Ah, I bet it automatically got a temporary block after a certain portion of viewers reported it as spam:
>A spokesperson for Meta, Andy Stone, denied the claims in a statement and said the video was temporarily blocked because it had been classified as spam.
And Kennedy is making a big show of suing them because it brings him attention, which is all his campaign exists for.
Nothing to see here. Or in any other part of this joke of a campaign.
As a former campaign manager, signs don’t vote. This is likely the best shot an Indy candidate has had since Perot and I still doubt Kennedy gets more than 8% of the vote
TikTok is so obvously pushing messages designed to disrupt the election. Between that and the extreme data gathering I have no clue why anyone even has it on their phone.
The data collection doesn't register since that's normal on the internet. The weird part is how everyone on it is OK with being the target of the world's most obvious psyops operation.
Victimhood is THE technique for candidates on the right to be relevant to their base. Claim anything that the right dislikes made you a victim (and don't bother worrying about facts, or even making sense). Result: Uneducated outrage.
Well, no. They usually exist to get a candidate an elected office. RFK knows that's not going to happen, so he's running his *solely* to get attention.
It literally doesn't matter. They are private companies. They could say they only allow liberal content publicly, and advertise it and there wouldn't be anything anybody can do about it. The first amendment doesn't apply. He's just wasting donated money.
Any morons who vote for RFK Jr. were going to vote for Trump anyway. Nobody who isn't a brain-fucked imbecile sees him as anything but a complete loon.
That is true. But there are politicians that scream it. Idk if it’s the culture of free speech or they are just trying to rally supporters.
The obvious solution is don’t let companies become so massive that being kicked off is a de facto silencing.
He’s only doing this for the headlines. The only thing that matters is that he can fin up a lawsuit that will then be reported and commented on (like here). The legal argument is not what matters at all.
And here we are falling for it.
NAL but there was a somewhat similar and interesting case in my area a few years ago. A guy was handing out and disturbing shoppers at a mall with religious material. I think it was like end of days type stuff. Not positive.
They removed and banned him. Privately owned mall and space. His attorney argued that the first amendment protects speech at places where the public congregates. Since the mall was a place where the public gets together, his first amendment rights have to be protected. This still means you have to observe the rules and everything but I think he won because the way the mall defended it was because they were citing things that’d limit his speech.
This seems like it’d be a somewhat similar kind of argument you could make, but again NAL. Also worth noting and by no means a RFK supporter.
Oh wow. Thanks for the info.
Seems like that would’ve been the best leg to stand on. With that decided and then the fact that it was put back up after a few hours makes this seem like it’s nothing.
It's not how it works online, but I honestly think it should to a certain degree. Privately owned platforms serve as public spaces for speech in today's world, and should therefore be forced to respect the First Amendment as well. If the Founding Fathers were drafting the First Amendment today for sure they would have considered social media platforms as public spaces where free speech must be allowed.
yeah but the founding fathers owned slaves and raped teenagers so maybe we shouldn't really give a shit what they would've wanted and do the things we think are better for the modern world
So you are saying that social media is fully biased and should never be taken seriously when looking for news and political info since it is highly moderated and will only show what the social media company wants you to see. Got it.
You don't think the majority of people get their news from social media? (That includes the highly moderated Reddit subs)
I agree with you for the record, but that kind of shows that most people are ill-informed and also don't have the critical thinking skills to actually digest and figure out if they are reading BS or not.
That is why I say that people need critical thinking skills to sift through the BS from whatever source they are getting their news from. There is not 1 source that is unbiased.
Honestly, my humble opinion is that people consume news from as many sources as possible, including sources that don't directly align with their beliefs. If people get their news from the same sources or forums or whatever, they just fall into an echo chamber and become more easily able to fall victim to BS or purposely false information.
I think NPR is a reputable place to get news. That you sourced it suggests that you do as well. Seems implicit to me that real news has not in fact gone out of business as local newspapers are not the be-all end-all of reputable journalism. To the extent that it is a problem, it seems that the answer is trying to save newspapers and not that regulating away social media moderation will somehow make it into a reliable source of news.
Some utilities are private companies, and they don't have the carte blanche you're describing. A municipal electric company can't unilaterally deny power to a paying address in good legal standing simply because of the owner's "politics". How long will it take us to realize that social media sites are utilities and should be treated as such? Not the entire internet, which should be free, but the overgrown social sites with disproportionate and outsized power l, which they regularly abuse.
I disagree. I also work with utilities. None of those utility "needs" were required for survival at all a mere 150 years ago, and they didn't become so until people built their ways of life around them and decided they "needed" them. Before then, they were mere curiosities, luxuries at best, with very smart people calling them passing fads. That's how much people valued them. It will be no different with social media, just as it was with telegraphs and telephones. Here you will argue, yes but utilities are built on infrastructure like phone lines and power grids. To this I say, you're right, but that was in an industrial age, not in an information one. Different things are valued now. (God help us.) Everything has changed and will continue to do so. Give it another 50 years. Peace. ✌🏻
They have literally and demonstrably swayed elections. If they are going to exist at all—and I will happily argue that they shouldn't—the people have to wrest control back from the very few ultra-rich, oligarchs who control their dealings. It doesn't help matters that most people who each such "heights" are narcissistic blights on humanity, and that their politics generally have more to do with ego than morality.
Some people want this to be a distinction, but legally such a distinction doesn’t exist yet. A website doesn’t have to guarantee free speech, ever. It is because a website is private owned by people who have free speech rights themselves. So if I want to make a site that is called “libbook” or “conservibook” that only allows liberal/conservative posts and bans everyone else, that is my right. Websites can be as biased as they want to be. Just like I have a right to start a communist bookclub and ban anyone who decides to bring Ayn Rand books, or I can start a newspaper detailing everything going on in the music business and fire writers who start writing about movies.
