Twitter and Facebook Flagging Accounts!

Tech Talk Internet
41

Unfortunately, if you believe in one of the things that is being fact checked and is being marked as questionable, you will think the fact checking is biased.

Looking in at the USA from the outside, I don’t see any real fact checking bias, but I don’t go far down the Qanon / Antifa rabbit holes, so only the big names, like Trump are known to me, but I haven’t seen any of his posts, for example, which shouldn’t have been marked - in fact, being outside, I would say he gets off very lightly. If our Chancellor tried to make such statements as he had, she would be out on her arse and up on charges.

1 Like
42

Isn’t the Section 230 protection more about viability? i.e. if people could sue Facebook/Twitter/Leo for what was written on their platforms it would be very difficult to provide the service. You’d end up with more aggressive censorship actually, as everything would be scrutinised for legal issues? This forum wouldn’t exist I don’t think.

I Googled that political activist @Parker4381 mentioned. She earns money from her social, and had posts denying COVID and challenging social distancing, masks etc. taken down it seems.

I understand why stuff like this, posted by influencers or public figures would be tagged or removed TBH. It’s very clear in YouTube’s policy.

1 Like
43

I’m not attempting to be nasty, I’ve explained this before, so many times that it gets frustrating. You keep complaining about the same things never changing… which seems unreasonable because they’re not going to change. I just get tired of reading about your complaints about them not changing when you KNOW they’re not going to change. It’s just not a productive use of time (or words)… in reality, this whole thread is not really productive.

1 Like
44

I do not know what the end result of removing that protection would be. But they are not the impartial hosting platform that they would lead you to believe they are. They are a content provider, with the way they manage their platform. No other content provider has that protection. I do not believe they are entitled to that protection.

If the exact opposite were true, you would be upset to. But, it flows one way, and when you are on that side - people don’t see it.

45

You are on the side that is allowed. So, you don’t care.

Sorry, but if things continue down the slope they are - you should be careful what you wish for… What is happening is NOT good.

But, it doesn’t affect you, so better just to shut all the complainers up. Right? And the thread is a waste of time too, huh? Exactly my point about the forum here. You’ve just proven my point I have made on many threads…

You don’t care. Shut everyone else up.

46

Section 230 has nothing to do with impartiality or freedom of speech. It just lets any forum or social media platform actually exist. If Section 230 wasn’t there, every post on Facebook would have to be cleared by their lawyers, before it could appear online!

The same for this forum, @Leo would never be able to run it without Section 230. You would have a bunch of private, invitation-only forums, if any. No support forums, no help forums, no reviews on shopping sites, no reviews of restaurants and businesses etc.

They aren’t content providers or publishers, they are content enablers. The only content they generate are official notifications to users about changes in service etc. You could possibly include announcements by Zuck, but that is, in theory, his private account.

What any forum or social media platform allows or disallows is purely up to them. If they don’t like a subject, they can ban it - just think of the breast-feeding scandal on Facebook several years ago. I can go into town and see dozens of women breast-feeding on the street, but any photo that shows that is banned? The wedding pictures from my daughter would have been banned, because her sister-in-law was in the background breast-feeding her son, it is a natural act and enhanced the photo - 3 women with their children, one standing next to the mother, one breast-feeding her 3 month old baby and one pregnant, a lovely shot, but banned according to Facebook’s old policy.

But that is Facebook’s decision to make. It decided violence is fine, but the human body is off limits. There is nothing users can do, apart from not use the platform if you disagree with them. There is nothing written anywhere that says they have to publish anything anyone writes - they are not a federal US Government institution and therefore not beholden to the 1st Amendment; that would only come into play if the US Government told them to ban specific topics, and it would be the US Government that would be prosecuted, not the social networks.

If you don’t like their policies, don’t use their platform, go somewhere else. I did, I have actually blacklisted all Facebook domains (over 2,500 of them at last count, including Instagram and WhatsApp) from my network.

1 Like
47

I don’t know what “section” protects protects these companies. That was mentioned by someone else.

However - many would argue that they are so big that they have essentially become “utilities” - in a manner of speaking… Could the phone company cut you off because they don’t like what you are saying on the phone? That wouldn’t work too well.

