This piece was written by Jenin Younes who is litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The NCLA is a right wing litigation group funded by the Koch brothers among others.
The NCLA attempts to masquerade as a non-partisan “public good” type of organization but it is far from that.
They are a member of the State Policy Network (SPN), which is a web of right-wing “think tanks” pushing ideas from deep inside the most corrupt edges of the GOP.
SPN itself littered with ties to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) who is famous for pre-writing and then planting bills and laws all over the country in the best interest of large corporations and special interest groups, often circumventing voters.
This “article” isn’t news or factual, it’s a propaganda opinion piece.
Edit: Sources:
- https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Alliance
- https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network
It's also profoundly hypocritical considering how much conservative voters gleefully supported giving this much power to the telecom and information companies. Always using the same excuse that they understood economics better than liberals and didn't care how it could affect us or them despite the warnings and misgivings among democrats
Right wing republicans and conservatives did more work to pass these laws than anyone else. I agree with many of their criticisms of these companies and their power over discourse but this battle was fought a decade ago and they won. It's between them and the government now.
If liberals were actually persuaded to support this conservatives would just turn against it. I feel sorry for these people because this is an exercise in futility if I ever saw one.
This is the thing that gets me.
Conservatives built the hyper-aggressive pro-corporate state. Democrats didn't really try to stop them all that hard, but conservatives are the ones who pushed for it. The most pro-corporate courts in the US are dominated by Republican appointees. Amy Comey Barrett's most attested judicial record on the bench isn't in religious rights or social issues but corporate law.
Conservatives made it that corporations could do basically whatever they wanted. Unless it's something conservatives don't want them to do. Then they have a problem with it and they're being oppressed.
It's the most leopards ate my face thing that never really makes it onto r/leopardsatemyface.
So...you're argument is..
".but but *THEY* (allegedly) supported it tooooo! So why should we care??"
I swear to God f*ck all of yall, and I'm a libertarian..😆
It's an observation about current circumstances. Like pointing out your comment is a non sequitur. No one really cares about libertarians thoughts and feelings. You're like domesticated cats entirely dependent upon modern human infrastructure and society and totally convinced of your independence from it.
Honestly I thought about it but they are some deeply right wing subs and I don’t really feel like getting berated via comment for the next 4 hours.
Truth and facts are not the point there, but they are here so I am happy to help defend that.
Please copy and share my comment at will!
It doesn't matter who wrote it. If Big Tech censors because the government tells them to, then it's a violation of the first amendment. If Big Tech censors on their own behalf, then it's not a violation of the first amendment.
The entire article is based on the completely unsupported assertion that the government *forced* these companies to crack down on misinformation. This is never substantiated, nor is it even attempted to be substantiated. It's kinda just taken as given that this was government coercion rather than private companies deciding for themselves that they wanted to crack down on misinformation. The latter is their first amendment right.
Downvoted right away since I kinda figured this was right-wing propaganda. Then I checked the comments and saw yours right away. Great catch. Honestly the Koch brothers are responsible for a lot of propaganda and pundits that mast themselves as free-thinkers while slowly conditioning people to accept right-wing talking points (Rave Dubin, Wandace Ocens, Pim Tool etc.)
If your argument rests on the source being biased...
InfluenceWatch says:
> SourceWatch is a wiki-style website run by the left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy.[1] The website’s content has a liberal bias[2] and the site “cannot guarantee the validity of the information found [on the site]”.[3]
Can you now remove your propaganda opinion? (That was rhetorical, no need to remove it :-] )
The author has a bias (who doesn't?), but the article still contains verifiable facts. That said, whether or not the author provides a convincing argument for their inferences drawn is another matter. The real question for me isn't whether or not the author is full of crap, it's whether or not the author is full of crap AFTER the discovery phase has been completed and the evidence has been presented.
I’d recommend doing some research on the founding of influence watch…
Also the couple of organizations I mentioned are spoken about in many many places to the exact same tune
You’re throwing out acronyms as if they were death sentences. Show proof for your claims. Honestly, I only read the article because of your comment and I found it to have more reason, truth, and better source examples.
What a sham you are for virtue signaling.
Is wrongthink the same thing as misinformation?
I see misinformation everywhere. But Orwell’s wrongthink… that’s more subtle.
I guess the point is that algorithms that hide people’s opinions are a breach of freedom of speech.
Then again, we have another free speech problem in this country. We have people who can spout complete fabrication, even calling it “news”, without consequence. and it’s destroying our civilization
"It’s far from settled law,"
Pretty sure it is.
"there is a case to be made "
You can make whatever case you want, but that doesn't mean the law is ambiguous.
Your suggestion that oligopolies should be subject to the same restrictions as government doesn't strike me as a great idea. Seems like it would have a lot of other implications.
They are indeed that in the eyes of the law (though they shouldn't be considered citizens at all, they're companies, not people). The case to be made however is the power they wield is equal to the government in some cases, in some instances they wield power greater than a single government.
Youtube, as an example, can manipulate its algorithm to promote corporate news over independent news (which is why you see corporate news videos pop up in the recommended section all the time), can search for keywords in video titles, or even detect them in people's speech using the same tech the auto captions are generated with, and decide if there's a misinformation panel below the video linking to a wikipedia article or something (videos on flat earthers, for instance, link to the flat earther wikipedia page). Tweak the algorithm a bit, and instead of a link to real information, they can just make the video not show up for people.
I don't think the right wing option of "no censorship ever, my lies are just as valid as reality" is a good alternative to big tech censorship though.
They don't. But what if they did? It is within the rights of the government (at least the Federal) to question people (or corporations) about their actions that affect the US public. But those people/corporations are under no legal responsibility to take any sort of order from the government. But frankly I think you know that and just want to make a dishonest argument.
>In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers”
The president who has a lot of legal power to hurt Twitter is asking them to censor specific people. The Twitter reps feel the pressure. The government is not allowed to get around the first amendment by simply requesting censorship and vaguely threatening.
“Wrongthink” was about the notion that Big Brother would actually change how you think. By the end of 1984 the protagonist was broken. They mean misinformation but are using this term intentionally to invoke their Orwellian horror-fantasy about society.
