I was literally going to start this post with nearly the exact same statement, except I was going to ask how many progressives and die-hard Biden defenders would have the integrity to condemn the revelation that Facebook and Instagram censored posts and changed their content moderation policies after unconstitutional pressure from the Biden White House.
Not that this should have surprised anyone; it certainly didn’t surprise me, Censorship, deception and suppression of news, facts and reality is how the current mutation of the Democratic Party rolls, and Big Tech and social media have joined the mainstream media as their enablers and accomplices.
….On Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who leads the House Judiciary Committee, released internal Facebook emails that show the Big Tech platform was explicitly pressured by the Biden administration to take down specific posts that the president’s allies disliked….
Congressman Jim Jordan…released one email from April 2021 in which a Facebook employee writes that employees “are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House,” with the White House even asking them to take down one specific meme. In another email , a top Facebook executive recounts that Biden senior adviser Andy Slavitt was “outraged” in an interaction with company officials over the fact that they wouldn’t remove the meme.
This pressure campaign from the White House meaningfully influenced Facebook’s moderation policies. For example, the Biden administration apparently complained about a specific Tucker Carlson video, and Facebook responded by saying it had reduced the video’s reach by 50%.
Another internal email shows broad changes considered in response to pressure from Biden’s White House: “[Facebook’s] Leadership asked Misinfo Policy … to brainstorm some additional policy levers we can pull to be more aggressive against … misinformation. This is stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the [Biden] administration.”
Other emails show Facebook censoring additional content at the behest of President Joe Biden’s surgeon general….
We can expect the Philip Bump et al. “This is a nothing-burger conspiracy theory” columns forthwith. The conclusion that has to be reached regarding any alleged “liberal” who won’t side with those who find this abuse of government power damning and intolerable is that they want totalitarian strategies to extend Democratic Party power. Another tell: if someone’s immediate deflection is “But the Trump administration tried to do this too!” The practice is an unforgivable attack on free speech no matter what party is behind it.
So far, all I hear from the Left is crickets…
Ethics Alarms 
Having not clicked the links to find out more, I can only say nothing described here is new information and none of it rises to the level of a constitutional violation. Government officials can make requests. If you can show me that the emails were phrased as orders, threats, or bribes, that will change my opinion. And that would include subtle, implicit quid pro quos along the lines of Trump’s Ukraine call, not necessarily overt examples.
I also don’t see anything particular ethical about Paul’s tweet. It’s partisan and selective. Trump recently lost a defamation suit against CNN, whom he sued for comparing him to Hitler—that’s clearly constitutionally protected opinion that he tried to get the government to punish. Did any Republican condemn the former president’s lack of respect for the first amendment in that case? Did Paul? If not, isn’t he “ethically estopped” from criticizing the Democrats on free speech issues?
Government officials can make requests.
You’ve said this before. You’re wrong. It’s an abuse of power, just like the “dear colleague” letter is an abuse of power. If Joe Biden calls up an employer and say, “I suggest firing X,” you really think that’s a “suggestion”? Censorship by proxy is censorship, and unconstitutional.
I’m disappointed that you fail Paul’s test. It should be easy.
The 9th circuit case you’re relying on, O’Handley v. Weber, which approved of the phony distinction you approve of, is up for cert. before SCOTUS. The betting is that it will take the case, and if they do,and they should, Weber will be reversed. The ethical principle violated here remains the same, whether the law has caught up or not. “Jawboning” is fine, well, not fine but constitutional, but not when speech is involved.
Jonathan Turley’s most recent post exposes the hypocrisy of any “liberal” who thinks this kind of government censorship by proxy (or surrogate) is benign… https://jonathanturley.org/2023/07/30/we-shouldnt-have-done-it-the-facebook-files-confirm-government-censorship-extended-from-official-data-to-jokes/
I will say Turley has a point about the contempt of Congress threat against Zuckerburg. He should tell Congress to go screw itself. Again, I don’t think mere requests are enough to violate the Constitution—and I’m glad you brought up precedent that backs me up, even if you think it’s wrongly decided—but this crosses the line and a case could easily be made that Zuckerburg and Facebook’s rights are being violated now.
Hello internet business. Nice little company you have here. It would be a shame if some federal regulators showed up, found a bunch of kiddie porn on your servers, shut down your company, and threw you all in a hell hole prison with the J6 protesters…just hypothetically mind you. Oh, completely unrelated, I want you to delete some posts and ban some people who oppose the current administration politically. Oh, ban some oppositions political candidates as well just before an election. COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY…wink wink.