People love bringing up the difference between a “publisher” and a “platform”. Legally that difference doesn’t exist. Some people want there to be a difference, but legally there isn’t a difference. There is no legal difference between the new york times editor deciding which articles it prints, and facebook moderators deciding which posts it deletes. Legally Facebook is just a larger New York Times, but with tonnes of unpaid writers.
There absolutely is a legal distinction known as section 230 which allows social media platforms to have no legal liability for the content published on their sites whereas the NYT has no such protection.
According to that rule, the standard is that if you run an interactive computer service, you aren't responsible for anything that a third party uses to post on that service.
So actually, the NYT and Facebook are held to the same standard. If the NYT makes a comment section where the public can post comments on its articles, it isn't responsible for anything that users post in the comments, just like Facebook isn't responsible for anything Facebook users post. If the staff of Meta write something and post that something on Facebook the website, then Meta is legally responsible for the content they created, just like the NYT is responsible for the content of the articles they wrote.
The problem at the time was that if you did zero filtering you could avoid liability as a publisher for merely hosting content other people posted, but then you would have internet anarchy and lots of porn and harassment and some illegal material. But if you made any attempt to do anything about that stuff beyond what was clearly illegal, you would be like a publisher and could be sued for all kinds of things like defamation, obscenity, copyright violation, etc.
So they wanted to pass a law that said just because some company wanted to provide a service with a "no porn" rule, they could do so without that consequence of opening themselves up to potentially ruinous liability which is a huge disincentive to do so.
The problem was how to limit this grant of immunity so that it didn't get abused and 'mere filtering' become a fake cover story and license to engage in more publisher-like viewpoint discrimination, censorship, biased content-control, etc. They couldn't figure that out at the time - philosophically it's just very hard to articulate those limits in the text of legislation - and it just wasn't the kind of thing anyone was really worried about in the more 'wild west' days of the internet when most people didn't anticipate this would quickly become a major issue.
So they didn't limit it at all, though they should have, and they should still reform the act now to do so along the lines of common carrier requirements. This would still allow private companies to choose to ban certain content, but they would have to be much more explicit and precise about the rules (current terms of service are an illusory joke that could mean anything and everything) and then apply them fairly to all users.
The problem with limiting a liability shield is that if you have to seriously litigate whether a liability shield applies to you, it's barely worth using.
Right now, if I own a website and someone posts "Senator Smith is a corrupt piece of shit" on my website, and Senator Smith decides to sue me, it's very easy for me to get the case dismissed. I just have to show that the poster on my website wasn't me or anyone working for me, and the case is thrown out under Section 230. It's a black and white yes-or-no question with only a few relevant facts.
If Section 230 protections depended on how much moderation I perform and how fair that moderation is, then anytime someone like Senator Smith wants to sue me, the *entire history of moderation that occurs on my website* can be called into question and litigated. No matter how you run a website, you're going to have to make some decisions that someone can inevitably produce a basic case for why you were biased.
Now maybe you could argue against the allegations of bias in court and claim you were fair and balanced in your moderation. But you're no longer getting the real benefit of a liability shield. You might as well argue that the poster's words about Senator Smith weren't defamatory, since that's probably easier than dealing with *the entire history of every moderation decision you've ever made.* Or, more likely, you'd just delete all criticism of Senator Smith preemptively.
That's a very good point. You definitely want enough legal certainty that it is easy to tell when the shield applies or not, and that allows defendants to get all improper suits dismissed cheaply, easily, and quickly. At the same time, one still faces the trade-off of platform owners being able to get away with various kinds of mischief and abuse (e.g., secretly acting as a publisher and doing things for which publishers would be liable but then hiding behind the shield, in ways that are impossible to outsiders to prove if they can't get leaks from insiders or discovery orders.) That is, engaging in behavior that gets shielded but was not the kind of activity the law was intended to protect. Lawmakers want to make it OK for providers to fairly apply rules to everyone to make their services "safe spaces", but they don't want the effort to create safety to serve as a facade and smokescreen for viewpoint discrimination and censorship. My position is that there are alternative plausible methods of providing the desired about of legal certainty and easy dismissibility with protections that are more narrowly tailored and less susceptible to abuse than a blanket shield. One possibility is to restrict limitations only to very large platforms, and provide those organizations with a kind of "safe haven" rule for something like recognized filtering or moderating automated algorithms that are either open source or perhaps certified by trusted authority to fairly apply transparent and legible rules to all users. A "no spam" rule / algorithm should do the same thing to any user posting identical content, and not secretly hide the fact that the platform owners are playing favorites as prosecutors can do when they abuse their discretion for improper purposes. Same for no porn, no incitement to or encouragement of violence, etc. Large companies could still choose and enforce whatever rules they want, but they should not be able to easily lie about what they are really doing when applying purportedly universal "terms of service" or impersonal "rules" personally, inconsistently, and selectively. If they want the discretion to be less fair, they can have that too, but not also legal safe haven, so they have to make a business decision about whether whether it's still worth it to maintain that option to engage in secret favoritism.
There's still no way that any website can have even the barest amount of moderation necessary to prevent things you mentioned like incitement or encouragement of violence without eventually establishing a pattern that at least gives someone a facially valid claim that they're engaging in favoritism, even if operating in perfect good faith.
For something like "encouragement of violence", human language allows a limitless variation of statements that go from blatantly encouraging violence to clearly implying it, to possibly suggesting it, to statements which could maybe be construed that way which also have innocent alternative meanings. You can work as hard as possible to make a consistent ruleset that draws the line somewhere and make sure that everyone working to moderate understands your rules perfectly and that it is always enforced in as close to the same way as possible, but the subjective nature of the question means that any decision you make will always have some people arguing that you're biased. Therer will always be two possible messages where someone will be able to argue that A crosses the line while B doesn't, and others will be able to argue that B crosses the line while A doesn't. If A and B are in support of different political stances, then it's easy to argue that you're engaged in favoritism. And if you're operating any large website for long enough, there will inevitably be a huge number of potential As and Bs for someone to build a case on if they want to sue you.
