They can likely ignore the requests; however they don’t want to face the backlash of people blaming the platform for many deaths or for swaying the election a certain way because they allowed the distribution of false information. It’s the same reason newspapers printed retractions.
OK. Agreed. In fact, I think that is what the hope is. That the public will beome aware of the damage being done and social media will stop running it. I appreciate the concern and damage that government interference with the press can cause, but in this instance isn't sunlight the best disinfectant?
I'm a big fan of science. I think there is some relativity here. But in this instance opinion is realative which party is in power and the 1st Amendment still includes freedom of the press.
Social media removed posts and posters for suggesting Covid originated in the Wuhan lab. Is this one of the obvious lies which were killing people of which you’re speaking? Given the now known partnership between social media and the US government which flags such posts there is only a small leap to banning posters critical of a US run lab or other government facility. People who support such actions lack a basic understanding of world history.
There are always limits and exceptions to human rights. Take for example the most fundamental freedom. The freedom of life. If you are endangering the lives of others through your conduct, our society reserves the right to cancel your right to life (via self defense, war, or the death penalty).
www.cnn.com
Because there is danger on the other side as well. You point to extremes on one side of a spectrum but ignore extremes on the other when we should be moderating both sides (extreme censorship and extreme speech)
Apparently the only person who should have any limits on expressing his or her opinion is the President of the United States? Still waiting for an example of coercion and penalties.
The President has an open platform for expressing any opinion he or she wishes. The President doesn’t have the right to flag speech and dictate to social media sites that they remove said speech and ban those who post the same. We’ve seen such actions by those in charge many times throughout history. Almost always ends poorly for the citizens who live under such tyranny.
Ok you racist A*hole. Yes, there is a difference between the KKK and BLM. When was the last time you saw black lives matter drag someone from their home because they were white, string a rope over a tree and hang that person until they were dead?
Honestly, no I wouldn't. We don't allow blanket "free speech" in many of these BLM instances because the cities impose curfews, or they argue that protesters didn't have the correct arbitrary permits specifically with the excuse of maintaining public safety. They may not limit speech in a text format. Instead they limit literal public speech.
False equivalency. There was zero limitation on what they could say. Hell…they were advocating the murdering of peace officers with impunity. Requiring one say his speech across the street or not between 2am and 6am is not close to the same as the government flagging speech and banning the same along with the speaker. To my knowledge BLM was never silenced based on content even when advocating murder. Which is the subject of this thread. If I’m incorrect then please correct me.
Limiting where, when, and how you are able to make your speech l, is still limiting speech. I’m not even saying I disagree with them limiting such speech, just that it’s limited in the name of public safety / public nuisance just like what was being done on facebook.
Stop. FB was limiting speech based on content and it’s an absolute ban. Not a ban from 2am to 6am. Content is the issue here. I understand why you’re trying to divert the conversation away from banning speech based on content but that is the issue at hand.
If you don't like people shouting their political positions outside your house in the middle of the night, put on earmuffs.
I mean, kind of, the content of the speech does have something to do with how a demonstration is allowed. You're much less likely to have a curfew called for a candle light vigil at 2 AM than you are to have one called for a chanting political movement. They're both forms of free speech though.
You can choose to ignore the people chanting outside your house much like you choose to ignore the sound of a train that might be nearby. Heck, people in some cities ignore police sirens and gunshots.
FB lost much of its private company argument when it teamed up with the federal government to censor citizen speech. At that point it’s a pseudo agent for the government to eliminate speech which the Fed’s find objectionable. Not to mention social media is quickly becoming the method which most people get their news and spread speech.
I get what you’re saying. The point is, there have always been acceptable limits to free speech even in public forums. Some of them mandated by the government. For example the FCC enforces laws restricting “obscene, profane, or indecent” content from broadcast television. Would you like to complain about that as well?
If those restrictions prevented the public from criticizing government policies or positions I would absolutely object to such censorship. Don’t really care about restricting the use of a few specific words as long as the overall message isn’t prohibited. We should always scrutinize the banning of speech which is critical of our government using the strictest of standards due to the obvious danger of such restrictions.