What could be wrong with asking companies you regulate to ban your political adversaries?
This is so self-evident that I wonder about the sincerity of anyone who disagrees with it.
Such a message would fit my description here:
“ And that would include subtle, implicit quid pro quos along the lines of Trump’s Ukraine call, not necessarily overt examples.”
But there’s nothing in the emails showing anything like that message.
Under what precedent is it unconstitutional for the government to make requests? Administrations have been contacting journalists suggesting how and what they should and should not cover since journalism has existed.
The “Left, Right, and Center” podcast noted this on Friday—Sarah Isgur, a former Trump DOJ spokesperson and lawyer, said it depends on how the requests are phrased and said that what she’s seen has been inappropriate, but not illegal. I agree with her.
Paul’s test isn’t about ethics, it’s about partisan point-scoring. You say it’s wrong to bring up the “Trump did it too” argument but that is of course relevant to Paul’s argument, since his whole point is that one party isn’t willing to criticize this kind of thing from their leader. Of course the fact that his leader did the same thing without intraparty critique is worth pointing out in that context.
Ethics. It’s unethical because when there is great inequality of power, there is no “request.” It is why we have laws against statutory rape. It is why a boss who claims sex with a subordinate was “consensual” is engaging in sexual harassment. It is why a parent asking a child to do something isn’t really asking. There can be no consent to “suggestions” when fear is part of the occasion. There many ways the government can punish a corporation, and any “request” or suggestion” comes with an intimidation factor. And that’s why I am quite certain when the issue gets to SCOTUS, that’s what they hold. However, ethics don’t depend on the law. Abortion was always unethical, even when it was legal. Same here.
Jack, it’s ok because it’s a progressive administration that did it.
Surely progressives—some progressives? One or two? Somewhere?—have a little bit of integrity.
The only progressive I have ever heard speak with any integrity is Eric Weinstein, and I think he got kicked out of the progressive club for it. Integrity seems to be frowned upon in progressive circles.
Integrity = being anti-vaxx, apparently.
You clearly drink straight from the propaganda firehouse. Integrity means having a steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. It has nothing to do with vaccines.
Promoting lies about the Covid vaccine is unethical.
What do vaccines have to do with anything? I said nothing about vaccines. You want to rant about a particular position you don’t like instead of addressing the topic. The topic is integrity, as in the ability to apply your principles evenly across multiple topics, even when one or more topics triggers cognitive biases or unpleasant emotional responses. Eric Weinstein is the only progressive I have ever heard speak who even made the slightest effort to do that. His individual positions on things are irrelevant to the topic of integrity. I used to listen to his podcast, The Portal, and while I disagree with 90% of his positions, I could at least respect his integrity.
You, on the other hand, only seem to have one principle: the propaganda is always right.
I don’t think I could make this clearer. Eric Weinstein is best known for being an anti-vaxxer who promotes lies about the Covid-19 vaccine. Spreading lies about a life-saving vaccine in the midst of a pandemic is unethical. No one who does so could be described as having integrity.
Do you agree that Eric Weinstein is wrong to spread lies about the life-saving Covid vaccine?
First of all, I am 99% sure you are talking about Bret Weinstein, not Eric Weinstein. Second of all, his position on vaccines is irrelevant to his integrity. Third, you are incapable of following a logical train of thought, so your opinions on scientific issues are irrelevant.
I feel the problem is one of priors or first principles. The premise that pushes progressives to all their conclusions about Donald Trump are the same premises that ultimately guide their entire worldview. To admit their error regarding Trump would also require a deep evaluation of their most original and fundamental beliefs. They can’t do that – or at least those who do end up no longer progressive. So it’s a hard question to ask “where are the progressives with integrity”.
Now that’s a general statement, there are certainly those who do, but few and far between.
And it doesn’t help that they’ve stake a great deal of personal pride in these conclusions (as most religions do – and progressivism is increasingly a religion).
I didn’t ask whether it was ethical and I never said it was ok. In fact, I clearly said I think it was inappropriate. My question was under what precedent it was considered unconstitutional. Jack and I agree current precedent says it is constitutional. I don’t share his confidence that the current court will disagree, but we shall see.
Don’t project your hyperpartisanship on me, Michael.
