The 4th Estate Thread Has Surrendered

[gbasden]

Personally, I want them to. Without it, a social media platform is useless.

This.

[Holman]

It used to be called “polite society.” The old social networks were brutal in punishing those who offended. You can be an asshole, but you can take the consequences too.

Now we live in a world where, with the right microphone, being an asshole is a path to high office.

"Polite society" is just woke elitism, you see.

[Zarathud]

The Founders and Puritan WASPs would say "Polite Society" what has Made America Great.

[Blackhawk]

It's not about 'offensive', it's about promoting hatred. When people see hate, they develop hate. Not all, but enough.

[Skinypupy]

Now we live in a world where, with the right microphone, being an asshole is a path to high office.

And untold riches if you’re really good at the formula.

[Kurth]

They obviously have that freedom, as we are seeing right now.

The question is whether we, as a society and consuming public, should want them to be censoring offensive content.

I think the real question is whether you want bots, foreign governments and right wing extremists flooding the marketplace of ideas until everything else is drowned out.

I don't have an answer to what happens when Freedom of Speech results in the promotion of evil, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't wait to see how it all plays out, given, you know, history. Freedom of speech is turning into Freedom to propaganda. Should there be limits on propaganda?

One man’s propaganda is another mans’s truth, though, amiright?

Seriously, I think this is a fundamental disagreement, and it’s what makes me nervous about calls for FB and other social platforms to censor “offensive” content. As a core issue, I really do not understand your argument - and one I see echoed elsewhere - that “freedom of speech is turning into freedom to propaganda.” That’s a feature, not a bug.

The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect propaganda. Propaganda is:

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

This isn’t a First Amendment question to the extent we’re talking about non-government action on social media platforms like Twitter and FB and the like. But the principles underlying the First Amendment extend beyond what the Constitution strictly permits or prohibits. There’s a general, deeply held belief in this country (or, at least, there used to be), that it’s important to allow people to have their say — their propaganda, in fact — as long as they were having it within certain confines established by law. No incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats, but beyond that, say what you want and expect that others will say what they want in response.

It’s also been argued above (see Smoove’s post) that social media, even if privately owned, has morphed into something more akin to a quasi-public utility and the primary information source for many. I’m not entirely sure I agree that that is what social media platforms are or should be, but to the extent they have become a public square of sorts, it seems all the more reason to me that we should be very careful about advocating for censorship of lawful but offensive content.

Edited to add: Regarding the issue of bots, that seems like something that can and should be addressed.

[Zarathud]

The First Amendment protects against government action, not private consequences. Hamilton couldn’t hide behind the Constitution to stop his duel with Aaron Burr.

When you say shit, you have to live with the consequences. There is no right to be an asshole.

And hypocrisy needs to be pointed out. MAGAs are the first to rally around online hate speech, then complain about being offended by liberal newspapers and storytelling. They rush off to create their own Truth channel then want to convert Twitter and Facebook because what they created is crap.

[Zarathud]

If social media is a public utility, it should be regulated like one by the FCC and states. You don’t get all of the status with none of the restrictions.

[Kurth]

The First Amendment protects against government action, not private consequences. Hamilton couldn’t hide behind the Constitution to stop his duel with Aaron Burr.

When you say shit, you have to live with the consequences. There is no right to be an asshole.

And hypocrisy needs to be pointed out. MAGAs are the first to rally around online hate speech, then complain about being offended by liberal newspapers and storytelling. They rush off to create their own Truth channel then want to convert Twitter and Facebook because what they created is crap.

I’m not sure, but I think we are agreed: People should be able to say shit, and they should have to live with the consequences.

[Zarathud]

I don’t have to let you into my house to say shit. And I will call the police if you are disturbing me, hippy.

[Kurth]

I don’t have to let you into my house to say shit. And I will call the police if you are disturbing me, hippy.

Now you’re just confusing me. Why are you coming to my house to say shit? And who you calling a hippy?!?!?

[Max Peck]

It should be obvious that neither Leon nor Fuckerberg actually give a rat's ass about free speech. They're simply manipulating what speech they do and do not allow on their respective platforms in order to further their agendas and/or appease a certain segment of society that they see as being ascendant. If Facebook is so big into free speech suddenly, why is it that they will allow you to advocate for the idea that women are mere objects, but won't allow you to advocate for Holocaust denial?

[GreenGoo]

One man’s propaganda is another mans’s truth, though, amiright?

No, not really. And what if the "man" is hundreds of thousands of bots, posting the same "truth" a thousand times a minute?

I don't need a lecture of Freedom of Speech. I know what it is, and I know why it's important. The problem with Freedom of Speech is that it didn't anticipate the kind of firehose of information a single individual or organization or foreign government is capable of today.

In the same way that your founders didn't anticipate corporations being treated as people in every way except a vote, or the kind of wealth a single individual was capable of accruing, and what that would mean for politics and governance.

I mean, I think the US is a pretty amazing experiment. But it wasn't perfect and built out of whole cloth on day one, and it isn't perfect today. It's ok to admit that and contemplate ways to improve it.

