Zuckerberg going Libertarian?

[Mulberry Heel]

If somebody was holding a sign in Times Square that read: "The 2020 election was stolen by the Democratic Party" would you be okay with the federal government sending FBI agents to ask him to take down his sign?

If that person controlled a social media empire with millions (or hundreds of millions) of followers and users, yes I would be OK with the government telling them to take down an obvious lie. There's a world of difference between one or even a handful of people spreading lies and vast social media networks with millions and millions of followers (and believers) doing the same. And yes this is one of the biggest problems and threats to democracy in our time, imo. And I suspect you know that.

 

[rodoheel]

I don't think the fact that some people decide to get their news from Facebook, YouTube, TikTok etc makes them a news outlet, nor their users journalists.

I agree that there are downsides to social media. That doesn't make them anything more than what they are, which is a platform for personal interactions and expression.

If somebody was holding a sign in Times Square that read: "The 2020 election was stolen by the Democratic Party" would you be okay with the federal government sending FBI agents to ask him to take down his sign?

Again, you are hopelessly attached here to the old metaphor of social media as virtual town square, just a collection of individuals posting their thoughts about things, where others can read them and decide their merits. As I said this sort of perspective is outdates by 15 years (or more). No major social media platform, at this point, is just a collection of people posting their thoughts in the abstract. The owners of these platforms have agendas, whether you agree with them or not. They have moderation. They have algorithms that boost certain content and limit the reach of other content. Their owners are encouraging the users to think of themselves as journalists, whether you think of them as journalists or not. People like LibsofTikTok and Catturd have wider audiences and more influence than many journalists working at real publications. You are insisting on the importance of a distinction that no longer has a difference, and trying to make that distinction in fact empowers spreaders of misinformation because it refuses to hold them accountable to the standards that real publications are held to.

In the end your hypothetical just doesn't bear any resemblance to reality. The government wasn't emailing individual social media users and asking them to take their posts down. It was asking the platforms that own and operate the infrastructure that allows these posts to spread to stop them from spreading. There is no "town square" metaphor that fits the same situation. If anything it was like the government sending out something like a DMCA notice to the social media platforms, except that it was about lies, not copyright infringement, and they were just asking, not trying to compel anyone.

 

[StrangePackage]

What reason do you have to not believe what he said, other than you not wanting to believe it?

Let's just start with the total lack of evidence, which again, is especially glaring given that Meta's entire raison d'être is to collect data.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be, and should be, dismissed without evidence.

 

[ZenMode]

If that person controlled a social media empire with millions (or hundreds of millions) of followers and users, yes I would be OK with the government telling them to take down an obvious lie. There's a world of difference between one or even a handful of people spreading lies and vast social media networks with millions and millions of followers (and believers) doing the same. And yes this is one of the biggest problems and threats to democracy in our time, imo. And I suspect you know that.

By permitting the government to ask Facebook to take down the post of a private citizen, you are okay the government censoring speech and infringing on constitutional rights.

A Facebook meme is essentially the same as a guy holding a sign in Times square, except that the guy holding a sign in Times square will likely get more of views than a large majority of Facebook users.

 

[finesse]

You do realize the government has never asked FB to respond to every single instance of disinformation, right? And that the relatively few posts the government has contacted FB about are almost all associated with accounts that have millions of followers?

Why are the contrarians on this board so terrible with analogies?

Not a lot of standards concerning hypocrisy.

 

[ZenMode]

Again, you are hopelessly attached here to the old metaphor of social media as virtual town square, just a collection of individuals posting their thoughts about things, where others can read them and decide their merits. As I said this sort of perspective is outdates by 15 years (or more). No major social media platform, at this point, is just a collection of people posting their thoughts in the abstract. The owners of these platforms have agendas, whether you agree with them or not. They have moderation. They have algorithms that boost certain content and limit the reach of other content. Their owners are encouraging the users to think of themselves as journalists, whether you think of them as journalists or not. People like LibsofTikTok and Catturd have wider audiences and more influence than many journalists working at real publications. You are insisting on the importance of a distinction that no longer has a difference, and trying to make that distinction in fact empowers spreaders of misinformation because it refuses to hold them accountable to the standards that real publications are held to.

