The Right/Left dichotomy on social media in a nutshell.

The Left......social media platforms must be prevented from allowing misinformation to be spread unchecked.

The Right.....restricting/regulating the ability to spread misinformation is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

After years of controversy over President Trump’s use of social media to share misleading content and inflame his millions of followers, social media giants Facebook and Twitter finally took a clear stand last week, banning Trump from their platforms — Facebook indefinitely, and Twitter permanently. Could this indicate a turning point in how social media companies handle potentially harmful content shared on their platforms? And could it herald a new era of social media reforms, through both government policies and self-regulation?

For many, Facebook and Twitter’s bans were long-awaited. But it’s not so cut and dry, as many others have decried these decisions as infringements on free speech. To be clear, the First Amendment only protects individuals’ speech from U.S. governmental oppression — there is nothing illegal about a private firm censoring people on its platform.
https://hbr.org/2021/01/are-we-entering-a-new-era-of-social-media-regulation

Given the ubiquitous nature of social media platforms today, with so many people using them as sole or primary sources of info, we invite tremendous harm to the country if we do nothing to reduce the influence of misinformation. It's an open question as to whether the events that occurred on the day the insurrectionist mob descended on the Capital would have happened at all had the former Liar-in-Chief (and his cohorts) not been allowed to spew lies about the election on social media.

 

Did you get paid to put out this Cancel Culture Propaganda Spin - in a desperate attempt to degrade free speech/ freedom of information / freedom of the press - in blind denial of reality - hiding behind appeal to authority fallacy.

 

Would you mind re-writing your comment in a way that is coherent?

 

You are defending monopolistic practice w/r to free speech. "Social Media" in all its various forms has become a huge part of "The Media"

Without a fair and free media - there is no such thing as a functional democratic process.

You want to say .."OH OH " we will be the gate keepers - in your nanny state utopia - as if the Gate Keepers will not end up being the Fox in the Hen House .. which we know would be patent self delusion would you not say.

Do you seriously want to try to hold the position that the gate keepers "Gov't" in this case - should have such power .. and this is not an anathema to the founding principles.

I will take the position that this would be a mass violation of the Legitimate Authority of Gov't - legitimacy of authority .. as this particular constitutionally protected right - is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't..

Thus requiring a big change to the Social Contract - of which the public must be notified - and you must garner 75% of states approval - and 66% of "We the People" .. in order to claim legitimacy.

The bar in this case is high for a reason - one you are not giving much consideration - and in fact have completely neglected - as if it does not exist.

I will leave you to tell me what that reason is .. in the case you have not neglected it in your calculation.

 

As I pointed out in the OP, To be clear, the First Amendment only protects individuals’ speech from U.S. governmental oppression — there is nothing illegal about a private firm censoring people on its platform.

As with many things this too is a matter of balancing rights, in this case free speech rights, with the need to act to advance the common good. The most obvious, recent example being how the dissemination of lies resulted in the Capital riot and literally threatened the peaceful transfer of power.

 

You might have a point if it wasn't the government spreading the disinformation, namely, the POTUS.

 

Gov't Oppression is exactly what you said the left was suggesting - "Left - social media platforms must be prevented from allowing misinformation to be spread unchecked".

or do you not understand that the above can be re-written "Social Media must be prevented from allowing "Free Speech" to be spread unchecked ?!

 

I am not talking about Gov't disinformation -

If Gov't is spreading propaganda via "Media" - Period - this must be addressed at the source -as in the Gov't official or agency.

You have engaged in a broad and fallacious conflation. You don't deal with Gov't misuse of free speech - by shutting down Free Speech.

 

I don't entirely disagree, but that's not my point.

There is no "if." The disinformation came from the POTUS. This is about power more than anything else. And sadly, since it has become purely a game of power - truth be damned - there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. (Except vote.)

We tried addressing it at the source. Sadly again, the source was more powerful than those entrusted to keep these things in check.

When we see Batboy while waiting to checkout our groceries, we chuckle. When the POTUS speaks, we take it seriously.

 

Excellent post. Thought provoking.

In my lifetime, what we see today began with linguistics as promoted by Frank Luntz. Prior to Luntz, "tax relief" was never spoken. No one had ever heard of the "death tax."

 

Oh please dont forget that piece of **** Grover Norquist!

 

Indeed. Tax "revolt" was a well oiled machine, one which we still experience today.

 

Allowing corporations to be used as political weapons for politicians to silence opposing views is more dangerous. They all lie and would like to be the only liars being heard.

 

Your point - is that Trump has engaged in propaganda - What I am saying is that this does not justify - shutting down free speech - which is what Lee was suggesting - perhaps unwittingly and now probably trying to back track .. but - it is what it is.

but to your point - Propaganda coming from Bloatus is one thing - and something that comes from many Politicians on both sides - "Group Propaganda" or "State Sponsored Propaganda" is quite a different monster - one which we could easily say has gone wild.

So considering the context - where State Sponsored Propaganda is the rule rather than the exception - and you want to point out some individual high Gov't Official (or group of Gov't officials which is more appropriate - individual group) - and tell me .. Let us have another group within Gov't - do censoring of all speech on this basis .. I beg to differ mate.

 

That's a strawman. This is what said:

...there isn't a whole lot we can do about it.