When the government is requesting people do things that violate their constitutional rights, it is an improper request. None of the requests were to remove posts that violated a law. All the requests were to do things that, were the government to do directly, would violate the Constitution. You can’t outsource Constitutional violations or the Constitution is meaningless. “Oh, we didn’t violate the Constitution, we just subcontracted to have the exact same action taken.”
This is the core distinction between the Trump Ukraine issue and this censorship issue. The matter Trump was dealing with WAS a violation of the law. There was influence peddling and an investigation of embezzlement. Biden threatened the Ukrainian government to get them to stop investigating embezzlement at Burisma. Trump wanted information about why the investigation stopped and I don’t remember if that was before or after the Burisma executive fled the country with a bunch of stolen money.
There was actually a treaty in place and the President was supposed to bring such corruption matters up with the Ukrainian government.
There is no such law that requires the administration to contact Facebook because someone is making fun of Hunter Biden. There is nothing illegal about a candidate stating that they think the border should be secure. There is a law that says that the government can’t ban such speech. Coercing others to do so is no different. If you convince your impressionable younger cousin to steal $20 from your grandmother’s purse and give it to you, it doesn’t make it right even though ‘you didn’t steal it’. What’s wrong with asking?
Your analogy doesn’t make sense. You don’t have the right to take $20 from your grandmother’s purse. But social media companies have an absolute right to ban whomever they’d like to from using their free service. No one has a constitutional right to a Twitter account. And anyone, even government officials, can request that social media sites delete content. What they cannot do is force social media companies to do so. Whether the government’s actions crossed into “coercion” has yet to be proven. Until then, there’s no evidence anyone’s constitutional rights were violated.
Again, if it can be shown that the government (under Trump or Biden) exerted undue pressure on social media companies such as threats or bribes, that would change my opinion. But this has not been shown.
“Biden threatened the Ukrainian government to get them to stop investigating embezzlement at Burisma.”
You missed me destroying this lie when Michael Ejercito kept telling it last week (as well as years of fact-checks proving it isn’t true). Biden never tried to get them “to stop investigating embezzlement at Burisma.” He pressured Ukraine to fire the corrupt prosecutor, Alexander Shokin, who was neglecting his duties in this and several other investigations. Removing Shokin was the official policy of the Obama administration, and was supported by Democrats and Republicans in Congress, as well as activists within Ukraine, European allies, and the IMF. Obviously, they were not all trying to save Hunter Biden, who was never personally under investigation, and who did not even work for Burisma during the time period that was under investigation.
“Trump wanted information about why the investigation stopped”
No, that’s not what he said. He opens by suggesting Zelensky should investigate Crowdstrike (the cybersecurity company which concluded that Russia hacked the DNC, and which had nothing to do with Ukraine), then says he wants him to look into “the way they shut your very good prosecutor down” (again, Shokin was notoriously not a good prosecutor, and Trump would know why he was shut down if he were even remotely informed on this topic), then says “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution…so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great” (There was no investigation into Biden’s son, let alone a prosecution, for Biden to “shut down”).
Everything he asked for related solely to his own political interests. That’s why he focused solely on Crowdstrike and Biden, and not the innumerable other corruption problems Ukraine was facing at the time–because he didn’t care about those at all, and no one would even expect him to. The goal was to use the announcement of these investigations for political gain and to target his political opponents.
All of this information has been publicly available for years.
Masked Avenger,
Trump recently lost a defamation suit against CNN, whom he sued for comparing him to Hitler—that’s clearly constitutionally protected opinion that he tried to get the government to punish
Is there a substantial difference between Trump utilizing legal channels in public view to seek redress for something he viewed, rightly or wrongly, as defamation, and the Biden administration using private e-mails outside of public scrutiny to request suppression of speech? Both might be seeking the same outcome — the silencing of opponents — but aren’t the means different?
Ryan Harkins,
That was going to be my points exactly, though I would have made them with declarative statements, instead of questions.
-Jut
The means are different. Only one asked for the government to punish an entity for their speech.
Through means that every private citizen has the freedom to utilize–the ability to bring a lawsuit.
No private citizen enjoys the ability to request something of a privately-held company with the full intimidating force of the Executive Branch of the US Government behind it.
Bingo—in addition to the crucial distinction that Trump currently has no power to punish CNN for not bending to his will, for he isn’t President.
The president has such power?
The President is perceived to have such power, which is all that matters, and a “request” from a president carries far more force than a normal “suggestion.”