I see your point of view, but I do not believe they should be granted these kind of protections because they can shape public opinion, and their platforms are so widely used now in 2020.

48

With the telephone company, you can’t talk to millions at the same time, it is 1-1 (or 1 - a few for conference calls). You can say what you want in private messages on those platforms.

The problem is, if you take away Section 230 from them, you have to take it away from everyone, which would destroy the interactive internet as we know it. It is a horrible dilemma.

I agree that something needs to be done about them, but revoking Section 230 isn’t the answer.

1 Like
49

Yes, agree. Let’s let them stand on their own without special protections from the government

2 Likes
50

Section 230 should definitely exist to protect these platforms from having to answer for third party opinions on their service. Without 230 these companies would not exist! However, I also believe, since they are receiving the section 230 protection, they should never, ever regulate the speech on their platforms! That just picks winners and losers, and if they are going to regulate some speech, they can regulate all speech and should not have section 230 protection! I, for one, don’t need FB or Twitter to make up my mind for me as to what is stupid, violent, BS or crap…I can do that for myself

3 Likes
51

Although this bit seems counter-intuitive (if you really do mean zero regulation). So you can be libeled but have no recourse other than with an anonymous poster? Or are you assuming falsehoods are still against the TOS?

3 Likes
52

Just reading this thread and catching up and it seems to have dwindled into a political social media discussion sadly, rather than the issue originally posted which is about Freedom of Speech. The solution is simple: disengage from social media platforms. Whatever you say will be used against you. Get a life i.e. stop with the social media.

2 Likes
53

One problem is, many Americans can’t differentiate between the freedom of speech offered by the Constitution 1st Amendment (the Government can’t interfere with your right to free speech) and a private company’s duty to free speech (there is none, they can allow or block what they please, it is their platform).

I agree, if it isn’t your platform, you have no rights on it. You want to say something, say it on your own website. I have had posts here “lost”, because a thread got political and the whole thing was deleted, I find it annoying, because I made some good arguments, but I can’t go back to them, because they were deleted. But that is a fact I live with, because I like being part of this community. If I want to say something really important and want to be sure it doesn’t get deleted, I’ll put it on my own website.

3 Likes
54

There’s going to be a large COTUS hurdle that may require a SCOTUS decision to impose a new limit on free speech.

The right to free speech logically and legally must include the right not to speak and to not be forced to allow speech you disagree with on your property. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard)

In Citizens United v. FEC SCOTUS ruled that in respect to free speech rights corporations must be considered citizens.

Therefore to force a corporation to allow speech with which they disagree will require a reconciliation of these two SCOTUS decisions.

2 Likes
55

No, the poster would not be anonymous, they’re signed in and posting. Falsehoods are up too the reader to determine - just like any other speech

56

So what should they be allowed to regulate or moderate? What is the business incentive to maintain an environment so toxic that users and/or advertisers abandon it? Should companies just invest in building platforms and be forced to dump them because some group of users are hostile? Should @Leo not be allowed to have moderators here? I know, I know— lots of questions to go down many paths, but I feel like that’s just the nature of this topic unfortunately.

2 Likes
57

Nothing!! We should regulate ourselves

58

@Computeforloot apparently you’re unaware of the damage that a false (libelous) scurrilous charge can do to someone’s life/career. (Imagine, for example, if I made up fake posts with your picture and claimed you were abusing children, and encouraged others who knew you to picket your house, and report you to your authorities.) For the same reasons why one can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, we must have limits on false claims and other people/entities. If such claims are prosecuted, the question is whether the location they are made (the social media host site, say) should be responsible at all or merely the person/entity that initiated them. I would argue if the claims are disputed, one would be entitled to have them removed (by a lawyer maybe) until they were proven… and if the site didn’t remove them, then they would become complicit in libel/legal proceedings.

1 Like
59

That’s a fair point - and that goes along with my comment about policing ourselves - if we saw something aimed at causing us harm WE would take action

60

No, like legit they are fact checking opinions and memes. Someone posted a pic of “It’s Not Over” written on paper and it was dinged and flagged.

1 Like