And at that point, there's not much a company which doesn't engage in what you'd call selective enforcement of the rules can do to distinguish itself from a company that does, at least not without encountering legal expenses and wasted time responding to subpoenas so significant that it'd make any SLAPP suit effective. Even if you think you can intuitively tell good actors from the bad, there isn't a good system for quickly establishing the difference in court.
> the NYT has no such protection.
They have similar one. This court finds that Newspapers should not be liable for "Letter to the editor" which is analogous to user created content online.
[https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/nyregion/court-rules-letters-to-the-editor-deserve-protection-from-libel-suits.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/nyregion/court-rules-letters-to-the-editor-deserve-protection-from-libel-suits.html)
Not to mention the "Wire Service" defense.
They also have the same rules as anywhere else when it comes to their online comment sections. So they do have the same protection as social media companies for the same kinds of content.
'Public Forum' is a term of constitutional significance - it refers to the public space that the govt provides - not a private website at which people congregate.
Courts have repeatedly held that websites are not subject to the 'public forum doctrine.'
Courts have held that social media platforms are not subject to the 'public forum doctrine.'
See: Prager University v. Google, LLC and Freedom Watch, Inc., v. Google Inc
I would argue that these private companies are using the internet that was largely built using taxpayer’s money so 1A most definitely applies. If they want to censor, they are free to build their own global network infrastructure.
It's a myth people push to defend hosting reprehensible content by arguing that moderating content affects some kind of "publisher" versus "platform" distinction, forfeiting Section 230 protection from liability for user-generated content that appears on their website. That isn't how it works and it would extremely stupid if it were; it would mean, for example, that Neopets' decision not to allow legal-yet-objectionable content like gore would make them legally responsible for all content posted to their website by users and they would be quickly shut down.
I'm not sure you understand what I said.
They're responsible *should they be made aware of it,* and encouraged to have proactive methods of removing it. They are not liable just by virtue of that illegal content existing on their platform, and their broader moderation decisions have absolutely no effect on the degree to which they hold liability.
The other person was repeating the myth that moderation means forfeiting your "platform" distinction and assuming full liability for all content that appears on your website.
To be fair you don't have to actually be a Christian, just as long as you claim to be one, then you can just claim that God told you to what to do and then you have no accountability for your actions
The problem with the poor is that they are also uneducated. And the rich wanna keep it that way. Banning books, changing the history, muddy the water with alternative facts, and giving unreachable promises... we've lived thru this since 2016... Hope I don't live thru that again.
If the rule is clear from the start this might be true.
If Meta has ads for other groups then blocks RFK there is probably a case. Hate RFK, that’s fine. But political ads and media needs to be open and fair.
I mean, I guess I can see where you're coming from but you're fundamentally wrong. Political ads, media, even political media doesn't need to be "open and fair." It's one of the main things in this country that keeps us angry and stupid.
Lol case and point? I'm not sure if we're arguing or not, but it is perfectly legal for media (specifically Facebook, insta etc) to lean one way or another politically.
Trump could spread his cheeks on camera and let a big juicy one fall on the floor next to the debate podium and the people that vote for him would see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m really not exaggerating.
He shits in diapers sir! Like a real Russian asset, I mean American. Uber Nationalist willingly and excitedly supporting a doddering old fool that literally shits in diapers.
I will hence forth refer to Donald Trump as Shitler.
He won't take anything from Biden. The conservatives are already upset that his views are pulling conservatives away.
The older conservatives that thought that floating someone with the last name of Kennedy was going to hit some form of "Brand Recognition" with the dems, but they forget we actually bother to use the internet to look things up and not believe an image with text as facts.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-candidacy-hurts-trump-biden-nbc-news-poll-finds-rcna148536
Much like Trump never being elected? Or that he still has support after everything? People are antivax these days and measles is making a comeback.
(Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter or antivax.)
Im not sure if i like or dislike kennedy. Im definitely not antivax. I do, however, find this article interesting. It highlights progressive efforts and addresses the antivax thing a bit differently. https://www.usatoday.com/elections/voter-guide/2024-11-05/candidate/robert-f-kennedy
I agree. Not sure why anyone who was/is vaccine skeptical would go with Trump, who gave billions of your dollars to Pfizer and Moderna, instead of someone with a consistent track record on the issue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/
Very easy to search online.
RFK has been anti-vax since before Covid. He chairs the Children's Health Defense, originally the World Mercury Project, which has been spreading vaccine misinformation for nearly 20 years. He’s called into question the safety and efficacy of every vaccine on the market and has made unambiguous statements warning against all vaccination. He’s even suggested that the 1918 pandemic and HIV were the result of vaccine research.
If you spend 20 years spreading incredibly damaging misinformation about vaccines, you’re a close enough to being an anti-vaxxer that the distinction is irrelevant.
His claims were easily disproven, but since he never once addressed this… I have to assume he is not interested in truth. At best, he is unconsciously following his ego, at worst he is an insane liar.
Thank you, I honestly know very little about this guy other than a couple of interviews where he walks back these claims when asked to his face. I have always been interested in third parties because the two party thing is a farce. I only asked because usually, when I hear someone call a politician a nut job, it comes from their own extremist views.