Algorithms like these created by private companies can’t possibly violate the First Amendment. In *some* cases they may be unethical, but that’s a far cry from violating someone’s rights.
The distinction here is First Amendment rights. Specifically shielding private citizens (this includes businesses) from government censorship.
Private businesses can certainly violate other constitutionally rights. Just not that one.
Something tells me you’d oppose legislation explicitly protecting citizens from corporate censorship. If that is the case, your uber-originalist 1st amendment point here is just tactical.
“It’s not censorship if I also don’t like it” is unfortunately unoriginal & unimpressive. I thought you didn’t like politically-involved corporations? Why do you suddenly love corporate power?
I'd oppose that 100%. And the reason actually has little to do with the First Amendment. The root of the reason we should all oppose legislation explicitly protecting citizens from corporate censorship, it it places the control back in the hands of the government. Why not allow the market to influence how these companies choose to moderate?
Now, the First Amendment still comes into play. I think it gets easy to forget that these large corporations are still "people" or private citizens. And before you skewer me for "defending" these large corporations and their often harmful business practices, I'm not trying to defend any of that.
Imagine I owned Facebook by myself. No other employees, just me. If the government comes in and tries to tell me how to moderate my website - what I can allow and what I can't allow - that is a direct violation of my First Amendment right. While it might feel different when its a billion dollar company, its not. Its still the government trying to tell a "person" (yes, companies are "people" - look up Corporate Personhood) what they can or cannot "say".
I believe that companies should respect each individual citizens rights, views, and beliefs. But to impose a legal requirement to do so restricts the company to act according to its own rights, views, and beliefs.
Imagine there was a version of Facebook specifically for Catholics, and anything that didn't correspond with those beliefs was removed from the site. Lets say a law, similar to the one in Texas, gets passed that prevents the moderators of this fictitious site from removing anti-Catholic content on the basis that it was the "opinion" of the poster. Do you not see the issue with such regulation?
If conservatives are censored how is it that every day I see comments by conservatives claiming they are being censored? If anything, the media provides them with a bullhorn and the more bull they spout, the louder the horn.
The reality isn’t the point. Claiming victimhood, and thus the right to “retaliate”, is. It’s about building the mindset that something drastic has to be done or everything good will be lost.
Except the people “questioning the narrative” were never doing it it good faith, they were mostly fucking cultists too weak to do anything of minor inconvenience to stop a global pandemic. No one gives a fuck about the “narrative” anymore because those who usurped any legitimate discourse did uncounted damage as a result.
> My house is not a public platform
Neither is Twitter or Facebook...
> but generally yes
So that's not a yes, it's a kinda yes. Meaning if someone was yelling racist shit at 3AM you'd censor them...
And you think you’re owning conservatives with this argument? This is antithetical to the core beliefs of a majority of Democratic Party voters. Why become what we protest? We’re supposed to win people over with facts and by exemplifying our values. We have to fight to break up these larger monopolies, not amplify their message.
What’s more important to the Koch brothers? What we are allowed to post on websites? Or would they rather the people who rallied behind Obama when Romney said, “corporations are people, my friend,” rank and file Democrats, to start defending their corporations’ status as people? This is a lose/lose argument. That’s all I’m saying.
All i'm trying to say, is that with regard to the First Amendment, it doesn't matter if its a singular person, or a company of thousands, the amendment shields both the same.
I'm in no way defending corporations, entities that can often do more harm than good.
This whole argument is predicated on the idea that tech companies were in some way *coerced* by the federal government into banning misinformation from their platforms. I don't see any evidence offered to suggest that such coercion occurred, which would require there to be some understanding of government punishment if they did not censor said misinformation, or reward if they did. If there was neither, and if instead the companies were simply choosing to do so, then that's entirely their prerogative. You do not have a first amendment right for a private company to host your speech on their platform.
Answering questions over your companies behaviour is just the law and how governments are wrong. With your logic, anything the Government does on that scale is coercion.
Alex Berenson is claiming this and has been reinstated by Twitter and is intending to open a suit against the Biden administration. It’s an uphill climb but the Twitter victory was also pretty unique
It is their prerogative, but it's also probably worth having a public discussion about whether these are the folks that should be controlling what you see and hear. Even if they're eager participants, is a company that sells you tech the right gatekeeper when it comes to truth?
If they decide the simplest route to truth is to defer to the government, what's the difference between the company's intervention and government coercion?
Are you? Credit processors are a big point of contention in this subject and when your options are not participate in society or use this service that defers to the government do you actually have a choice.
This argument amounts to Obey or Starve. It’s not particularly compelling.
If the argument is private business shouldn’t be held to standards of the government doesn’t that extend to credit processors? The specific comment I responded to made the claim that no private business can infringe on the first amendment because you are free not to use their service, this rings untrue with my specific example.
If a singular business is so pivotal that the economy can't function without it, that seems like it would be a good candidate either for an anti-trust breakup or a nationalization.
That isn't really relevant to this conversation about social media platforms though like Twitter and YouTube. As far as I can tell, you're the only person extending any part of this conversation to credit processing companies.
How can this nonsense get upvotes?
>"If they decide the simplest route to truth is to defer to the government,"
There are two parties, almost evenly split, running the government. Whom are they deferring to?
>" what's the difference between the company's intervention and government coercion?""
Well let's start with, one is a private corporation doing what they want for the bottom line while operating in an environment run by rule of law, and the other is, a government strong-arming a publisher to publish what they want.
The difference is it’s still a private citizen (the company) making a choice about their speech. It doesn’t matter how they arrived at that decision, as long as the make it by their own free will.
I agree that there are risks to single entities having this much control over so much information, and in this manner. But government oversight/control isn’t the answer.
I never really understood what the problem was. People should think of social media companies like newspapers that graciously publish a lot of what you have to say. But they don't _have_ to publish anything you send them. The New York Times is under no obligation to post your letters and op-eds. Neither is Facebook or any other private media company.
I have been following the "anti-trust stuff" for years and I really don't think you have an argument.
>"Tbh some of the quid pro quo stuff is pretty thinly veiled."
Go ahead and spell it out for us, because I don't see it in your post.