And all that is ignoring the fact that a private entity used to fact check, but no longer does BECAUSE of the incoming government.

Lastly, the idea that fact checking is somehow a problem that shouldn't happen is beyond bizarre. That's how dystopias happen. It's how progress halts completely.

[Zarathud]

Nothing messes with a conservative more than comparing them to long haired anti-government hippies protesting on the streets in the 69-70s. Especially if they’re old enough to remember All in the Family.

[Kurth]

One man’s propaganda is another mans’s truth, though, amiright?

No, not really. And what if the "man" is hundreds of thousands of bots, posting the same "truth" a thousand times a minute?

I don't need a lecture of Freedom of Speech. I know what it is, and I know why it's important. The problem with Freedom of Speech is that it didn't anticipate the kind of firehose of information a single individual or organization or foreign government is capable of today.

In the same way that your founders didn't anticipate corporations being treated as people in every way except a vote, or the kind of wealth a single individual was capable of accruing, and what that would mean for politics and governance.

I mean, I think the US is a pretty amazing experiment. But it wasn't perfect and built out of whole cloth on day one, and it isn't perfect today. It's ok to admit that and contemplate ways to improve it.

And all that is ignoring the fact that a private entity used to fact check, but no longer does BECAUSE of the incoming government.

Lastly, the idea that fact checking is somehow a problem that shouldn't happen is beyond bizarre. That's how dystopias happen. It's how progress halts completely.

I'm not talking about bots. I don't have any reservations with measures taken to restrict the use of bots on social media platforms. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about foreign governments, although to the extent they are hiding who they are and are engaged in fraudulent behavior, it wouldn't cause me any concern for social media platforms to take action against them either.

But when it comes to the single individual or organization "firehosing" information out into the world via social media, I think there are serious issues with censoring that speech except in the very limited situations I mentioned above.

Not trying to lecture you here by any means, but the key rationale supporting the notion that we should protect speech - even (or especially) when distasteful or offensive or hateful - is that we should remain ever distrustful and skeptical of the groups or individuals in power who are making those judgments.

So when I see people complaining that Zuckerberg and Musk are rolling back moderation in favor of free speech, it's confusing to some extent, given the deserved level of distrust and skepticism many of us have for those specific people in power. It feels like we should almost be relieved that they are embracing free speech instead of imposing their own censorious viewpoints.

Of course, as Zarathud pointed out, we need to be vigilant of hypocrisy: If FB and Twitter rollback moderation of some content while enhancing moderation of other content, that should be called out forcefully.

Edited to add: I also disagree with your notion of what creates dystopias. Reread 1984. The problem wasn't that people were stating that Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. The problem was that no one was permitted to refute that.

[GreenGoo]

(edit: Removed rhetorical flourish.) Musk is literally censoring speech he doesn't like, especially if it is negatively directed towards him personally. The idea that speech is more free now a single person has complete control over what is said on twitter is absurd.

I'm not going to argue the benefits of free speech and the market place of ideas. Stop trying to convince me it's a good thing. I already know that. That's not what this is and it is not being served by these corporations.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/propag ... mples.html

What does 1984 say about propaganda?
Propaganda is The Party's most effective weapon and is used to manipulate, confuse, and control its citizens and to instill loyalty toward The Party. The Party deploys its propaganda through the use of telescreens, slogans, images, and rewriting history

If the problem in 1984 is simply that people are not allowed to say things the state doesn't like, why have propaganda at all? Why not just have a larger army of brown shirts running around cracking heads and enforcing the rules?

You are mistaken about 1984. Society was not made up of main characters.

[Holman]

Musk and Zuckerberg and Thiel and their ilk see an opportunity to become the new masters of what's accepted as true.

Conservatives have believed since the 1940s that the media was dead set against them. The entire Fox News/talk radio project was built as an attempt to fashion a parallel media world where Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather (just examples) no longer held sway over what was News.

They succeeded at that, but now the tech lords see that they have a shot at controlling not just the daily news but all of information itself, forever.

[Kurth]

(edit: Removed rhetorical flourish.) Musk is literally censoring speech he doesn't like, especially if it is negatively directed towards him personally. The idea that speech is more free now a single person has complete control over what is said on twitter is absurd.

Of course it is. I never said otherwise. I’m just arguing that when those individuals with more power than they should have turn away from instead of towards censorship, that’s a good thing. Ideally, we wouldn’t give them that power in the first place.

[Max Peck]

(edit: Removed rhetorical flourish.) Musk is literally censoring speech he doesn't like, especially if it is negatively directed towards him personally. The idea that speech is more free now a single person has complete control over what is said on twitter is absurd.

Of course it is. I never said otherwise. I’m just arguing that when those individuals with more power than they should have turn away from instead of towards censorship, that’s a good thing. Ideally, we wouldn’t give them that power in the first place.

That would be an engaging argument if they were actually turning away from censorship, but they aren't. They're simply allowing some forms of hate speech, either because they agree with it or because they believe it's good for business given the ascendant Powers That Be, while still censoring the ones they with which they disagree. They aren't promoting free speech, they're manipulating the voices that are heard on their platforms, and the voices they're choosing to amplify are the ones that say women are second-class citizens, trans people don't exist and any orientation other than heterosexuality is just some form of mental illness.