Who perceives the president as having the power to punish CNN, aside from Donald Trump? I certainly don’t.
Oh, come on, you know better. All a President would have to do, for starters, is to issue a directive to all executive branch officials not to cooperate with CNN reporters and not to appear on CNN news shows.
Ah. Well that is in fact a power a president has, and it is well within his rights. It would be shitty, and an attack on free speech as a concept, but still wouldn’t violate 1A. The same would be true of Biden issuing such a directive about Fox News.
Ethics. The fact that it’s legal doesn’t make it less unethical.
It seems to me that President Trump’s defamation suit is an apple and what Senator Paul is referring to is the orange.
CNN is free to compare President Trump to Hitler, but we also have laws protecting citizens against defamation and slander. That President Trump, a U.S. citizen, filed suit for defamation is perfectly within his right. That’s why we have laws and courts that render verdicts on those laws. President Trump’s suit is not trying to stifle speech or suppress speech or eliminate speech. It’s suing for what was considered slanderous or defaming speech, which is the right of any U.S. citizen, including the President.
I readily admit that I’m no legal expert, but that seems very different from situations in which elements within the Biden Administration – maybe the White House itself – and not within the context of a lawsuit apparently used their powers of position to influence corporations to stifle and eliminate speech they either disagreed with, found inconvenient, or considered wrong. I don’t think that’s allowed.
“ President Trump’s suit is not trying to stifle speech or suppress speech or eliminate speech. It’s suing for what was considered slanderous or defaming speech, which is the right of any U.S. citizen, including the President”
If the speech clearly isn’t defamation, but protected opinion—as comparing someone to Hitler is—then the goal is of course to stifle speech. That’s why some states have anti-SLAPP laws. Trump has always sought to use the power of the state to silence criticism, he just wasn’t very good at it. But he has used frivolous libel suits to target his critics in the past and I’m sure this won’t be the last time.
It isn’t that the Hitler slur isn’t defamation, it’s that Trump is a public figure. A similar allegation about, say, Nick Sandmann might be defamation.(What a stupid lawsuit).
Calling someone Hitler isn’t defamatory.
Just like calling someone an asshole or a piece of shit isn’t defamatory either.
Well I can put some perspective on this. I floated an idea on FB regarding how to deal with the numerous people crossing our border without a legal right to do so. We know that most do not show up for their asylum hearings and simply fade into the fabric of their respective communities. Because the alternatives to ensure their appearance would be putting them in some form of custody and would not fly politically I recommended they be flown to Masie Hiromo’s state of Hawaii to await their hearing. They could live without oversight but getting off the Island and disappearing would be far more difficult. That would prevent them from vanishing, would be similar to the climate from which most came, and would force Hirono to have to deal with the consequences of the anything goes asylum policies she favors.
After posting that idea my progressive brother replied to the effect that this was equivalent to the Madagascar plan that Hitler devised initially for the Jews. Hitler would strip them of their passports and they would never be able to leave. Because I specifically laid out something completely different this Hitler reference was uncalled for. He knew that my former colleagues at the community college would see it because he is on the faculty. When I confronted him he said it was tongue in cheek.
I grew up hearing all about my German heritage being linked to Nazis. Because he is 12 years my junior he never had to hear those epithets.
That was in 2018 and we do not speak at all anymore.
The term Nazi is no different to me than another word beginning with N is to another group. Unfortunately, calling people nazis is the fashionable way to denigrate those who won’t walk lockstep with the progressive movement. It is a slur and does defame the target.
Neither could be defamation, which requires a false statement of fact, regardless of whether one is a public figure. Saying someone is like Hitler is protected opinion.
It’s not necessarily—trust me, as one who has been sued for defamation, a characterization that implies certain negative characteristics sufficiently damning to cause reputational harm might be found to be defamatory when the target is a non-public figure, especially if could be shown that, for example, the statement caused tangible harm.
?
Didn’t the person who sued you for defamation lose?
Calling someone an asshole, Hitler, piece of shit, racist, loser isn’t defamatory.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m involved in a case right now in which an allegation that a business owner was racist cost him millions of dollars in business> If such an accusation—the same goes with “Hitler” implies the existence of facts not included in the publication, then it might be defamatory. Hitler and racists are in different categories than “asshole” or “piece of shit.” Those are just insults. They don’t imply anything but dislike.
“ If such an accusation—the same goes with “Hitler” implies the existence of facts not included in the publication, then it might be defamatory.”