In the end your hypothetical just doesn't bear any resemblance to reality. The government wasn't emailing individual social media users and asking them to take their posts down. It was asking the platforms that own and operate the infrastructure that allows these posts to spread to stop them from spreading. There is no "town square" metaphor that fits the same situation. If anything it was like the government sending out something like a DMCA notice to the social media platforms, except that it was about lies, not copyright infringement, and they were just asking, not trying to compel anyone.

With the exception of certain laws, like those related to slander or defamation, lying is protected speech. Lying on Facebook is protected speech. Lying on Instagram, Twitter and TikTok is protected speech. The algorithms aren't the fault or responsibility of the private citizens exercising their free speech rights.

If Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc want to, on their own accord, work to limit the spread of lies on their platform, I am 100% okay with that. All those platforms can allow or disallow whatever they want. If blue sky wants to not allow a single conservative user, go for it. However, I don't think it's okay, or constitutional, for the federal government, which is arguably the most powerful entity in the world, to ask social media companies to censor protected speech.

 

[rodoheel]

By permitting the government to ask Facebook to take down the post of a private citizen, you are okay the government censoring speech and infringing on constitutional rights.

A Facebook meme is essentially the same as a guy holding a sign in Times square, except that the guy holding a sign in Times square will likely get more of views than a large majority of Facebook users.

First of all, it would only even potentially be an infringement on constitutional rights if the government compelled or coerced the removal of the speech. Asking isn't telling, no matter how much you want to make it true. If there were evidence that the government was doing more than asking- i.e., threatening civil or criminal prosecution of Meta, or some other negative consequence - it would be a different situation.

Second of all, having your speech removed from a social media post (or keeping other people from seeing that post) is not really an infringement on a constitutional right anyway, because you weren't prevented from or punished for speaking, the platform just prevented other people from seeing it.

Third, again, the last sentence just shows your continued willful ignorance about this whole situation. No one was asking Facebook to locate and delete posts that only 2 or 3 people had seen. They weren't telling them to search for every post on a subject and delete it. They were asking them to take down or limit the reach of information that was being widely viewed and spread. You continue trying to analogize this to the government bundling an individual speaker out of the "town square" because they disagree with his speech, and that's simply not what was happening at all. You can't make the analogy work no matter how many times you try.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

By permitting the government to ask Facebook to take down the post of a private citizen, you are okay the government censoring speech and infringing on constitutional rights.

A Facebook meme is essentially the same as a guy holding a sign in Times square, except that the guy holding a sign in Times square will likely get more of views than a large majority of Facebook users.

No, it is not "essentially" the same, and as others have pointed out to you we are not talking about individual posters, but the platform itself, which seems to escape you. And I hate to tell you this, but the FCC regulated television and radio content for decades without freedom of speech or freedom of the press being destroyed. In fact, you can make a powerful argument that the news programs back then were far more truthful and factually-based than they are today.

 

[rodoheel]

With the exception of certain laws, like those related to slander or defamation, lying is protected speech. Lying on Facebook is protected speech. Lying on Instagram, Twitter and TikTok is protected speech. The algorithms aren't the fault or responsibility of the private citizens exercising their free speech rights.

If Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc want to, on their own accord, work to limit the spread of lies on their platform, I am 100% okay with that. All those platforms can allow or disallow whatever they want. If blue sky wants to not allow a single conservative user, go for it. However, I don't think it's okay, or constitutional, for the federal government, which is arguably the most powerful entity in the world, to ask social media companies to censor protected speech.

It's not really accurate to say that lying is "protected speech." The Supreme Court has explicitly said that "demonstrable falsehoods are not protected by the First Amendment in the same manner as truthful statements" and "some false speech may be prohibited even if analogous true speech could not be." It would be more accurate to say that speech that is false cannot be prohibited solely because it's false. But if false speech causes some sort of demonstrable harm, it absolutely can be regulated on that basis. Hence not just defamation laws, but also perjury, laws that prohibit lying to government officials or law enforcement, ethics rules that prevent attorneys from lying to the court, etc. I am not aware of any Supreme Court decision that says that the government could not, as a matter of first amendment jurisprudence, criminalize or otherwise punish lying that created public health harms or intentionally undermined other government policy or initiatives.