[Kurth]

(edit: Removed rhetorical flourish.) Musk is literally censoring speech he doesn't like, especially if it is negatively directed towards him personally. The idea that speech is more free now a single person has complete control over what is said on twitter is absurd.

Of course it is. I never said otherwise. I’m just arguing that when those individuals with more power than they should have turn away from instead of towards censorship, that’s a good thing. Ideally, we wouldn’t give them that power in the first place.

That would be an engaging argument if they were actually turning away from censorship, but they aren't. They're simply allowing some forms of hate speech, either because they agree with it or because they believe it's good for business given the ascendant Powers That Be, while still censoring the ones they with which they disagree. They aren't promoting free speech, they're manipulating the voices that are heard on their platforms, and the voices they're choosing to amplify are the ones that say women are second-class citizens, trans people don't exist and any orientation other than heterosexuality is just some form of mental illness.

More than happy to grab a pitchfork and join those calling them out for that. Again, I have zero level of trust in Zuck or Musk or their ilk. I’m just not aware of the particulars of said hypocrisy. What POVs are they continuing to censor while wrapping themselves in the free speech flag?

[Max Peck]

One example: Remember that whole H1-B kerfuffle that nobody talks about because suddenly Trump's Manifest Destiny aspiration has sucked all the air out of the room?

Elon Musk accused of censoring conservatives on X who disagree with him about immigration

Tech billionaire Elon Musk faced accusations of censorship Friday from fellow conservatives after several prominent right-wing accounts who had criticized Musk’s views on immigration said that they subsequently lost access to premium features on Musk’s social media app, X.

At least 14 conservative accounts said late Thursday or Friday that X had revoked their blue verification badge, cutting them off from a variety of premium features, including the ability to monetize their accounts through subscriptions and advertising revenue-sharing, according to a review conducted by NBC News. Some accounts said the number of those affected was far higher.

The accounts were all still active Friday, but without access to monetization features; some of them said they worried about their ability to keep posting.

Some conservatives said they considered X’s actions to be a betrayal by Musk, who purchased the service then known as Twitter in 2022 in part because he said it had unfairly limited conservative speech. Musk has since called himself a free-expression advocate, even as he calls for jailing some of his critics. Musk and X did not respond to requests for comment on Friday. But on Thursday night, about an hour before some conservatives started complaining about losing access to X’s premium features, Musk posted what he called “a reminder” on X. He wrote that the site’s algorithm automatically reduces the reach of a user if they’re frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users.

“If far more credible, verified subscriber accounts (not bots) mute/block your account compared to those who like your posts, your reach will decline significantly,” Musk posted.

But rather than satisfying people complaining about censorship, the post elicited even more accusations that Musk was shadowbanning his conservative critics, or reducing engagement on their posts without officially disclosing such actions to affected accounts.

As for Facebook, take a look at what remains of their community standards policy and you'll see all the things that they still prohibit. They're basically suddenly allowing people to shitpost about the issues that MAGA ran on in the election, but not about other things that weren't election talking points. It isn't free speech if essentially all that they're allowing now that was prohibited before are specific MAGA/GOP targets.

[GreenGoo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.7428625

The social media platform formerly known as Twitter took action after a photo of the club's latest marquee reading, "Forever neighbours, never neighbors" went viral.

The wording references president-elect Donald Trump's recent trolling of Canada by calling it America's 51st state, and uses the juxtaposition of the Canadian spelling of "neighbour" against the U.S. "neighbor" for political satire.

Freedom!

edit: To be clear, I find this hilarious, both the marquee (because clever) and twitter's response to it (because idiotic).

[LordMortis]

Absolutist freedom of speech in the public square. (for me but not for thee) That anyone who is not a garbage consuming MAGAt still uses Xhitter is a mystery to me.

[Kurth]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.7428625

The social media platform formerly known as Twitter took action after a photo of the club's latest marquee reading, "Forever neighbours, never neighbors" went viral.

The wording references president-elect Donald Trump's recent trolling of Canada by calling it America's 51st state, and uses the juxtaposition of the Canadian spelling of "neighbour" against the U.S. "neighbor" for political satire.

Freedom!

edit: To be clear, I find this hilarious, both the marquee (because clever) and twitter's response to it (because idiotic).

That’s insane. How does that possibly qualify as “a hateful profile”?

[Isgrimnur]

Hateful is whatever Leon doesn't like.

[LawBeefaroni]

Freedom is only truly lost when advertisers capitulate. If Walmart is happy to put its ads for kitchen appliances on a post calling women kitchen appliances, it's over. However, if they bow to pressure not to so, there is still a chance.

That's my metric, anyway. We can't count on our legislators for our executive. Or even judicial. But we still have the Almighty Dollar. For now.

[Alefroth]

No incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats, but beyond that, say what you want and expect that others will say what they want in response.

What's the point of restricting free speech in these cases?