This is a good point. But it applies equally to “Hitler” and “asshole”—“You’ll never believe what this guy’s wife told me. He’s basically Hitler” = “You’ll never believe what this guy’s wife told me. He’s a piece of a shit” both imply disclosed facts, and could be defamatory. But if you’re basing the opinion on public information, as CNN did, that’s a lot harder to argue.
It is hard to argue. Of course, CNN is a classic purveyor of exactly the kind of false, partial or distorted information that any non-news media source would be in jeopardy pyblishing.
I’m sorry but I do know what I’m talking about.
Calling someone Hitler is or a Nazi is not defamatory. It’s an expression of opinion.
Now if someone called you a Nazi while also making up something up that you’ve done or currently do…thev that could be defamatory.
I could go around a posting flyers in your neighborhood saying you’re a Nazi and that you’re Hitler because of your stance on immigration and you wouldn’t be able to successfully sue me for defamation unless I made up something about you.
Even if your wife then divorced you and you lost your business.
Sorry. That’s not how defamation works. Opinions stated as fact have been and are sometimes found to be defamatory. Saying someone is “like Hitler,” depending on the context, suggests insanity, anti-Semitism, and violence. Calling a woman a slut in print has been held, in some cases to be defamatory; so is writing that someone is a “liar.” Those are always defended as “opinions.”
I’m sorry, but it is how defamation works.
What case are you talking about where someone was called a slut in print without any other claims?
Because I could absolutely take out an article in a newspaper that says “Jane Doe is a huge slut” and not lose a defamation case.
Show me a defamation case where someone was called Hitler or a slut or whatever you’re claiming.
Also, how would someone win a defamation case without there being any false statements made about them?
Saying someone is Hitler may imply an existence of facts, but how can the existence of imaginary and unstated “facts” be proven to be false?
That doesn’t even make any sense.
“Because I could absolutely take out an article in a newspaper that says “Jane Doe is a huge slut” and not lose a defamation case.”
Do it. I dare you. Watch what happens.
And known mobsters who visit a place of business and comment about how many bad things could befall a business that didn’t pay for their protection definitely weren’t threatening either…
Between all the things Biden and his representatives have done and said about Facebook in particular, including taking executive actions, as demonstrated in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57870778, you’d have to be pretty dense to not see pressure from the White House as an implicit threat.
Covid misinformation was killing people. That’s a fact, not a threat, and it’s good that the president said it. People who were persuaded to not get the vaccine due to online misinformation were more likely to be hospitalized or die.
Come on. The Wuhan misinformation was coming as much from the CDC as anyone, and the whole point is nobody knew what “misinformation was.”
“Misinformation” is whatever people like Chris say it is.
Wait: which Chris are you referring to?
I don’t think he meant me
I’m pretty sure you’re right….
No, not CM, of course. I am assuming the Masked Avenger is Chris redux.
I’ve already been informed he’s supposedly not. But certainly has a scent of a previous commenter under a different name. I don’t mind screen names for anonymity. I used to use one. But when I switched my screen name, I did my best to make sure everyone knew so they didn’t think there was a new commenter on the blog. I think MA is an old commenter under a new name. And I think it’s unethical not to inform the rest of the community (and this is a community). Until my suspicions are disproven, I ain’t wasting time beyond a quick read of what’s written.
Haven’t we been through this dance before? We know how it ends.
CDC and the global scientific community wasn’t spreading misinformation that was costing lives.
The consensus of the global scientific was correct at the time using the currently available information they had.
Are lost lives the only measure of damages you’d consider?
Was there no cost to the students who were forced out of in-person schooling and essentially all forms of social interaction for, depending on how blue the city was, multiple years?
What information did the global scientific community have that vindicates the school shutdowns, the career shutdowns of hundreds of thousands of workers, and all the other cessations of social interaction? Since very early on in the pandemic, we knew that young people were not susceptible to the disease and that the average age of death due to covid was about the same as general life expectancy of the population. I think the only way you justify the actions taken by governments around the world (but especially in the US) in response to this global consensus is if you measure only deaths as a cost.
So is your point that the government would be correct to censor social media because it is, in fact, killing people?
Or was it wrong for the government to explicitly state that mere speech can kill, thus placing speech in the purview of government action, especially as it relates to a certain private company?
Because it certainly feels like we’re dealing with a sealion, not someone with good faith arguments.
“ So is your point that the government would be correct to censor social media because it is, in fact, killing people?”