 

[ZenMode]

First of all, it would only even potentially be an infringement on constitutional rights if the government compelled or coerced the removal of the speech. Asking isn't telling, no matter how much you want to make it true. If there were evidence that the government was doing more than asking- i.e., threatening civil or criminal prosecution of Meta, or some other negative consequence - it would be a different situation.

Second of all, having your speech removed from a social media post (or keeping other people from seeing that post) is not really an infringement on a constitutional right anyway, because you weren't prevented from or punished for speaking, the platform just prevented other people from seeing it.

Third, again, the last sentence just shows your continued willful ignorance about this whole situation. No one was asking Facebook to locate and delete posts that only 2 or 3 people had seen. They weren't telling them to search for every post on a subject and delete it. They were asking them to take down or limit the reach of information that was being widely viewed and spread. You continue trying to analogize this to the government bundling an individual speaker out of the "town square" because they disagree with his speech, and that's simply not what was happening at all. You can't make the analogy work no matter how many times you try.

"Second of all, having your speech removed from a social media post (or keeping other people from seeing that post) is not really an infringement on a constitutional right anyway, because you weren't prevented from or punished for speaking...."

Wow. Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the ground.

Speechless.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[StrangePackage]

Wow. Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the ground.

Speechless.

Stay that way for a while.

 

[farce©]

Speechless.

Unlikely

 

[ZenMode]

Stay that way for a while.

 

[rodoheel]

"Second of all, having your speech removed from a social media post (or keeping other people from seeing that post) is not really an infringement on a constitutional right anyway, because you weren't prevented from or punished for speaking...."

Wow. Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the ground.

Speechless.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You think the right to have unlimited other people see your social media post is an "essential liberty"?

 

[JCTarheel82]

Anyone know if the federal government can prohibit recreational contrarianism?

Asking for an online message board.

 

[finesse]

Anyone know if the federal government can prohibit recreational contrarianism?

Asking for an online message board.

God, I hope not.

 

[ZenMode]

You think the right to have unlimited other people see your social media post is an "essential liberty"?

Would you allow the government to limit the viewing of any other public display? A house decorated for Christmas? A public memorial? A public event like a state fair?

If there were a guy in the corner holding a sign, would you let the government limit how many people can see that sign?

 

[ZenMode]

How many times, in the last two pages alone, has it been clarified that the government ASKED for misinformation to come down, NOT “limit” or forced or coerced or or or … ? Yet, Zen wants to reset the narrative every few posts by framing this as government coercion. It wasn’t.

Zen is completely full of shit and engages in bad faith time after time after time after time…

I've acknowledged that the government only asked. For multiple reasons, which I've mentioned, I don't think they should ask.

 

[rodoheel]

Would you allow the government to limit the viewing of any other public display? A house decorated for Christmas? A public memorial? A public event like a state fair?

If there were a guy in the corner holding a sign, would you let the government limit how many people can see that sign?

First of all, for like the 500th time, the government isn't limiting anyone's speech directly. This was the government asking the social media companies to limit the reach of people's posts. Not ban any posters; not jail them; not tell them to stop posting; not turn off their internet or social media access; etc. You keep positing hypotheticals that don't match the facts at all, even if you want to make some loose analogy between social media and speaking to people in person despite those two things not really being remotely comparable.

Second of all, as I posted previously on the thread (and you ignored), there is a long line of Supreme Court precedent addressing that lying can be regulated and stopped when it causes harm. You are acting like we crossed the Rubicon here with the government asking for speech it believed was harmful to be taken down.

Again, so few people in this country have any idea what government tyranny really looks like that people will act like the smallest thing is some grave imposition on their "liberty" or "freedom." This is such a nothingburger from both a practical and constitutional perspective. You thinking the government shouldn't "ask" in this scenario does not mean it's a grave constitutional violation.