why do you think they are applying the rules systematically unfairly?
Freedom of speech at stake
- Thread starter Andrea Wylan
- Start date
why do you think they are applying the rules systematically unfairly?
gnus, tjustice, which other handle am I missing? You got your nicks banned for violating the forum rules. So tell me how forcing the site to have even more draconian moderation (or face legal liability) is going to help your content stay online?
Dump/fox/oann/breitard/Qanon said so
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.
There are two arguments to be made on this front. The first is quite simple. All social media companies have claimed publicly to be fair & unbiased with their content moderation. There are obviously laws against making false or misleading claims to your customers. So social media companies would be in violation of those laws if they don't adhere to their statements.
The second argument is more complex. All sites fall into one of two categories: publishers or interactive computer services which are protected by Section 230. It's my interpretation of the law that using selective rule enforcement & biased algorithms to drive narrative makes a social media company a publisher. I'm unaware of of any specific verbiage in the law that defines specifically what constitutes the differences between a publisher and an ICS though. That's one of the shortfalls of Section 230. It's dilapidated legislation that leaves too much undefined. It needs to be expanded or replaced to address these issues.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the second argument, social media companies are breaking the law by unfairly applying their rules to everyone.
The NYT published a story citing unverified information regarding Trump's taxes. The NYP published a story citing unverified information regarding Hunter Biden's emails. Both stories seem to fall into the same category. Why was one story suppressed while the other was allowed to proliferate? It certainly appears that social media companies didn't apply their rules uniformly in this instance.
I can’t speak to the hunter biden story except most experts believe the allegations are just conjectures. What is your standard of verified?
two stories doesn’t make for systematic bias especially when considering the amount of lies and BS trump spews from his twitter account.
let me ask you... are you allowed to switch nicknames?
have you had more than one?
This site would not have change a thing...
You are creating a bullshit scenario.
No one is saying get rid of 230.
We are saying that 230 should not protect twitter or facebook or other sites which are moderating with and eye towards favoring a particular viewpoint.
why do you keep arguing bullshit?
have you had more than one?
This site would not have change a thing...
You are creating a bullshit scenario.
No one is saying get rid of 230.
We are saying that 230 should not protect twitter or facebook or other sites which are moderating with and eye towards favoring a particular viewpoint.
why do you keep arguing bullshit?
Three words never heard in real life.
Last edited:
In the old days, news outlets wouldn't release a story unless it had been verified by at least 2 sources. Now most stories are built around unnamed sources that may or may not exist. Even the "true" stories tend to tell only a portion of the truth in an attempt to drive narrative. It's sad because entertainment matters more than journalistic integrity.
For these reason, I would prefer that social media companies only remove stories after they've been proven false. It isn't really possible for them to remove all unverified stories, because the vast majority aren't really verified when they're released.