61–70 of 732 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right but this is the FBI, the government telling FB to censor a story.
The FBI warned about general election misinformation. They did not mention or direct FB re: this specific story. That was FB's choice.
Not censorship to suppress falsehoods (or actual national secrets) but to suppress a true story. How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution? The Federal Government suppressing speech. Where is the Justice Department's investigation? It seems like egregious overstepping. Remember when Qwest refused the FBI requests to phone data and we all hailed them for sticking to princi…
“How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution?” There’s still no right to publish statements on Facebook enshrined in the Constitution.
I think the better reason is that they never actually told Meta to suppress the story, and I'm not sure if there was a stick to ensure that they'd do it.
There's no right answer to: - what you should censor - whether you should censor when running a social media (more like an ad-platform but irrelevant to the point I'm making) service to this scale serving people from every demographic. Anything you do is wrong. If you don't censor, there's misinformation on a platform you control and you will be responsible for further conspiracies and actions/campaigns stemming from…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not have voted in the election if I knew about the laptop. True story about something that is true.
The laptop was all over the news at the time. But the news said it was Russian misinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you think having a relative with shady deals is disqualifying for public office? And what illegal activities was Hunter up to?
Not necessarily but it’s worth scrutiny, right? Blood is deeper than votes, and if someone who is running for office has a family member with a drug problem - that’s funded by shady deals with a country that’s openly hostile to the country in which that person is running for office - is makes sense to ask questions. The illegal activities are mostly around guns, drugs, hookers, perhaps some bank and tax fraud but I h…
So Facebook didn't censor anything? He didn't admit censoring and the story wasn't censored. Nobody had their posts about it taken down and nobody was prevented from discussing it. Facebook just didn't disseminate the story, they prevented their feeds from selecting it and showing it. Isn't that what everyone wants? Except that they do that with all stories and have no algorithms at all? It's not censorship though so…
Facebook altered an algorithm to transmit a story to fewer people than it otherwise would have. It’s censorship.
Not censorship to suppress falsehoods (or actual national secrets) but to suppress a true story. How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution? The Federal Government suppressing speech. Where is the Justice Department's investigation? It seems like egregious overstepping. Remember when Qwest refused the FBI requests to phone data and we all hailed them for sticking to princi…
“How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution?” There’s still no right to publish statements on Facebook enshrined in the Constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He sat in rural American homes for chicken dinner...he'll do just about anything to humanize himself.
I meant it from the other side. How many platforms, let alone people, get 3 hour long interviews with Mark Zuckerbg? And do them the way Joe Rogan does? edit: Then again, he was on with Lex Fridman a few months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zOHSysMmH0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it sounds like Facebook chose to self-censor after talking with the FBI. But they still had the legal right to not do so. It is a stickier than that though - I imagine Facebook fears regulation, not criminal prosecution. And if so, perhaps that fear led to the act of self-censorship. Can the government unconstitutionally suppress free speech via the threat of regulation? I personally don't think so.
This is the issue. Companies like Facebook fear regulation the most. Their goal is to just stay under the radar of the government and keep making money. Not surprised in the least that they’d “follow the FBI’s suggestion” in order to buy some good Will on other fronts.
1. the article clearly states the FBI did not specifically mention the Biden story.
2. It's odd to then claim they followed the FBI's suggestion to "buy good will" on other fronts. (Unclear how FBI goodwill would help, if your statement about Facebook "fearing regulation the most" is true).
3. Regardless, the FBI is part of the executive branch - it does not prosecute nor regulate. On a related point, the FBI is alleged (not necessarily proven) to be right/conservative-leaning. So it's a strange suggestion the FBI were trying to somehow pressure Facebook to censor anti-Biden media, at least based on what we know about the agency. It could be true, but would require some backing evidence as the FBI is "supposed" to be apolitical, but if anything it has been criticized for leaning conservative.
4. You single out "Companies like Facebook" as the issue, but the article states the Washington Post and New York Times actually tried to imply the New York Post article and emails were false (only to later acknowledge "some" emails were authentic).
It's not clear to me that social media restricting an article is the primary issue, vs. prominent news outlets which are trusted as a primary source by millions of voters, claiming an article was disinformation, only later to actually perform an investigation and acknowledge it was true.
Both things of course are highly problematic. But it seems reasonable to assume if the major news outlets didn't claim the story was disinformation, it would've been less likely to have been incorrectly censored as disinformation by social media platforms who were warned by the FBI about Russian disinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution? The Federal Government suppressing speech. The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws abridging freedom of speech, press and assembly, or creating a state religion. That's all it does. The government, in this case, simply made a general suggestion about policy to Facebook, which they chose to act upon of their own…
No, no it does not. It prevents the government from taking those actions just as much, it's just harder to prove that the government took that action when it's not official policy. But it absolutely can be held that individual actions were in violation of our bill of rights or our natural rights - See cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) where there was no law nor policy - Just an ind…
But that isn't what happened, according to the article. So even if you're correct, it doesn't apply in this case.