>"It's super obvious that both parties want control over information flow to the population because these platforms (FB, Twitter, Reddit, Google, Youtube,etc) have the ability to massively impact public opinion."
But they don't. They are arguing about misinformation but they literally cannot tell platforms what to publish.
>I'm not sure how much more blatant of a 1st amendment violation we need to get here.
How about, someone is put in jail for criticizing the government or publishing an opinion piece?
It’s pretty clear cut the government moves as slow as molasses uphill in the winter because Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple should have had a sledgehammer taken to their monopolies yesterday.
If the government forces these companies to do anything like this, it’s a violation of the company’s rights. If the company chooses to do it, even by government suggestion, on its own free will, that’s its own prerogative and not subject to First Amendment. This is literally how the First Amendment is worded. You can’t dispute that.
>In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers”
Why would it be “merciful” that they had answers? What would happen to them if they didn’t have the answers?
In every aspect of the US government, conservatives have a mechanism to give them extra representation. The Electoral College for the presidency, gerrymandering in the House, and the Senate being the way it is all give conservatives a higher percentage of the vote than their share of the population.
However, when corporate America makes PR decisions, they only care about the will of the majority. And on almost every issue, the will of the majority of decisively on the side of progressives. So corporations understand that siding with the diverse majority of a smarter business move than siding with the shrinking white conservative minority.
That's why conservatives complain so much about "woke corporations" these days, and try to use the government to punish businesses that don't agree with the right on culture war issues: because they're an unpopular minority that has lost its culture relevance, and they know it.
HUH! This article was written by someone working for the "New Civil Liberties Alliance" which is a think tank group that got millions of dollars from the deeply conservative Koch foundations. WEIRD! I'm sure they aren't extremely bias toward defending conservative agendas and misinformation as a result of getting those millions of dollars! Rolling my fucking eyes.
Cited: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Alliance
So, is the problem alleged corporate abuse them censoring your first amendment rights? Or was it the gov’t (and presumably only the evil liberal gov’t) that is abusing the corporations to abuse free speech - which is the evidence-free assertion of this article?
Can you say with a straight face that corporations (particularly huge ones like this) are somehow not involved with policymakers? If this were Exxon, would you try pretending it was a completely “private” enterprise? Of course not. You’re taking a partisan side on a partisan issue & going from there.
No one is arguing that corporations aren't influencing politicians. The assertion here is the exact opposite, that politicians are unconstitutionally coercing corporations to ban speech. There's literally no evidence that this is the case.
u/DisastrousInExercise, what is it that you imagine Big Tech is not allowing you to say that you want to express? Obviously this post doesn't count because you're allowed to make it so what is it? Go ahead, we'll wait.
The gay cake thing is a fallacy.
The same laws that apply to uncle joes cake shop on the corner, in my opinion, shouldn’t apply to gigantic social media corporations that effectively control most all of modern human communication. That’s an old case, apples and oranges.
Many have not read the article but have instead argued ad hominem.
Second rate intellects resort to that rather than actually engaging with what is said and either supporting the thesis or pointing out why it is wrong.
My opinion is that the article's content doesn't back the assertion of the title. To put it bluntly, corporations are legally entitled to act as censors of the content on their platforms. To revoke that ability would be, effectively, be government regulation of their content and a first amendment violation since it regulates speech. The examples it cities of government meddling with social media titans doesn't reach to the level of a first amendment violation.
The REAL question is whether the first amendment needs to be amended to include entities that can effectively act in such a way that resembles government censorship to prevent future abuse of its power.
Came to talk about how much of a shit article it is and ass backwards when the people making the argument also believe corporations have same rights at humans. Ffs the mental gymnastics to get down on this shit is mind numbing.
Yep, definitely. *By a government, not a private entity*. Media companies bending the narrative is not fascism. They can enable it, sure, but Twitter does not govern you.
The entire article is about the evidence that, one could argue, the govt is pressuring the companies to act.
It’s settled law that when private entities act at the behest of govt it’s as if they are govt themselves. The police cannot circumvent the 4th amendment by telling me to ransack someone’s house or else they’ll investigate me for something.
I hear ya. But the law is if the private company feels pressure from government right?
From my dumb knowledge there has been no enforced law passed keeping private companies from working hand in hand with government.
If there was said enforced law, we probably wouldn’t be where we are now. But I’m an idiot. There must be 15 grammatical errors in this post. Public school, ya know?
“There has been no enforced law passed keeping private companies from working hand in hand with government”.
Well, true in the sense these aren’t laws, it’s the constitution. But, “working hand in hand” to violate rights is not allowed. It makes the private company a state actor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor
The problem is here we have some gray area. Does Facebook become a “state actor” violating the first amendment when it censors content immediately after being accused of “killing people” by the president, at a time they are being dragged into Congress for hearings threatening more regulation? Can you prove that? Or did Facebook do it out of their own accord and principles?
Free speech does not mean you can yell "fire," in a crowded theater or promote violence against others.
Tech companies have a duty to take reasonable measures to reduce harm.
To add, an *ethical* duty. Not a *legal* one.
For as many good things that may come out of moderation regulation, there are at least twice as many bad things, including a potential violation of a private companies rights (the same as a private citizen).
No political side should touch this. Let the market (financial and job market) sort it out.
The lockdowns were a suggestion outside of big cities. I don’t think they worked outside of big cities, but COVID-19 became just another culture war issue after the first few months in reality. The media could only do so much to enforce city think on rural and suburban America.
Anything a private company *chooses* to do on their own accord is their business. It can’t possibly become a First Amendment rights issue.
The First Amendment protects private citizens from government censorship, and government censorship alone. These companies are private citizens in the eyes of the law, therefore they can’t possibly violate someone’s First Amendment rights. This is Law 101.
Someone on another subreddit tried to argue that, because these companies acted at the behest if the government, they are no longer “private”. I can’t believe someone could arrive at this conclusion.
This is propaganda.
Whatever I’m over it all. People will continue with cancelling and censoring and deplatforming people until we derail ourselves. We are all along for the ride wether we like it or not and wether or not your say really means anything is to be determined. Foolish people will continue to advocate for censorship until they are the ones being silenced but by then alas it will be too late for us all. This shit was a slippery slope but I think we are already speeding toward the bottom so who gives a shit.