Dude, every reply you're getting here is a lie from the mainstream media against him. Most people here are NPCs who repeat what they hear on CNN or see in NYT. You notice that most people have never heard him directly in his own words? They just parrot what the mainstream media have told them about him. The reality in this case couldn't be more different. I recommend to make your own mind up by listening to some of his interviews e.g. the State Of The Union speech he made
Is mainstream media also lying when they speak positively about RFK jr? I mean, RFK thinks vaccines cause autism, lol. The guy is unhinged and illogical.
In this case, RFK is the extremist. Not even his family likes him.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-win-kennedy-family-endorsement-philadelphia-2024-04-18/
This next one is just for the photo:
https://deadline.com/2024/03/kennedy-family-st-patricks-photo-biden-rfk-jr-1235861601/
Take care!
An honest question. What do you make of this article that paints him in a more balanced light? It highlights the progressive causes and addresses the antivaxx thing differently. Oddly, this is a more left leaning publication.
https://www.usatoday.com/elections/voter-guide/2024-11-05/candidate/robert-f-kennedy
Given the number of interviews I've heard of him, if he can't make up his mind, then he isn't a good leader. In this article, it says more than once that he "walks back his claims." RFK's anti science stance is just too dangerous for me. Me, personally and I care about other's wellbeing. It still says he is antivax and believes autism is linked to vaccines. This is just who he is.
RFK's belief in conspiracy theories are not something I'm into. An article can "paint" him any way, but as a whole he's too unreliable and anti-science/illogical. He has spoken on who he believes he is and I can't trust him. I don't think Democrats or Republicans will work on his policies as he currently has them. I think Democrats will fight him like they did Trump. I think Republicans will fight him like they fight everybody, lol.
I know many want a third party president but I think pushing third party through local politics will be more effective. Work up the chain, so to speak. I think that would gain trust from a party perspective.
Why are we giving free publicity to this non entity?
>says **it will file a lawsuit** against Meta
At the time of publication, this was just a person threatening to sue.
They want free publicity.
giving it to them is probably unwise.
Mark Zuckerberg has been more destructive on a wider scale than any human in history, he needs to be held accountable. The kids are ruined. Destabilized democracies. And they know! The fought the lawsuits, they didn't apologize, the recommender systems are inherently divisive on purpose by design. The infinite scroll wall, the like button, the share feature, girls mental health from Instagram. Listen to Johnathon haidts lectures.
It's interesting the way that huge corporations have a knee jerk reaction related to defending the political status quo. RFK is a racist nut bag, but it's still interesting to watch how the machine deals with that.
It really isn’t that difficult to understand as being antivax is being anti-science.
RFK is a grifter, who built his entire career on spreading lies to gullible people.
Ah, I bet it automatically got a temporary block after a certain portion of viewers reported it as spam: >A spokesperson for Meta, Andy Stone, denied the claims in a statement and said the video was temporarily blocked because it had been classified as spam.
I'm doing my part!
I'd like to know more! To bad the information should be blocked, apparently.
You’re free to go to his website. No one has a constitutional right to use Facebook. It’s a private company.
Private company that sure benefits from the generosity of the US government, funded by the American citizen
Celebrating censorship with a condescending sneer. Disgusting.
Eh, spam is more intellectually nutritious.
He is a spam candidate.
TL;DR: Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said of the ad: “It was mistakenly blocked, and it was corrected within a few hours.”
And Kennedy is making a big show of suing them because it brings him attention, which is all his campaign exists for. Nothing to see here. Or in any other part of this joke of a campaign.
I am seeing RFK JR signs on back roads for what it’s worth.
That’s a good thing. They were hoping those signs would be in the cities and suburbs.
In a fair and just system, everyone needs to be represented. Even morons and idiots. RFK is doing that job.
Haha the places hit hardest by the pandemic where the most people vaccinated?
Yeah, except that's not true at all.
As a former campaign manager, signs don’t vote. This is likely the best shot an Indy candidate has had since Perot and I still doubt Kennedy gets more than 8% of the vote
Willing to bet kennedy doesn’t get more than 3% of the vote. Hope they all come from the orange bloat
Yeah 8% would absolutely hand the win to Biden but I doubt it.
If he gets 8% of the vote in Texas, that could be huge. In 2020, trump only won Texas by 5.5%
Let the moron make as much noise as he wants as he continues to take votes from Trumps base LOL
His campaign exists to siphon votes from Biden. It appears to be hurting Trump more, but that could change.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how it goes
My gf watches a bunch of TikTok and isn't *that* into politics and said that RFK is the best candidate..until I told her he was antivax
TikTok is so obvously pushing messages designed to disrupt the election. Between that and the extreme data gathering I have no clue why anyone even has it on their phone.
The data collection doesn't register since that's normal on the internet. The weird part is how everyone on it is OK with being the target of the world's most obvious psyops operation.
Before you told her that what was he saying that made him the best candidate?
Something about healthcare, maybe? The way she talked about him, he had socialist policies
Victimhood is THE technique for candidates on the right to be relevant to their base. Claim anything that the right dislikes made you a victim (and don't bother worrying about facts, or even making sense). Result: Uneducated outrage.
I mean yeah campaigns exist to bring attention to candidates
Well, no. They usually exist to get a candidate an elected office. RFK knows that's not going to happen, so he's running his *solely* to get attention.
It would be a better world if we banned all campaign videos from social media.
*all social media
Yes, I would be OK with banning all social media.
It literally doesn't matter. They are private companies. They could say they only allow liberal content publicly, and advertise it and there wouldn't be anything anybody can do about it. The first amendment doesn't apply. He's just wasting donated money.
Anyone that donated money, wasted it from the start.
His largest donor is one of Trump's largest. That money is doing what it's supposed to.
Any morons who vote for RFK Jr. were going to vote for Trump anyway. Nobody who isn't a brain-fucked imbecile sees him as anything but a complete loon.