I don't have any solutions, other than education.

The guardrails failed. This can't be ignored if there is ever a solution to be found.

 

It is not a strawman 1) it was not you who was making the argument - as stated in my post - but the OP that makes this argument - and this was pointed out twice.

You commented on my comments (which was that the OP argument was flawed) - stating that Trump was spewing propaganda - which is fine .. and we all agree on this ..

The problem however .. is that this is not a good argument for violating free speech of everyone .. so what I meant was the collective "You" .. If you were to tell me .. then ... and so on. so my bad if that was not clear.

but - what is your point then of saying "But Potus did this" - do you agree or disagree with the OP ..

 

The OP was largely factual. It concluded with this:

Given the ubiquitous nature of social media platforms today, with so many people using them as sole or primary sources of info, we invite tremendous harm to the country if we do nothing to reduce the influence of misinformation. It's an open question as to whether the events that occurred on the day the insurrectionist mob descended on the Capital would have happened at all had the former Liar-in-Chief (and his cohorts) not been allowed to spew lies about the election on social media.

Yes, I agree disinformation causes harm. Whether doing nothing invites this is undetermined. And I certainly agree there would have been no attack on the Capitol if not for Trump's disinformation.

I don't see the OP suggesting anything, much less violating free speech, and I haven't suggested it either.

 

Left position - position of the OP ."social media platforms must be prevented from allowing misinformation to be spread unchecked"

which is a fancy way of saying "social media platforms must be prevented from allowing "FREE SPEEH" to be spread unchecked

All clear now ?

 

Yes, that is the left's position. The OP correctly noted the right's position as well. What's your point?

See above. You're just verifying the OP's statements.

 

That is the argument the OP favors - and the argument my post was arguing against .. which was the point.

You chimed in "Potus is spreading propaganda" - did you have a point ?

 

There is a fundamental FLAW in the BELIEF that "free speech" gives everyone the right to spread DISINFORMATION.

We the People formed a Government OF the People and FOR the People with one of the objectives being UPHOLDING social LAW and ORDER for the BENEFIT of everyone.

Disinformation is HARMFUL to We the People irrespective of the BIAS of the source. It is EQUALLY wrong regardless as to whether the disinformation comes from the right or the left.

The government of We the People DOES have the RIGHT to REGULATE our freedom of speech and this right has been UPHELD by the Supreme Court.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words#:~:text=Fighting words are, as first,immediate breach of the peace.

There is NO Constitutional right to use terminology that immediately INCITES violence, sedition, insurrection, etc, etc.

ALL of the above is INDISPUTABLE!

So all that remains is in deciding WHERE to draw the REGULATORY line when it comes to DISINFORMATION.

We ALREADY have a BASIS for drawing this line in the RULING that defined "fighting words".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words#:~:text=Fighting words are, as first,immediate breach of the peace.

Perhaps the most RELEVANT decision to where we are now was this one;

Given the above the REGULATORY line needs to be drawn BETWEEN words that are "of such slight social value ... that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality" and "the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination".

In essence DISINFORMATION falls BETWEEN the cracks because it is clearly EMOTIVE TERMINOLOGY intended to INFLAME rather than ENLIGHTEN in order to promote a BIASED point of view however disinformation does NOT rise to the standard of INCITEMENT to promote IMMEDIATE violence.

That said disinformation DOES promote the ACCEPTANCE of violence as a means to resolve differences and is THEREFORE a direct THREAT to the "social interest in order and morality".

Therein lies the AUTHORITY for the Government of We the People to REGULATE disinformation based upon the EMOTIVE INCITEMENT level of the CONTENT of the disinformation.

FTR the DISINFORMATION is DEFINED as follows;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

If it can be established that an article is INTENTIONALLY obscuring the facts for the NEFARIOUS purpose of INFLUENCING public opinion would a REASONABLE person reading that disinformation have STRONG FEELINGS invoked by the content to the LEVEL where they would feel COMPELLED to agree with ACTIONS that would ultimately result in DISORDER and UNREST?

If that were the REGULATORY standard upon which disinformation could be ruled to be OUTSIDE of the protection of free speech we need to test it from BOTH sides and see if it applies EQUALLY so there is NO favor to either side.

We have ample examples to choose from so let's use the following STEPS to IDENTIFY disinformation and see whether or not it would COMPLY with the proposed COMPROMISE regulation.

1. Does the article OBSCURE the FACTS?
2. Does the article use TERMINOLOGY that can be classified as INFLAMMATORY emotive rhetoric?
3. Would a reasonable person be INFLUENCED to feel a COMPULSION to BELIEVE this disinformation?
4. Would a reasonable person SUPPORT and/or ACCEPT violent action based upon this disinformation?

If the answers to ALL of the above are YES then the disinformation should be ruled as being UNPROTECTED by free speech and subject to whatever penalties would be deemed to be appropriate for such violations that could RESULT in social DISORDER and UNREST.

The above is my first pass and I welcome CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and/or suggestions that ENHANCE the concept of REGULATING the disinformation that is POISONING our society.

 

Except its not. All clear now?

 

Yes it is - and siting in the peanut gallery crying "NO NO NO" does not change this fact.

Defend your claim.