No. I think social media platforms should censor more misinformation, and they have the right to do that as private companies, but governments should not compel them to do so (as many foreign governments have actually done to both Zuckerburg’s Facebook and Musk’s Twitter, now X). And I think requests are not inherently enough to qualify as compulsion.
This was all clear from the comments I’ve already written, so how am I the sealion when people keep asking me questions that could easily be answered just by reading what I’ve actually written?
Because like a sealion, you ignore the part of my post that is inconvenient to your argument (about how Biden has gone so far as to enact executive orders to exert control over Facebook) and purposely ignore the point of the rest of my comment–that Biden’s White House has made it clear that if Facebook does not censor “misinformation,” that he sees it tantamount to killing people. One of these two actions by itself is clearly Biden demonstrating that he will step in if Facebook does not, but the two of them together is as clear as day that he’s threatening Facebook with government intervention (and indeed has taken steps already) if they do not toe the government line.
Rather, you focus on a non-sequitur–that yes, you happen to agree with Biden that misinformation kills people–to focus the conversation away from whether Biden is threatening privately-held companies but rather whether misinformation is harmful.
Classic sealioning.
“Because like a sealion, you ignore the part of my post that is inconvenient to your argument (about how Biden has gone so far as to enact executive orders to exert control over Facebook)”
I didn’t “ignore” that; you said nothing about it in your comment, and I didn’t see the *one sentence* in the article you linked to that vaguely mentioned it:
“Last week the president signed an executive order aimed at trying to check the power of companies like Facebook.”
I did try and find out what executive order this sentence is referring to, but the only one I found even close to matching that description is about fighting national security and data risks posed by foreign actors, which doesn’t seem like it has anything to do with controlling Facebook. If there’s another one you’re talking about or if this executive order is more sinister than it appears to me, you’re welcome to make your case. But me disagreeing with you or asking you to defend some very controversial opinions is not sealioning, nor is missing one sentence in an article you posted.
And here again, you ignore the thrust of my last comment in order to focus on an inconsequential part of my message.
The thrust of my last comment was that you diverted attention away from the point being discussed–whether the government’s actions should or could be construed as a threat to Facebook–with a non-sequitur about whether misinformation is harmful.
“But me disagreeing with you or asking you to defend some very controversial opinions is not sealioning, nor is missing one sentence in an article you posted.”
You’re not disagreeing–you’re ignoring what you can’t argue against. Now you’re ignoring the fact that you completely changed the argument in your last comment.
Perhaps sealioning isn’t the correct description. Straw-manning, I guess?
“The thrust of my last comment was that you diverted attention away from the point being discussed–whether the government’s actions should or could be construed as a threat to Facebook–“
I haven’t diverted attention away from that question, I’ve answered it numerous times. In my opinion the answer is no.
“with a non-sequitur about whether misinformation is harmful.”
It isn’t a non-sequitur for me to address *the headline of the article you linked to.* To me it looked like you saw Biden’s words as quoted in that headline as evidence of a threat; I explained why I disagreed. This is how a normal debate on the Internet is supposed to function.
“Perhaps sealioning isn’t the correct description. Straw-manning, I guess?”
It’s not that, either. I haven’t attributed to you arguments that you have not made. If I misinterpreted you, it’s due to your lack of clarity. I still don’t know what executive order you’re referring to, and you wouldn’t answer me, even though that seemed to be a major part of your argument that the administration was threatening social media, not some trivial factor I irrationally chose to focus on.
I’m assuming they’re referring to Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, in which Biden is telling several industries, including telecommunications and internet companies specifically, that he will aggressively pursue any instances of a company becoming too large under the Sherman Act.
Specifically, ” It is also the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to meet the challenges posed by new industries and technologies, including the rise of the dominant Internet platforms, especially as they stem from serial mergers, the acquisition of nascent competitors, the aggregation of data, unfair competition in attention markets, the surveillance of users, and the presence of network effects.”
The timing of these events was noticed by the BBC; not exactly a bastion of right-wing fever dreams. They perceived it, especially coupled with his other remarks, as an attack on Facebook. Why wouldn’t Facebook or Google or any of the other “dominant Internet platforms” see this as anything other than what it is–a reminder of what the government can do if it so chooses? Prosecutorial discretion at the federal level is absolutely a power lever that is being pointed at.
