out.

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.

 

[eohrnberger]

Without evidence demonstrating otherwise, yes. What is the basis of your distrust?

Curation does not include censorship, since that's something entirely different.

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.

Interesting but inaccurate insight of what I posted.

Not sure what your point is here.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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.

I think you may have misread that part of my post.

If you continue to describe COVID policies as something just of "the left" then no.

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.

The obvious difference being at the user's selection and control.

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.

What you are describing isn't how it was.

Sure it is. Conservative posters who were not posting this content were not banned.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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.

Ok.

Pretty sure there are dissenting posts on TruthSocial, but not being a user on them I couldn't validate this.

I'm sure there are, but my guess is a far larger percentage of the users there are not dissenters.

Rumble is open to all, and does not censor.

It does moderate though, which depending on where one sits on the issue, could be considered "censorship".

Pointing out characteristics of the left, with an example of what was being pointed out.

Which are characteristics also present in "the right". That's what's often absent in much of what you post.

Yes, because Grok has only recently been rolled out, the left's departures were prior to that, if I recall correctly.

Nope. Grok will train on user data created well before anyone left.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Meh. The act of curation does include the censorship, suppressing, downgrading, shadow banning and outright banning, all related to managing the content.

It does not. Those are entirely different processes.

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.

Except platforms are allowed to moderate the content on their sites per Section 230. Moderation activities do not make them a publisher.

 

[Bullseye]

You might read the article.

Did that.

 

[eohrnberger]

Their lack of being able to keep all of this kind of content makes that pretty clear:

Facebook 'failing' to tackle COVID-19 misinformation posted by prominent anti-vaccine group, study claims

Facebook is "failing" to tackle COVID-19 misinformation posted by prominent anti-vaccine group, a study claims.

abcnews.go.com

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.

It is irrelevant how effective. It is most certainly relevant that the government agencies did this jawboning / coercion at all.

Political bias no, but acting on the flagged content, yes.

Yet, that's what Twitter and Facebook were doing, clearly. The suppression of the Hunter laptop story is a clear case of the political bias at play.

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.

Absolutely baseless.

I cited it, and you deny it?

Ok.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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.

It is irrelevant how effective. It is most certainly relevant that the government agencies did this jawboning / coercion at all.

If that's your opinion, ok. If you're asserting this as an actual fact, then not so much.

Yet, that's what Twitter and Facebook were doing, clearly. The suppression of the Hunter laptop story is a clear case of the political bias at play.

Or following the lead of all media outlets that avoided the story like the plague initially.

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:

(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.

You'll notice the very broad latitude of "otherwise objectionable" followed by the material's protection under the Constitution.

I cited it, and you deny it?

There were no direct or implied threats other than the ones you interpret as such.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Nazis

 

[eohrnberger]

That wasn't my point though, and it was that content was still getting through filters and ended up on the sites.

Your proposed solution to this being that the social media companies need to censor harder?

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.

If that's your opinion, ok. If you're asserting this as an actual fact, then not so much.

Sharing an opinion with 3 SCOTUS justices I find myself in good company.

Or following the lead of all media outlets that avoided the story like the plague initially.

Yes, yes. The Dem's MSM propagandists wanted the entire story to just go away, at least until after the election.

79% say ‘truthful’ coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed 2020 election

Among Republicans, 57% were strongly convinced Trump would have won, compared to 48% of independents and just 44% of Democrats.

nypost.com

A core value being shown is 'By any means necessary' (for political advantage)

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"?

There were no direct or implied threats other than the ones you interpret as such.

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.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Your proposed solution to this being that the social media companies need to censor harder?

No.

Sharing an opinion with 3 SCOTUS justices I find myself in good company.

Cool. It's why I feel sharing an opinion with 6 SCOTUS justices makes me feel fine too.

Yes, yes. The Dem's MSM propagandists wanted the entire story to just go away, at least until after the election.

79% say ‘truthful’ coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed 2020 election

Among Republicans, 57% were strongly convinced Trump would have won, compared to 48% of independents and just 44% of Democrats.

nypost.com

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.

A core value being shown is 'By any means necessary' (for political advantage)

It's what's usually behind the October surprise. The sooner people stop letting it affect their voting decisions, the quicker this tactic goes away.

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.

 

[eohrnberger]

No.

Cool. It's why I feel sharing an opinion with 6 SCOTUS justices makes me feel fine too.

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.

It's what's usually behind the October surprise. The sooner people stop letting it affect their voting decisions, the quicker this tactic goes away.

We can only hope.

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.

I think this a ridiculous analogy.

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.

Meh. Opinions clearly differ here.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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.

Legally it will not.

We can only hope.

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.

I think this a ridiculous analogy.

An exaggeration, sure, but they would be within their rights to do so.

Meh. Opinions clearly differ here.

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.

 

[Jason Warfield]

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."​

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows

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.​

The Liberal Media:Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It

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.

Yet conservative news outlets are at the top of the ratings.....

 

[CLAX1911]

"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."

Gifted link

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.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yet conservative news outlets are at the top of the ratings.....

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.

 

[eohrnberger]

Legally it will not.

Yeah, I suspect so, and this is the concern then. Without any deterrence, it is likely that we can expect only more of the same.

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.

I'm not thinking that this is a good analogy here, considering that physical businesses are much different than social media.

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.

Plenty of conservatives on Twitter were not affected, and those happened to be the ones not posting the content in question.

From what I recall it was not a clear cut as what you appear to be trying to make it.

 

[rickc]

The right wants nothing to contest their right wing propaganda.

Brainwashing the poorly educated is what keeps the republicans in power.