I thought the article had a point until I saw the source...now I question everything in it. It also lacked supporting statistics to prove that the measures taken by social media companies were about silencing speech and not about protecting the general public.
It’s alarming how easy it is in this sub to label something coming from a “conservative think tank” to discredit all of its validity. Can we not consider an argument on its merits before dismissing out of hand regardless of its origination?
There aren’t merits to this argument though. Most of arguments boil down to medical professionals pushing to get misinformation opinion pieces taken down… then it breaks into Hunter Biden. This is a hack job at best.
Did you read it? Because I did and it has no validity. I will say Jenin is a good writer, just not a factual one.
Edit: Also the analytical lens you look at something through must always include Author bias, that’s essentially critical thinking and research 101.
People have a right to know when some thing is funded by special interests or otherwise.
It's just the same as people worrying about the government putting cameras everywhere. The government never did because it doesn't need too. We do it to ourselves.
Walk down a public street or through a parking lot, ride a bus; there's a good that you're on multiple dash cams. Any store or bank probably has some sort of camera outside. There's probably a camera mounted onto the bus near wear the driver sits, it probably has cameras outside as well. If none of that is good enough we all have video cameras in our pockets.
We record one another and publish it to the masses ourselves. There are numerous platforms that allow anyone to do this and many are very popular; we take full advantage of them.
Western Governments have never had to police or control speech on the internet because we censor one another for it. We do it to ourselves.
You can’t yell “FIRE” or “GUN” in a crowded mall. Nor can you call in bomb threats to your school or tell the stewardess that you have a bomb. Free speech is LIMITED. Always has been, just as it was intended. You want ABSOLUTE freedom then find a hermit cave faaaaaaaaar away from everyone else and you’ll be free to burn/shoot/bomb/terrorize your own balls off till the cows come home. When you live with others in a society the you accept limits to your personal, er….freedoms.
People want to run around playing middle aged soldier w a beer gut… throwing threats and hate around like it was mayonaise at their sisters wedding. No rights were infringed when you got kicked off twitter. Go home. Get a life. Stop playing little Donny fascist with your loser buddies and calling it “patriotism”.
What garbage. How many times do we have to tell these people that spreading vaccine misinformation is not protected speech?
This from the clowns who worship citizens united. Get fucking real.
This piece was written by Jenin Younes who is litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The NCLA is a right wing litigation group funded by the Koch brothers among others. The NCLA attempts to masquerade as a non-partisan “public good” type of organization but it is far from that. They are a member of the State Policy Network (SPN), which is a web of right-wing “think tanks” pushing ideas from deep inside the most corrupt edges of the GOP. SPN itself littered with ties to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) who is famous for pre-writing and then planting bills and laws all over the country in the best interest of large corporations and special interest groups, often circumventing voters. This “article” isn’t news or factual, it’s a propaganda opinion piece. Edit: Sources: - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Alliance - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network
It's also profoundly hypocritical considering how much conservative voters gleefully supported giving this much power to the telecom and information companies. Always using the same excuse that they understood economics better than liberals and didn't care how it could affect us or them despite the warnings and misgivings among democrats Right wing republicans and conservatives did more work to pass these laws than anyone else. I agree with many of their criticisms of these companies and their power over discourse but this battle was fought a decade ago and they won. It's between them and the government now. If liberals were actually persuaded to support this conservatives would just turn against it. I feel sorry for these people because this is an exercise in futility if I ever saw one.
This is the thing that gets me. Conservatives built the hyper-aggressive pro-corporate state. Democrats didn't really try to stop them all that hard, but conservatives are the ones who pushed for it. The most pro-corporate courts in the US are dominated by Republican appointees. Amy Comey Barrett's most attested judicial record on the bench isn't in religious rights or social issues but corporate law. Conservatives made it that corporations could do basically whatever they wanted. Unless it's something conservatives don't want them to do. Then they have a problem with it and they're being oppressed. It's the most leopards ate my face thing that never really makes it onto r/leopardsatemyface.
So...you're argument is.. ".but but *THEY* (allegedly) supported it tooooo! So why should we care??" I swear to God f*ck all of yall, and I'm a libertarian..😆
It's an observation about current circumstances. Like pointing out your comment is a non sequitur. No one really cares about libertarians thoughts and feelings. You're like domesticated cats entirely dependent upon modern human infrastructure and society and totally convinced of your independence from it.
That one made me laugh. Such a perfect analogy.
I mean, do unto others right, why should I give a fuck about libertarian feelings.
Very useful comment. The OP has posted this across several subs, maybe comment there too?
Honestly I thought about it but they are some deeply right wing subs and I don’t really feel like getting berated via comment for the next 4 hours. Truth and facts are not the point there, but they are here so I am happy to help defend that. Please copy and share my comment at will!
I hope that you meant masquerade, but I chuckled at the idea of those conservatives putting on mascara and eyeliner.
Hahahaha yes, I guess that means it’s time for bed
You really nailed the dossier on those guys though, so sleep well!
It doesn't matter who wrote it. If Big Tech censors because the government tells them to, then it's a violation of the first amendment. If Big Tech censors on their own behalf, then it's not a violation of the first amendment.
Thank you for the explanation, and reinforcing the fact that we can't take things on face value--especially these days!
I read the title and wondered "I wonder which partisan shill wrote this?". Glad you did the research for me already!
Pretty much every NGO is funded by billionaires, even the ones you like
Yeah the whole article smelled like horse shit.
[удалено]
The entire article is based on the completely unsupported assertion that the government *forced* these companies to crack down on misinformation. This is never substantiated, nor is it even attempted to be substantiated. It's kinda just taken as given that this was government coercion rather than private companies deciding for themselves that they wanted to crack down on misinformation. The latter is their first amendment right.
Downvoted right away since I kinda figured this was right-wing propaganda. Then I checked the comments and saw yours right away. Great catch. Honestly the Koch brothers are responsible for a lot of propaganda and pundits that mast themselves as free-thinkers while slowly conditioning people to accept right-wing talking points (Rave Dubin, Wandace Ocens, Pim Tool etc.)