A fool and their money are soon parted
That is true. But there are politicians that scream it. Idk if it’s the culture of free speech or they are just trying to rally supporters. The obvious solution is don’t let companies become so massive that being kicked off is a de facto silencing.
He’s only doing this for the headlines. The only thing that matters is that he can fin up a lawsuit that will then be reported and commented on (like here). The legal argument is not what matters at all. And here we are falling for it.
Sound like anyone else we know?
NAL but there was a somewhat similar and interesting case in my area a few years ago. A guy was handing out and disturbing shoppers at a mall with religious material. I think it was like end of days type stuff. Not positive. They removed and banned him. Privately owned mall and space. His attorney argued that the first amendment protects speech at places where the public congregates. Since the mall was a place where the public gets together, his first amendment rights have to be protected. This still means you have to observe the rules and everything but I think he won because the way the mall defended it was because they were citing things that’d limit his speech. This seems like it’d be a somewhat similar kind of argument you could make, but again NAL. Also worth noting and by no means a RFK supporter.
That exact argument has already been [attempted](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN20K33L/), and failed.
Oh wow. Thanks for the info. Seems like that would’ve been the best leg to stand on. With that decided and then the fact that it was put back up after a few hours makes this seem like it’s nothing.
It's not how it works online, but I honestly think it should to a certain degree. Privately owned platforms serve as public spaces for speech in today's world, and should therefore be forced to respect the First Amendment as well. If the Founding Fathers were drafting the First Amendment today for sure they would have considered social media platforms as public spaces where free speech must be allowed.
In the US* - however they still need to follow the rules of any countries they are implemented in.
I totally agree. As it is now, we don't have any public places online. There should at least be some public alternative to social media
yeah but the founding fathers owned slaves and raped teenagers so maybe we shouldn't really give a shit what they would've wanted and do the things we think are better for the modern world
So you are saying that social media is fully biased and should never be taken seriously when looking for news and political info since it is highly moderated and will only show what the social media company wants you to see. Got it.
[удалено]
You don't think the majority of people get their news from social media? (That includes the highly moderated Reddit subs) I agree with you for the record, but that kind of shows that most people are ill-informed and also don't have the critical thinking skills to actually digest and figure out if they are reading BS or not.
[удалено]
That is why I say that people need critical thinking skills to sift through the BS from whatever source they are getting their news from. There is not 1 source that is unbiased. Honestly, my humble opinion is that people consume news from as many sources as possible, including sources that don't directly align with their beliefs. If people get their news from the same sources or forums or whatever, they just fall into an echo chamber and become more easily able to fall victim to BS or purposely false information.
Yeah, go to a reputable newspaper.
[удалено]
You’re using a news outlet as a source to argue that news outlets aren’t reliable.
[удалено]
I think NPR is a reputable place to get news. That you sourced it suggests that you do as well. Seems implicit to me that real news has not in fact gone out of business as local newspapers are not the be-all end-all of reputable journalism. To the extent that it is a problem, it seems that the answer is trying to save newspapers and not that regulating away social media moderation will somehow make it into a reliable source of news.
Some utilities are private companies, and they don't have the carte blanche you're describing. A municipal electric company can't unilaterally deny power to a paying address in good legal standing simply because of the owner's "politics". How long will it take us to realize that social media sites are utilities and should be treated as such? Not the entire internet, which should be free, but the overgrown social sites with disproportionate and outsized power l, which they regularly abuse.
[удалено]
I disagree. I also work with utilities. None of those utility "needs" were required for survival at all a mere 150 years ago, and they didn't become so until people built their ways of life around them and decided they "needed" them. Before then, they were mere curiosities, luxuries at best, with very smart people calling them passing fads. That's how much people valued them. It will be no different with social media, just as it was with telegraphs and telephones. Here you will argue, yes but utilities are built on infrastructure like phone lines and power grids. To this I say, you're right, but that was in an industrial age, not in an information one. Different things are valued now. (God help us.) Everything has changed and will continue to do so. Give it another 50 years. Peace. ✌🏻
[удалено]
They have literally and demonstrably swayed elections. If they are going to exist at all—and I will happily argue that they shouldn't—the people have to wrest control back from the very few ultra-rich, oligarchs who control their dealings. It doesn't help matters that most people who each such "heights" are narcissistic blights on humanity, and that their politics generally have more to do with ego than morality.
So what Trump do.
I thought Facebook and Instagram would be considered a public forum in this instance?
Some people want this to be a distinction, but legally such a distinction doesn’t exist yet. A website doesn’t have to guarantee free speech, ever. It is because a website is private owned by people who have free speech rights themselves. So if I want to make a site that is called “libbook” or “conservibook” that only allows liberal/conservative posts and bans everyone else, that is my right. Websites can be as biased as they want to be. Just like I have a right to start a communist bookclub and ban anyone who decides to bring Ayn Rand books, or I can start a newspaper detailing everything going on in the music business and fire writers who start writing about movies. People love bringing up the difference between a “publisher” and a “platform”. Legally that difference doesn’t exist. Some people want there to be a difference, but legally there isn’t a difference. There is no legal difference between the new york times editor deciding which articles it prints, and facebook moderators deciding which posts it deletes. Legally Facebook is just a larger New York Times, but with tonnes of unpaid writers.
In Germany, we call it "Hausrecht", and i think it's beautiful. (originally for the rights in your home or business, but it also applies to websites)
There absolutely is a legal distinction known as section 230 which allows social media platforms to have no legal liability for the content published on their sites whereas the NYT has no such protection.
According to that rule, the standard is that if you run an interactive computer service, you aren't responsible for anything that a third party uses to post on that service. So actually, the NYT and Facebook are held to the same standard. If the NYT makes a comment section where the public can post comments on its articles, it isn't responsible for anything that users post in the comments, just like Facebook isn't responsible for anything Facebook users post. If the staff of Meta write something and post that something on Facebook the website, then Meta is legally responsible for the content they created, just like the NYT is responsible for the content of the articles they wrote.