You choose to see a lack of coercion because there is no email saying “if you do not give in to our censorship demands, we will take immediate punitive action against you.” Numerous Facebook and Twitter officials wrote that they were feeling pressure from the government to censor information. Literally all that is missing is a direct threat, which would be a stupid thing for a government agent to do.
Perhaps it’s because I’ve heard so many conservatives argue for breaking up the monopolies of Big Tech that it didn’t occur to me this could be retaliation for not censoring misinformation. When conservative lawmakers call for this exact same action, is that retribution for social media censoring posts? I’m not convinced.
“I’m not convinced.”
I’m not surprised. You (like all of us) have a pre-disposition to side with the people with whom you agree with politically.
Switch it up. If, in 2020, Trump and his family had been sending a bunch of behind-the-scenes requests to Facebook requesting that they remove posts critical of him and then issued an EO that said that he’d be looking very carefully at Section 230 and looking to remove the protections that the big social media companies relied on, would you be okay with that?
I don’t have to imagine that, junkmailfolder, because *that literally happened:*
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/trump-and-section-230-what-know?amp
And Matt Taibbi admitted that the Twitter files show the Trump campaign making requests to take down content around this time. However, he gave this almost no attention and focused most of his ire on the Biden campaign doing the same (even though Biden was not yet in office).
Was I ok with it? No, because I think the proposed changes he has advocated for were wrong and unconstitutional. (Democrats have ALSO proposed such changes to Section 230 that I object to.) Had it been a more general order about looking into busting up monopolies, as Biden’s was, I wouldn’t have had such a problem with it. I also have less of a problem with Trump’s executive order regarding TikTok, which seemed to have a legitimate national security basis, even though I’m not sure it was constitutional.
Do you think the fact that you were unaware that Trump did this reveals anything about your own bias, or the bias of your sources?
Is this supposed to be a gotcha? I think Trump was a horrible president, and the fact that he did this just further proves it. In this regard, he was as bad as Biden. Biden’s situation is still worse, for the same reason a Biden presidency is worse than a Trump presidency–because he (Biden) has the fourth estate in his pocket.
Trump can try to force the big tech companies to his will. But they’ll resist. Biden can try to force the big tech companies to his will, and most will voluntarily comply.
Ok, so the fact that you didn’t know the Trump administration did exactly what you asked me to imagine they would have hypothetically done if they were as bad as Biden *doesn’t* make you question your own bias or the bias of your own media sources. Good to know. I have to assume that nothing will.
The idea that the Biden administration is worse because media sources will *voluntarily* comply with more of their requests makes no sense to me. Private companies have every right to make those decisions. And your lack of awareness of what Trump did shows that the fourth estate is not as unified as you claim it is, and that they have no monopoly on the minds of the American people. There is a thriving conservative bubble that reports only positive stories about Trump and negative stories about Biden, and that won’t go away in a second Biden term.
Jesus, do you not comprehend the concept of ethics? You know, right vs. wrong? You have the right to scream FUCK! in a crowded theater, to walk around covered in feces, and to openly mock women for their appearance. You’re saying because Facebook and twitter CAN manipulate speech and communication to cripple fair discourse that is crucial to a democracy, it is fine if they do it. It isn’t. It is wrong. It causes tangible harm. Thus it is unethical.
Jack, you’re missing my point again. We were talking about the Constitution and whether these actions rose to the level of a violation thereof, not ethics.
But to address what you’re talking about: Whether it’s ethical for Facebook and Twitter to take down posts, to me, depends on the post. I am 100% in favor of them taking down proven disinformation, for example, the claim that the Covid vaccines are more dangerous than the disease itself, Holocaust denial, Bush did 9/11, or that Trump actually won the 2020 election. I am much less in favor of them taking down, for instance, the Hunter Biden laptop story, claims that Trump colluded with Russia, or posts (including jokes) questioning the efficacy of masks and social distancing. Preventing dangerous misinformation from spreading on one’s platform is ethical, to me. It does not violate freedom of speech in the abstract or technical legal understandings of the term. However, it is unethical for such large platforms to ban reasonable debate on subjects that have been unproven. Who decides what is within those bounds? Legally, the platforms do. Ethically, we can disagree. This is a complex ethical issue.
No, I am always talking about ethics here. If I was unclear, I apologize. The Constitution lays out American values and principles. They remain part of the national ethics culture, whether a law mandates them or not.
I’m referring to the debate between junkmailfolder and myself, which was about the constitution, not ethics.