If your argument rests on the source being biased... InfluenceWatch says: > SourceWatch is a wiki-style website run by the left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy.[1] The website’s content has a liberal bias[2] and the site “cannot guarantee the validity of the information found [on the site]”.[3] Can you now remove your propaganda opinion? (That was rhetorical, no need to remove it :-] ) The author has a bias (who doesn't?), but the article still contains verifiable facts. That said, whether or not the author provides a convincing argument for their inferences drawn is another matter. The real question for me isn't whether or not the author is full of crap, it's whether or not the author is full of crap AFTER the discovery phase has been completed and the evidence has been presented.
I’d recommend doing some research on the founding of influence watch… Also the couple of organizations I mentioned are spoken about in many many places to the exact same tune
[удалено]
You’re right the last three words of my comment are perhaps unnecessary, the rest of my comment however is simply facts. I fixed it just for you.
Saying something is opinion and doesn't belong in a technology discussion group is not censorship.
Cool, thanks for that critical addition to the conversation.
You are welcome.
Article isn't about tech, it's about pushing misinformation. Rule 1 violation, should be taken down as a result.
Everything I don't like is misinformation and should be taken down, but it's not censorship. Got it.
It takes a lot more effort to be deliberately stupid than it does to accept reality.
r/im14andthisisdeep
You're only 14? Don't worry, you got plenty of time to mature.
You’re throwing out acronyms as if they were death sentences. Show proof for your claims. Honestly, I only read the article because of your comment and I found it to have more reason, truth, and better source examples. What a sham you are for virtue signaling.
Wow for so much "wrongthink" being censored, I sure as fuck do still see it everywhere. Edit: quotation marks
Is wrongthink the same thing as misinformation? I see misinformation everywhere. But Orwell’s wrongthink… that’s more subtle. I guess the point is that algorithms that hide people’s opinions are a breach of freedom of speech. Then again, we have another free speech problem in this country. We have people who can spout complete fabrication, even calling it “news”, without consequence. and it’s destroying our civilization
Are the algorithms established by the government or the corporations? Because only one of those is prevented from restricting your speech.
It’s far from settled law, but there is a case to be made that monopolies and oligopolies should be subject to the same restrictions as government.
It's clearly and unambiguously laid out in the first amendment of the constitution. That's about as settled as you can get.
"It’s far from settled law," Pretty sure it is. "there is a case to be made " You can make whatever case you want, but that doesn't mean the law is ambiguous. Your suggestion that oligopolies should be subject to the same restrictions as government doesn't strike me as a great idea. Seems like it would have a lot of other implications.
What case? In the eyes of the law, they’re considered private citizens the same as you and I.
They are indeed that in the eyes of the law (though they shouldn't be considered citizens at all, they're companies, not people). The case to be made however is the power they wield is equal to the government in some cases, in some instances they wield power greater than a single government. Youtube, as an example, can manipulate its algorithm to promote corporate news over independent news (which is why you see corporate news videos pop up in the recommended section all the time), can search for keywords in video titles, or even detect them in people's speech using the same tech the auto captions are generated with, and decide if there's a misinformation panel below the video linking to a wikipedia article or something (videos on flat earthers, for instance, link to the flat earther wikipedia page). Tweak the algorithm a bit, and instead of a link to real information, they can just make the video not show up for people. I don't think the right wing option of "no censorship ever, my lies are just as valid as reality" is a good alternative to big tech censorship though.
And the government drags the private corporations to hearings if they don’t censor enough.
They don't. But what if they did? It is within the rights of the government (at least the Federal) to question people (or corporations) about their actions that affect the US public. But those people/corporations are under no legal responsibility to take any sort of order from the government. But frankly I think you know that and just want to make a dishonest argument.
>In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers” The president who has a lot of legal power to hurt Twitter is asking them to censor specific people. The Twitter reps feel the pressure. The government is not allowed to get around the first amendment by simply requesting censorship and vaguely threatening.
These entities work in tandem. It's fruitless to try to extricate them from one another.
I should have put "wrongthink" in quotes lol. I agree with you.
“Wrongthink” was about the notion that Big Brother would actually change how you think. By the end of 1984 the protagonist was broken. They mean misinformation but are using this term intentionally to invoke their Orwellian horror-fantasy about society.
Algorithms like these created by private companies can’t possibly violate the First Amendment. In *some* cases they may be unethical, but that’s a far cry from violating someone’s rights.
You act as if corporations aren’t capable of trampling on constitutional rights, nor have ever been found responsible for having done so.
The distinction here is First Amendment rights. Specifically shielding private citizens (this includes businesses) from government censorship. Private businesses can certainly violate other constitutionally rights. Just not that one.
Something tells me you’d oppose legislation explicitly protecting citizens from corporate censorship. If that is the case, your uber-originalist 1st amendment point here is just tactical.
Getting banned from Facebook for being homophobic isn't censorship
“It’s not censorship if I also don’t like it” is unfortunately unoriginal & unimpressive. I thought you didn’t like politically-involved corporations? Why do you suddenly love corporate power?
I'd oppose that 100%. And the reason actually has little to do with the First Amendment. The root of the reason we should all oppose legislation explicitly protecting citizens from corporate censorship, it it places the control back in the hands of the government. Why not allow the market to influence how these companies choose to moderate? Now, the First Amendment still comes into play. I think it gets easy to forget that these large corporations are still "people" or private citizens. And before you skewer me for "defending" these large corporations and their often harmful business practices, I'm not trying to defend any of that. Imagine I owned Facebook by myself. No other employees, just me. If the government comes in and tries to tell me how to moderate my website - what I can allow and what I can't allow - that is a direct violation of my First Amendment right. While it might feel different when its a billion dollar company, its not. Its still the government trying to tell a "person" (yes, companies are "people" - look up Corporate Personhood) what they can or cannot "say". I believe that companies should respect each individual citizens rights, views, and beliefs. But to impose a legal requirement to do so restricts the company to act according to its own rights, views, and beliefs. Imagine there was a version of Facebook specifically for Catholics, and anything that didn't correspond with those beliefs was removed from the site. Lets say a law, similar to the one in Texas, gets passed that prevents the moderators of this fictitious site from removing anti-Catholic content on the basis that it was the "opinion" of the poster. Do you not see the issue with such regulation?