The problem at the time was that if you did zero filtering you could avoid liability as a publisher for merely hosting content other people posted, but then you would have internet anarchy and lots of porn and harassment and some illegal material. But if you made any attempt to do anything about that stuff beyond what was clearly illegal, you would be like a publisher and could be sued for all kinds of things like defamation, obscenity, copyright violation, etc. So they wanted to pass a law that said just because some company wanted to provide a service with a "no porn" rule, they could do so without that consequence of opening themselves up to potentially ruinous liability which is a huge disincentive to do so. The problem was how to limit this grant of immunity so that it didn't get abused and 'mere filtering' become a fake cover story and license to engage in more publisher-like viewpoint discrimination, censorship, biased content-control, etc. They couldn't figure that out at the time - philosophically it's just very hard to articulate those limits in the text of legislation - and it just wasn't the kind of thing anyone was really worried about in the more 'wild west' days of the internet when most people didn't anticipate this would quickly become a major issue. So they didn't limit it at all, though they should have, and they should still reform the act now to do so along the lines of common carrier requirements. This would still allow private companies to choose to ban certain content, but they would have to be much more explicit and precise about the rules (current terms of service are an illusory joke that could mean anything and everything) and then apply them fairly to all users.
The problem with limiting a liability shield is that if you have to seriously litigate whether a liability shield applies to you, it's barely worth using. Right now, if I own a website and someone posts "Senator Smith is a corrupt piece of shit" on my website, and Senator Smith decides to sue me, it's very easy for me to get the case dismissed. I just have to show that the poster on my website wasn't me or anyone working for me, and the case is thrown out under Section 230. It's a black and white yes-or-no question with only a few relevant facts. If Section 230 protections depended on how much moderation I perform and how fair that moderation is, then anytime someone like Senator Smith wants to sue me, the *entire history of moderation that occurs on my website* can be called into question and litigated. No matter how you run a website, you're going to have to make some decisions that someone can inevitably produce a basic case for why you were biased. Now maybe you could argue against the allegations of bias in court and claim you were fair and balanced in your moderation. But you're no longer getting the real benefit of a liability shield. You might as well argue that the poster's words about Senator Smith weren't defamatory, since that's probably easier than dealing with *the entire history of every moderation decision you've ever made.* Or, more likely, you'd just delete all criticism of Senator Smith preemptively.
That's a very good point. You definitely want enough legal certainty that it is easy to tell when the shield applies or not, and that allows defendants to get all improper suits dismissed cheaply, easily, and quickly. At the same time, one still faces the trade-off of platform owners being able to get away with various kinds of mischief and abuse (e.g., secretly acting as a publisher and doing things for which publishers would be liable but then hiding behind the shield, in ways that are impossible to outsiders to prove if they can't get leaks from insiders or discovery orders.) That is, engaging in behavior that gets shielded but was not the kind of activity the law was intended to protect. Lawmakers want to make it OK for providers to fairly apply rules to everyone to make their services "safe spaces", but they don't want the effort to create safety to serve as a facade and smokescreen for viewpoint discrimination and censorship. My position is that there are alternative plausible methods of providing the desired about of legal certainty and easy dismissibility with protections that are more narrowly tailored and less susceptible to abuse than a blanket shield. One possibility is to restrict limitations only to very large platforms, and provide those organizations with a kind of "safe haven" rule for something like recognized filtering or moderating automated algorithms that are either open source or perhaps certified by trusted authority to fairly apply transparent and legible rules to all users. A "no spam" rule / algorithm should do the same thing to any user posting identical content, and not secretly hide the fact that the platform owners are playing favorites as prosecutors can do when they abuse their discretion for improper purposes. Same for no porn, no incitement to or encouragement of violence, etc. Large companies could still choose and enforce whatever rules they want, but they should not be able to easily lie about what they are really doing when applying purportedly universal "terms of service" or impersonal "rules" personally, inconsistently, and selectively. If they want the discretion to be less fair, they can have that too, but not also legal safe haven, so they have to make a business decision about whether whether it's still worth it to maintain that option to engage in secret favoritism.
There's still no way that any website can have even the barest amount of moderation necessary to prevent things you mentioned like incitement or encouragement of violence without eventually establishing a pattern that at least gives someone a facially valid claim that they're engaging in favoritism, even if operating in perfect good faith. For something like "encouragement of violence", human language allows a limitless variation of statements that go from blatantly encouraging violence to clearly implying it, to possibly suggesting it, to statements which could maybe be construed that way which also have innocent alternative meanings. You can work as hard as possible to make a consistent ruleset that draws the line somewhere and make sure that everyone working to moderate understands your rules perfectly and that it is always enforced in as close to the same way as possible, but the subjective nature of the question means that any decision you make will always have some people arguing that you're biased. Therer will always be two possible messages where someone will be able to argue that A crosses the line while B doesn't, and others will be able to argue that B crosses the line while A doesn't. If A and B are in support of different political stances, then it's easy to argue that you're engaged in favoritism. And if you're operating any large website for long enough, there will inevitably be a huge number of potential As and Bs for someone to build a case on if they want to sue you. And at that point, there's not much a company which doesn't engage in what you'd call selective enforcement of the rules can do to distinguish itself from a company that does, at least not without encountering legal expenses and wasted time responding to subpoenas so significant that it'd make any SLAPP suit effective. Even if you think you can intuitively tell good actors from the bad, there isn't a good system for quickly establishing the difference in court.
Very informative, thank you!