I look at what the WH is engaging in is similar to limiting radio and news broadcasts during war time in the interest of national security.
Only with the pandemic, it’s for the safety of American’s during a deadly, global pandemic where misinformation can and did cost lives.
Social media is a new beast but it’s also similar to social media platforms censoring certain content like bomb making or other information that may not be illegal to have, but social media has an important role in not allowing certain information to be easily disseminated to millions.
“I look at what the WH is engaging in is similar to limiting radio and news broadcasts during war time in the interest of national security.”
Oh, I don’t. Because they aren’t actually limiting anything, just asking others to (and their requests are sometimes honored, sometimes not). And giving presidents wartime powers during a time of peace would be a terrible precedent.
“For the safety of Americans” is the coolest phrase in the totalitarian’s handbook.
Meh…
The same way you used to be able to buy the Anarchist Cookbook.
There’s a line. And I think preventing dangerous misinformation during a global pandemic doesn’t cross the line.
You’re welcome to put that line wherever you want.
Luckily, we have a constitution that has made clear what role the government can have in regulating speech. Squaring “shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech” with the government censoring jokes that question the need for a vaccine or question the validity of the CDC’s established guidelines is something you can try to do, but you won’t have my support.
And my response to you truly wasn’t flippant. If safety of Americans is your goal, how in the world do you draw this line you speak of?
You can still buy the Anarchist Cookbook.
I saw many actions taken by the government during the pandemic as justified, but I would draw the line at direct censorship of speech, or even indirect censorship of the kind being alleged by conservatives. I just don’t think they’ve proven their case that this has happened.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/watch-im-sorry-zuckerberg-says-as-he-opens-senate-hearing-with-apology
So this doesn’t appear coersive and threatening at all to you?
This part does, and I said as much in a reply to Jack above.
If members of the government regulatory agencies and the Executive branch have a history of retaliation against companies that refused to comply with their “suggestions” (and we damn well know they do), then every suggestion has to be read with an unstated “OR ELSE” attached to it. That is why a simple suggestion can rise to the level of coercion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/the-uneven-toll-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/vi-AA1eyjS8?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=2a2fa04174b144dcf0b8a7b3d5dbd9c8&ei=10
NBC News
yesterday at 9:45 AM
The uneven toll of the coronavirus pandemic
DEK: A new scientific paper (Yale) shows a larger increase in excess deaths among Republicans after the Covid-19 vaccine became widely available. ( I did not change the headline except to add Yale)
The study did not conclude that Republicans died more frequently. That was the analysis after Tapper applied voter rolls to the counties in question.
Jake Tapper tells his audience that Republicans in Trump counties had a higher incidence of excess deaths than Biden counties in the three swing states because they lagged behind in getting the jab.
This is misinformation. This analysis fails to account for age differences among the deaths which was the primary determining factor in covid deaths. Counties that lean Democrat were younger and at less risk overall from death than the counties that lean Republican who were in the higher risk groups.
Even though this is misinformation, I could easily assess the validity of the report because I can critically think. Critical thinking comes from reviewing all sorts of information. I used to trust government information but because they (all sides) only provide what they want me to hear or see I am forced to dig for the original data on issues of major concern to me, rely on knowledgeable persons who do not appear to have a dog in the fight, or come to my own conclusions based on my own risk/reward assessment.
As an adult, no one has the right to deny me the ability to draw my own conclusions regarding the efficacy of a drug. If an off-label use of a drug causes damage, I want to know about it. If the off-label use shows some efficacy and few side effects, then I want to know that as well.
The only people to blame for a loss in government confidence with respect to information is government itself. Therefore, government has no right to classify anything as misinformation it only has the right to offer a countervailing narrative that allows citizens to evaluate the pros and cons of all sides. That is why we have free speech. It does not matter one iota to me if the government threatens a firm to silence speech it simply means that they are unable to make a case for their perspective and have to rely on people’s ignorance about that which is occurring outside their immediate information zone.
Terrific thoughts and a great conclusion, Chris.
Thanks but upon review I should have said it does not matter if the government threatens to silence speech it simply tells me that they have no valid counter argument. It does matter to me that I know when they try to censor information.
To say nothing of how Chris Cuomo said in October 2020 that no vaccine put out under the Trump Administration should be trusted only to reverse himself in December 2020 by saying that he didn’t understand why everyone wasn’t getting the vaccine. It’s almost as if something happened in November 2020 to change his mind.
I wonder what that was?