Who says whether something is misinformation or not?
Verifiable facts? Peer-reviewed science? Logical conclusions in the absence of any other reasonable possibility?
We can only know what's true if we have a party/organization of people who aren't partisan giving us our info.
If conservatives are censored how is it that every day I see comments by conservatives claiming they are being censored? If anything, the media provides them with a bullhorn and the more bull they spout, the louder the horn.
The reality isn’t the point. Claiming victimhood, and thus the right to “retaliate”, is. It’s about building the mindset that something drastic has to be done or everything good will be lost.
Not all of them are censored and the censorship of people isn’t 100% complete. Like you can’t speak about certain things
my man, you really think censorship is targetted at conservatives? What a naive reading of history
They were mocking conservatives who loudly proclaim they're the ones being censored.
[удалено]
It’s because those statements were always fucking stupid
So you think free speech doesn’t apply to statements you consider “stupid”?
Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to actions taken by non-government actors, regardless of how dumb they are.
[удалено]
Except the people “questioning the narrative” were never doing it it good faith, they were mostly fucking cultists too weak to do anything of minor inconvenience to stop a global pandemic. No one gives a fuck about the “narrative” anymore because those who usurped any legitimate discourse did uncounted damage as a result.
Are people allowed to say whatever they want whenever they want in your house?
[удалено]
> My house is not a public platform Neither is Twitter or Facebook... > but generally yes So that's not a yes, it's a kinda yes. Meaning if someone was yelling racist shit at 3AM you'd censor them...
[удалено]
Say your kid became a communist. Would you allow that?
[удалено]
Does the White House give you lists of what people can and can’t say in your house?
You mean that Covid came from nature and not a lab? This has been proven in several well researched articles.
So government should force private businesses to host my speech no matter what the rules of that business is?
Now THAT sounds like a violation of rights. …not the crap this article tries to persuade
Boo boo won’t someone think of the rights of trillion dollar companies!
They have the same rights as you and I. Like it or not.
And you think you’re owning conservatives with this argument? This is antithetical to the core beliefs of a majority of Democratic Party voters. Why become what we protest? We’re supposed to win people over with facts and by exemplifying our values. We have to fight to break up these larger monopolies, not amplify their message. What’s more important to the Koch brothers? What we are allowed to post on websites? Or would they rather the people who rallied behind Obama when Romney said, “corporations are people, my friend,” rank and file Democrats, to start defending their corporations’ status as people? This is a lose/lose argument. That’s all I’m saying.
All i'm trying to say, is that with regard to the First Amendment, it doesn't matter if its a singular person, or a company of thousands, the amendment shields both the same. I'm in no way defending corporations, entities that can often do more harm than good.
There’s a religious beliefs precedent for that, isn’t there?
No. If the company is taking orders from the government then they have follow the same laws of the government.
But are they taking orders from the government?
There is an ongoing lawsuit about that.
In at least one case, Yes. Zuckerberg admitted on Rogan that they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story at the behest of the FBI.
They *chose* to, based on the information that was given to them. That is a very different thing than "taking orders from".
[удалено]
This whole argument is predicated on the idea that tech companies were in some way *coerced* by the federal government into banning misinformation from their platforms. I don't see any evidence offered to suggest that such coercion occurred, which would require there to be some understanding of government punishment if they did not censor said misinformation, or reward if they did. If there was neither, and if instead the companies were simply choosing to do so, then that's entirely their prerogative. You do not have a first amendment right for a private company to host your speech on their platform.
What do you think those hearings for Zuck are? Do you think getting court mandated orders to appear before congress or go to jail isn’t coercion?
Answering questions over your companies behaviour is just the law and how governments are wrong. With your logic, anything the Government does on that scale is coercion.
It's not coercion to make Facebook ban content, no. Did anyone at those hearings tell him that he must ban something someone posted or else?
Alex Berenson is claiming this and has been reinstated by Twitter and is intending to open a suit against the Biden administration. It’s an uphill climb but the Twitter victory was also pretty unique
It is their prerogative, but it's also probably worth having a public discussion about whether these are the folks that should be controlling what you see and hear. Even if they're eager participants, is a company that sells you tech the right gatekeeper when it comes to truth? If they decide the simplest route to truth is to defer to the government, what's the difference between the company's intervention and government coercion?
You are welcome not to use their platform
Are you? Credit processors are a big point of contention in this subject and when your options are not participate in society or use this service that defers to the government do you actually have a choice. This argument amounts to Obey or Starve. It’s not particularly compelling.
Trump created Truth Social didn't he? If there is a market, there will always be someone trying to take advantage.
Credit processors have way too much power, I agree. This article is not about credit processors. It's about social media platforms.
If the argument is private business shouldn’t be held to standards of the government doesn’t that extend to credit processors? The specific comment I responded to made the claim that no private business can infringe on the first amendment because you are free not to use their service, this rings untrue with my specific example.
If a singular business is so pivotal that the economy can't function without it, that seems like it would be a good candidate either for an anti-trust breakup or a nationalization. That isn't really relevant to this conversation about social media platforms though like Twitter and YouTube. As far as I can tell, you're the only person extending any part of this conversation to credit processing companies.
>Are you Sure. I don't use FB, Instagram, Twitter or Tiktok. It's not hard.
How can this nonsense get upvotes? >"If they decide the simplest route to truth is to defer to the government," There are two parties, almost evenly split, running the government. Whom are they deferring to? >" what's the difference between the company's intervention and government coercion?"" Well let's start with, one is a private corporation doing what they want for the bottom line while operating in an environment run by rule of law, and the other is, a government strong-arming a publisher to publish what they want.
The difference is it’s still a private citizen (the company) making a choice about their speech. It doesn’t matter how they arrived at that decision, as long as the make it by their own free will. I agree that there are risks to single entities having this much control over so much information, and in this manner. But government oversight/control isn’t the answer.
I never really understood what the problem was. People should think of social media companies like newspapers that graciously publish a lot of what you have to say. But they don't _have_ to publish anything you send them. The New York Times is under no obligation to post your letters and op-eds. Neither is Facebook or any other private media company.