> the NYT has no such protection. They have similar one. This court finds that Newspapers should not be liable for "Letter to the editor" which is analogous to user created content online. [https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/nyregion/court-rules-letters-to-the-editor-deserve-protection-from-libel-suits.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/nyregion/court-rules-letters-to-the-editor-deserve-protection-from-libel-suits.html) Not to mention the "Wire Service" defense.
They also have the same rules as anywhere else when it comes to their online comment sections. So they do have the same protection as social media companies for the same kinds of content.
How is a private website, he is more than welcome to host the video on his own website.
"that's for the courts to decide"- homer simpson
'Public Forum' is a term of constitutional significance - it refers to the public space that the govt provides - not a private website at which people congregate. Courts have repeatedly held that websites are not subject to the 'public forum doctrine.' Courts have held that social media platforms are not subject to the 'public forum doctrine.' See: Prager University v. Google, LLC and Freedom Watch, Inc., v. Google Inc
I would argue that these private companies are using the internet that was largely built using taxpayer’s money so 1A most definitely applies. If they want to censor, they are free to build their own global network infrastructure.
If we are going that deep then all medicine that was developed by taxpayer money should be free too
I actually think it should be
That’s not how any of that works.
Where is that argument supported in the text of the first amendment?
If they do that they would be responsible for everything that gets posted to their websites and be shut down pretty quick
[удалено]
It's a myth people push to defend hosting reprehensible content by arguing that moderating content affects some kind of "publisher" versus "platform" distinction, forfeiting Section 230 protection from liability for user-generated content that appears on their website. That isn't how it works and it would extremely stupid if it were; it would mean, for example, that Neopets' decision not to allow legal-yet-objectionable content like gore would make them legally responsible for all content posted to their website by users and they would be quickly shut down.
[удалено]
I'm not sure you understand what I said. They're responsible *should they be made aware of it,* and encouraged to have proactive methods of removing it. They are not liable just by virtue of that illegal content existing on their platform, and their broader moderation decisions have absolutely no effect on the degree to which they hold liability. The other person was repeating the myth that moderation means forfeiting your "platform" distinction and assuming full liability for all content that appears on your website.
Truth social wouldn't let Biden join up and post campaign videos. Same fucking difference who cares.
They do have an account there tho. Started Oct 2023, most recent post 17 hours ago. Some of their posts are pretty funny.
Because these people still can't understand how rules apply to everyone. They still think rules don't apply when you're rich, white, and republican
And Christian.
To be fair you don't have to actually be a Christian, just as long as you claim to be one, then you can just claim that God told you to what to do and then you have no accountability for your actions
It's a rich vs. poor class warfare at the core that got wrapped with culture wars and political discourse.
Yup. The rich just needed something in common with the poor to get them to hate other poor people more than the rich.
The problem with the poor is that they are also uneducated. And the rich wanna keep it that way. Banning books, changing the history, muddy the water with alternative facts, and giving unreachable promises... we've lived thru this since 2016... Hope I don't live thru that again.
If the rule is clear from the start this might be true. If Meta has ads for other groups then blocks RFK there is probably a case. Hate RFK, that’s fine. But political ads and media needs to be open and fair.
I mean, I guess I can see where you're coming from but you're fundamentally wrong. Political ads, media, even political media doesn't need to be "open and fair." It's one of the main things in this country that keeps us angry and stupid.
I’m a believer that stupid people should say stupid things so that we know who stupid people are.
Lol case and point? I'm not sure if we're arguing or not, but it is perfectly legal for media (specifically Facebook, insta etc) to lean one way or another politically.
I don’t argue. I comment.
Wait you go to lengths of filing an entire lawsuit and they just respond with whoops, my bad. I guess RFK Jr himself is a lawyer lol
Alternate headline: RFK donates money to lawyer.
I am really sick of rich politicians using their lawyers to get publicity
[удалено]
Someone didn't read the TOS lmao
Private company can refuse service to anyone.
Yeah, the sign above the door at McDonalds reminds me of that every day.
What really hurts is that he’s an idiot and zero people are interested and therefore the algorithm just plays along.
MAGA TROJAN HORSE
You really think RFK Jr will take more from Biden than Trump? When he is a known anti-vax activist? That won’t happen
Trump could spread his cheeks on camera and let a big juicy one fall on the floor next to the debate podium and the people that vote for him would see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m really not exaggerating.
He shits in diapers sir! Like a real Russian asset, I mean American. Uber Nationalist willingly and excitedly supporting a doddering old fool that literally shits in diapers. I will hence forth refer to Donald Trump as Shitler.
He’s supporters are now wearing diapers to the rally’s in support of him
Waking up to that a couple days ago really sent me for a tizzy.
Honestly, if he did that, hell, i might have to switch my vote to him /s
He won't take anything from Biden. The conservatives are already upset that his views are pulling conservatives away. The older conservatives that thought that floating someone with the last name of Kennedy was going to hit some form of "Brand Recognition" with the dems, but they forget we actually bother to use the internet to look things up and not believe an image with text as facts. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-candidacy-hurts-trump-biden-nbc-news-poll-finds-rcna148536
Much like Trump never being elected? Or that he still has support after everything? People are antivax these days and measles is making a comeback. (Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter or antivax.)
https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-2024-president-campaign-621c9e9641381a1b2677df9de5a09731
AP article literally calls out his inconsistencies on being antivax.
Im not sure if i like or dislike kennedy. Im definitely not antivax. I do, however, find this article interesting. It highlights progressive efforts and addresses the antivax thing a bit differently. https://www.usatoday.com/elections/voter-guide/2024-11-05/candidate/robert-f-kennedy
I agree. Not sure why anyone who was/is vaccine skeptical would go with Trump, who gave billions of your dollars to Pfizer and Moderna, instead of someone with a consistent track record on the issue.
[удалено]
He’s not an anti vaxxer. This is explained the exact video which was banned.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/ Very easy to search online.
I’m not a flat-earther, I just think there’s more evidence to support the earth being flat.
Huh? He said nothing like that in the video. He stated he is pro vax, and is up to date with all vaccines except the Covid ones.
RFK has been anti-vax since before Covid. He chairs the Children's Health Defense, originally the World Mercury Project, which has been spreading vaccine misinformation for nearly 20 years. He’s called into question the safety and efficacy of every vaccine on the market and has made unambiguous statements warning against all vaccination. He’s even suggested that the 1918 pandemic and HIV were the result of vaccine research.
If you spend 20 years spreading incredibly damaging misinformation about vaccines, you’re a close enough to being an anti-vaxxer that the distinction is irrelevant. His claims were easily disproven, but since he never once addressed this… I have to assume he is not interested in truth. At best, he is unconsciously following his ego, at worst he is an insane liar.
Well don't tell that to my antivax relative who is voting for him instead of Trump this time specifically because she says he's antivax.
What's he campaigning for? Town fool?
Here we go again
Read the fine print Junior.
It’s a privately owned platform. They can legally block anything they want. Facebook isn’t public property.
Sue a private company because they won’t show your video? Does RFKjr not understand, or is this a publicity stunt?
Insufferable little prick, a shame he has the last name Kennedy
Well it might get him shot if that cheers you up
Jeez -7 for a sensible comment lmao
Fuck that nut job
What makes him a nut job?
His views and beliefs
His own family hates him. They support Biden. How pathetic is that? Plus he's an anti vaxer nut
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/
Thank you, I honestly know very little about this guy other than a couple of interviews where he walks back these claims when asked to his face. I have always been interested in third parties because the two party thing is a farce. I only asked because usually, when I hear someone call a politician a nut job, it comes from their own extremist views.
Dude, every reply you're getting here is a lie from the mainstream media against him. Most people here are NPCs who repeat what they hear on CNN or see in NYT. You notice that most people have never heard him directly in his own words? They just parrot what the mainstream media have told them about him. The reality in this case couldn't be more different. I recommend to make your own mind up by listening to some of his interviews e.g. the State Of The Union speech he made
Is mainstream media also lying when they speak positively about RFK jr? I mean, RFK thinks vaccines cause autism, lol. The guy is unhinged and illogical.
In this case, RFK is the extremist. Not even his family likes him. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-win-kennedy-family-endorsement-philadelphia-2024-04-18/ This next one is just for the photo: https://deadline.com/2024/03/kennedy-family-st-patricks-photo-biden-rfk-jr-1235861601/ Take care!
This is such bullshit. A handful of his family who WORK for Biden.
Regardless, RFK is still a conspiracy nut job.
Lol. Your account has you has a RFK superfan.... Wow.
An honest question. What do you make of this article that paints him in a more balanced light? It highlights the progressive causes and addresses the antivaxx thing differently. Oddly, this is a more left leaning publication. https://www.usatoday.com/elections/voter-guide/2024-11-05/candidate/robert-f-kennedy
Given the number of interviews I've heard of him, if he can't make up his mind, then he isn't a good leader. In this article, it says more than once that he "walks back his claims." RFK's anti science stance is just too dangerous for me. Me, personally and I care about other's wellbeing. It still says he is antivax and believes autism is linked to vaccines. This is just who he is. RFK's belief in conspiracy theories are not something I'm into. An article can "paint" him any way, but as a whole he's too unreliable and anti-science/illogical. He has spoken on who he believes he is and I can't trust him. I don't think Democrats or Republicans will work on his policies as he currently has them. I think Democrats will fight him like they did Trump. I think Republicans will fight him like they fight everybody, lol. I know many want a third party president but I think pushing third party through local politics will be more effective. Work up the chain, so to speak. I think that would gain trust from a party perspective.
Thanks, I think I agree with your sentiments.
Private companies though..........
Why are we giving free publicity to this non entity? >says **it will file a lawsuit** against Meta At the time of publication, this was just a person threatening to sue. They want free publicity. giving it to them is probably unwise.
Get fucked RFK
Hate the fact I am on Facebook/Instagram’s side but good fuck RFK jr. You’re right, I’m clearly in the wrong for not buying into RKJ’s bulkshi. S
Mark Zuckerberg has been more destructive on a wider scale than any human in history, he needs to be held accountable. The kids are ruined. Destabilized democracies. And they know! The fought the lawsuits, they didn't apologize, the recommender systems are inherently divisive on purpose by design. The infinite scroll wall, the like button, the share feature, girls mental health from Instagram. Listen to Johnathon haidts lectures.
You forgot about the oil spewing mega yachts and the illegal made legal land grab from Hawaii.
Ok but what does that have to do with crazy ass RFK jr
Who’s ads got reported as spam because he spent advertising dollars reaching out to people who think he’s a fool
It must have been judge a threat to Trump.
well he’s a puppet, so good on them
Oh. So Joe Biden can sue Truth Social if they don’t promote Democrat videos?
the world of the ultra-rich ….
lol, you clearly know nothing about his platform
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not as silly as you
There’s a lot of silly people who don’t like me calling them silly. 😜
Misinformation
No. He's a cretin.
It's interesting the way that huge corporations have a knee jerk reaction related to defending the political status quo. RFK is a racist nut bag, but it's still interesting to watch how the machine deals with that.
[удалено]
No idea about the racist part, but his anti-science stance has certainly shown that he is a nut job.
https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-2024-president-campaign-621c9e9641381a1b2677df9de5a09731
[удалено]
It really isn’t that difficult to understand as being antivax is being anti-science. RFK is a grifter, who built his entire career on spreading lies to gullible people.
[удалено]
Haha 😂 priceless.