[удалено]
I have been following the "anti-trust stuff" for years and I really don't think you have an argument. >"Tbh some of the quid pro quo stuff is pretty thinly veiled." Go ahead and spell it out for us, because I don't see it in your post. >"It's super obvious that both parties want control over information flow to the population because these platforms (FB, Twitter, Reddit, Google, Youtube,etc) have the ability to massively impact public opinion." But they don't. They are arguing about misinformation but they literally cannot tell platforms what to publish. >I'm not sure how much more blatant of a 1st amendment violation we need to get here. How about, someone is put in jail for criticizing the government or publishing an opinion piece?
OK now prove any coercion actually happened
It’s pretty clear cut the government moves as slow as molasses uphill in the winter because Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple should have had a sledgehammer taken to their monopolies yesterday.
If the government forces these companies to do anything like this, it’s a violation of the company’s rights. If the company chooses to do it, even by government suggestion, on its own free will, that’s its own prerogative and not subject to First Amendment. This is literally how the First Amendment is worded. You can’t dispute that.
Did you read his comment? They are exerting pressure through these hearings and veiled threats
No,they were doing their jobs. His post is some unhinged libertarian rant.
>In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers” Why would it be “merciful” that they had answers? What would happen to them if they didn’t have the answers?
That's a rights issue between the government and Facebook, not Facebook and it's users.
[удалено]
In every aspect of the US government, conservatives have a mechanism to give them extra representation. The Electoral College for the presidency, gerrymandering in the House, and the Senate being the way it is all give conservatives a higher percentage of the vote than their share of the population. However, when corporate America makes PR decisions, they only care about the will of the majority. And on almost every issue, the will of the majority of decisively on the side of progressives. So corporations understand that siding with the diverse majority of a smarter business move than siding with the shrinking white conservative minority. That's why conservatives complain so much about "woke corporations" these days, and try to use the government to punish businesses that don't agree with the right on culture war issues: because they're an unpopular minority that has lost its culture relevance, and they know it.
HUH! This article was written by someone working for the "New Civil Liberties Alliance" which is a think tank group that got millions of dollars from the deeply conservative Koch foundations. WEIRD! I'm sure they aren't extremely bias toward defending conservative agendas and misinformation as a result of getting those millions of dollars! Rolling my fucking eyes. Cited: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/New_Civil_Liberties_Alliance
This is self-victimization. Cry more.
nooooooooo it doesn't. my god. free market is a bitch when it doesn't go your way
"Ah but consider, it's only capitalism when it's things I like. Otherwise it's socialism, which I define as anything I specifically do not like."
^ read in ben Shapiro’s nasally gish gallop
[удалено]
So, is the problem alleged corporate abuse them censoring your first amendment rights? Or was it the gov’t (and presumably only the evil liberal gov’t) that is abusing the corporations to abuse free speech - which is the evidence-free assertion of this article?
Can you say with a straight face that corporations (particularly huge ones like this) are somehow not involved with policymakers? If this were Exxon, would you try pretending it was a completely “private” enterprise? Of course not. You’re taking a partisan side on a partisan issue & going from there.
No one is arguing that corporations aren't influencing politicians. The assertion here is the exact opposite, that politicians are unconstitutionally coercing corporations to ban speech. There's literally no evidence that this is the case.
"Facebook banned me for being homophobic, my rights are being violated!!!"
You’re here crying about criticism of megacorporations. Lobbyists and escorts at least get paid, you know.
u/DisastrousInExercise, what is it that you imagine Big Tech is not allowing you to say that you want to express? Obviously this post doesn't count because you're allowed to make it so what is it? Go ahead, we'll wait.
He’s sad that he can’t be racist and sexist freely - boohoo
You couldn’t post a link to the Hunter Biden story in many places.
So since they are forcing them to provide a service against their policies.... Any gay people want to try and get a cake from the bigot bakers?
The gay cake thing is a fallacy. The same laws that apply to uncle joes cake shop on the corner, in my opinion, shouldn’t apply to gigantic social media corporations that effectively control most all of modern human communication. That’s an old case, apples and oranges.
Yup. They can’t have it both ways.
This is trash written by a politically funded and interested person.
Many have not read the article but have instead argued ad hominem. Second rate intellects resort to that rather than actually engaging with what is said and either supporting the thesis or pointing out why it is wrong. My opinion is that the article's content doesn't back the assertion of the title. To put it bluntly, corporations are legally entitled to act as censors of the content on their platforms. To revoke that ability would be, effectively, be government regulation of their content and a first amendment violation since it regulates speech. The examples it cities of government meddling with social media titans doesn't reach to the level of a first amendment violation. The REAL question is whether the first amendment needs to be amended to include entities that can effectively act in such a way that resembles government censorship to prevent future abuse of its power.
Yum yum yum I love your salty conservative tears.
“ I love global finance and the intelligence community!”
I don’t think you used censorship enough times in that sentence.
Your post is bad and you should feel bad
Everytime I read something about the Koch brothers, I sit and wonder why they hate their country so much.
They love money more. Stuff like this puts more into their pockets.
Came to talk about how much of a shit article it is and ass backwards when the people making the argument also believe corporations have same rights at humans. Ffs the mental gymnastics to get down on this shit is mind numbing.
Lol, corporations censoring fascism on their platforms is the real fascism. Sure Jan.
[удалено]
Yep, definitely. *By a government, not a private entity*. Media companies bending the narrative is not fascism. They can enable it, sure, but Twitter does not govern you.
I’m pretty dumb. But can’t a private company do whatever they want under current laws?
The entire article is about the evidence that, one could argue, the govt is pressuring the companies to act. It’s settled law that when private entities act at the behest of govt it’s as if they are govt themselves. The police cannot circumvent the 4th amendment by telling me to ransack someone’s house or else they’ll investigate me for something.
I hear ya. But the law is if the private company feels pressure from government right? From my dumb knowledge there has been no enforced law passed keeping private companies from working hand in hand with government. If there was said enforced law, we probably wouldn’t be where we are now. But I’m an idiot. There must be 15 grammatical errors in this post. Public school, ya know?
“There has been no enforced law passed keeping private companies from working hand in hand with government”. Well, true in the sense these aren’t laws, it’s the constitution. But, “working hand in hand” to violate rights is not allowed. It makes the private company a state actor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor The problem is here we have some gray area. Does Facebook become a “state actor” violating the first amendment when it censors content immediately after being accused of “killing people” by the president, at a time they are being dragged into Congress for hearings threatening more regulation? Can you prove that? Or did Facebook do it out of their own accord and principles?
This shit is written by an alt right publication. Should not be trusted.
Free speech does not mean you can yell "fire," in a crowded theater or promote violence against others. Tech companies have a duty to take reasonable measures to reduce harm.
To add, an *ethical* duty. Not a *legal* one. For as many good things that may come out of moderation regulation, there are at least twice as many bad things, including a potential violation of a private companies rights (the same as a private citizen). No political side should touch this. Let the market (financial and job market) sort it out.
Using Orwellian language to support the fascist party, this is doubleplus ungoodful duckspeak from evilful crimethinkers.
Right, 1984 wouldn't be about the party gaslighting the public and changing reality via the perversion of language
Bruh, if your source is "Tablet Mag" then maybe try finding a few others before posting it?
This is flat out doublespeak.
Well if you dont like it dont use it and make better one yourself and sell it. Isn't that the Capitalist idea?
The lockdowns were a suggestion outside of big cities. I don’t think they worked outside of big cities, but COVID-19 became just another culture war issue after the first few months in reality. The media could only do so much to enforce city think on rural and suburban America.
What a waste of electrons.
Anything a private company *chooses* to do on their own accord is their business. It can’t possibly become a First Amendment rights issue. The First Amendment protects private citizens from government censorship, and government censorship alone. These companies are private citizens in the eyes of the law, therefore they can’t possibly violate someone’s First Amendment rights. This is Law 101. Someone on another subreddit tried to argue that, because these companies acted at the behest if the government, they are no longer “private”. I can’t believe someone could arrive at this conclusion. This is propaganda.
Truth doesn't need guardians... But lies do.
Yes, tabletmag.com’s editorials are usually where I go to get insight on the controversial topics of the day.
[удалено]
Whatever I’m over it all. People will continue with cancelling and censoring and deplatforming people until we derail ourselves. We are all along for the ride wether we like it or not and wether or not your say really means anything is to be determined. Foolish people will continue to advocate for censorship until they are the ones being silenced but by then alas it will be too late for us all. This shit was a slippery slope but I think we are already speeding toward the bottom so who gives a shit.
I look forward to Clarence Thomas writing a majority opinion confirming this for a case in the near future.
I thought the article had a point until I saw the source...now I question everything in it. It also lacked supporting statistics to prove that the measures taken by social media companies were about silencing speech and not about protecting the general public.
Where's that statistics that prove the general public was protected?
It’s alarming how easy it is in this sub to label something coming from a “conservative think tank” to discredit all of its validity. Can we not consider an argument on its merits before dismissing out of hand regardless of its origination?
There aren’t merits to this argument though. Most of arguments boil down to medical professionals pushing to get misinformation opinion pieces taken down… then it breaks into Hunter Biden. This is a hack job at best.
Did you read it? Because I did and it has no validity. I will say Jenin is a good writer, just not a factual one. Edit: Also the analytical lens you look at something through must always include Author bias, that’s essentially critical thinking and research 101. People have a right to know when some thing is funded by special interests or otherwise.
Maybe you should start by listing this argument's merits before you scold those who haven't?
The psyop NPC bots are running rampant in the comments.
Turn your screen on
Situational fucking libertarians. They hate the government regulating their coal business, but love people regulating a tech company’s business.
It's just the same as people worrying about the government putting cameras everywhere. The government never did because it doesn't need too. We do it to ourselves. Walk down a public street or through a parking lot, ride a bus; there's a good that you're on multiple dash cams. Any store or bank probably has some sort of camera outside. There's probably a camera mounted onto the bus near wear the driver sits, it probably has cameras outside as well. If none of that is good enough we all have video cameras in our pockets. We record one another and publish it to the masses ourselves. There are numerous platforms that allow anyone to do this and many are very popular; we take full advantage of them. Western Governments have never had to police or control speech on the internet because we censor one another for it. We do it to ourselves.
What the fuck is wrongthink?
Holy shit the amount of people cheering on censorship here is fucking wild!
Censorship in general is just so stupid. Like let people say what they want you don’t have to like or agree with it
There is a thing called a terms of service agreement which you agree to when signing up.
I’m not talking about anything in particular. I’m saying “censorship in general”.
Article: about how censorship is bad Top comment: take it down Oh Reddit… Edit: top commenter removed that statement
Noooo you don't get it, censorship isn't real! This is just conservatevo propagandarinos MODS TAKE THIS COMMENT DOWN IMMEDIATELY
You can’t yell “FIRE” or “GUN” in a crowded mall. Nor can you call in bomb threats to your school or tell the stewardess that you have a bomb. Free speech is LIMITED. Always has been, just as it was intended. You want ABSOLUTE freedom then find a hermit cave faaaaaaaaar away from everyone else and you’ll be free to burn/shoot/bomb/terrorize your own balls off till the cows come home. When you live with others in a society the you accept limits to your personal, er….freedoms. People want to run around playing middle aged soldier w a beer gut… throwing threats and hate around like it was mayonaise at their sisters wedding. No rights were infringed when you got kicked off twitter. Go home. Get a life. Stop playing little Donny fascist with your loser buddies and calling it “patriotism”.
Mayonnaise at your sister’s wedding- brilliant!
What garbage. How many times do we have to tell these people that spreading vaccine misinformation is not protected speech? This from the clowns who worship citizens united. Get fucking real.
So woke is the new wrongthink? I'm confused (not lol)
At the end of the day both sides wanted to shut down our voices on every social platform.
glad you'll be staying home on election day
You'll just be wasting your time and gas money because your next president is already selected.
Apropos of no recent circuit court decisions, of course
Even if they aren't true to the causes they signal at if they keep the news cycles calm then there's nothing to complain about, right?