Censorship of Propaganda/Misinformation: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?

[Augustus]

What should be the legal regulation on the censorship of such platforms? Would it be arguable that giving the government control over the boundaries of speech on social media would be handing the government too much control over media outlets?

You would need some kind of code of conduct, transparent policies and algorithms, an ombudsman who people can appeal to and ultimately the ability to challenge in court and compensation for egregious censorship.

Better the power held by government via the people than a handful of immensely powerful corporations that can ruin lives and swing elections on a whim.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You would need some kind of code of conduct, transparent policies and algorithms, an ombudsman who people can appeal to and ultimately the ability to challenge in court and compensation for egregious censorship.

Better the power held by government via the people than a handful of immensely powerful corporations that can ruin lives and swing elections on a whim.

If I'm understanding you correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, of course), are you arguing that when media outlets pass a certain threshold of social and political influence, control thereof should shift from private individuals or corporations to the government and applicable state laws?

If so, how would we determine said threshold? When does a corporation or social media outlet become big enough to transfer its legal liability to the hands of the government?

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is a question that I can't answer because on one hand allowing lies and hate speech can lead to societies endorsing such dreck. On the other hand, such power is too easy to abuse. So there's a Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? situation: who will guard the guardians or in this case who will make sure that those who have power don't abuse it.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to stop governments and government-allied front organizations from posting obvious lies and hate speech. And along with that have reviews of policies and decisions by a neutral body.

The only thing for sure is the need for a simple, easy to understand "terms of service" which spells out what is not acceptable and how that will be judged.

Then the question of what constitutes "lies and hate speech" arises. Who would determine that, and who would be able to keep the arbiters of such in check so as to prevent personal bias and political interests from clouding their judgment?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Currently, I'm leaning toward the view that certain kinds of speech should be banned on a state level, such as Nazi speech and other forms of hate speech that can incite violence against certain groups.

Extending this to especially prominent social media, I think a possibly useful approach would be to have them abide by speech laws within the countries in which they were headquartered. That would ensure censorship of incitement, racial instigation, etc., but also avoid excessive or overly personalized censorship.

This view is kinda tentative, though, as I've been a bit ambivalent about this lately.

 

[England my lionheart]

Goebbels would love you.

I doubt that very much.

 

[Orbit]

Then the question of what constitutes "lies and hate speech" arises. Who would determine that, and who would be able to keep the arbiters of such in check so as to prevent personal bias and political interests from clouding their judgment?

As long as you're dealing with humans, you are dealing with imperfect decision-makers. At some point, you have to trust the system and the people you have put in place, and have an oversight mechanism. There's no way around human subjectivity.

 

[Augustus]

If I'm understanding you correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, of course), are you arguing that when media outlets pass a certain threshold of social and political influence, control thereof should shift from private individuals or corporations to the government and applicable state laws?

If so, how would we determine said threshold? When does a corporation or social media outlet become big enough to transfer its legal liability to the hands of the government?

I'm not advocating government ownership, but regulation as a public utility like energy providers, telecom companies, etc.

They can still operate as private businesses, just they have stricter oversight than most as their strategic importance is recognised along side the difficulty of normal competition as in other economic sectors.

I guess threshold would be either user based or revenue based.

 

[England my lionheart]

History shows that this can be extremely harmful in a lot of situations. One of the cornerstones of the Third Reich was hate speech against "non-Aryan" people. Weighing the potential risks of censoring such speech with the risks of allowing it, I think the latter are much greater.

It seems to me that the question then becomes how to consistently apply a reasonable balance between censorship and free speech and what constitutes a reasonable balance to begin with.

For me it’s about the listener not the propaganda.

 

[F1fan]

I have lately been increasingly contemplating this question: if any given private platform, such as a social media website, censors specific propaganda or misinformation, where should the line be drawn for the censorship?

Put differently, let's say I owned Facebook or Instagram and decided to censor all pro-Putin comments in order to halt Russian propaganda on the site. This would bring up a dilemma: should I also censor all comments supporting, say, the Saudi or Iranian regime? What about ones endorsing China's dictatorial social and political laws?

All of the above regimes, among many others in the world, contribute to significant suffering, loss of life, and abuse. I'm not a believer in absolute free speech--especially not on private platforms--but the questions arising around consistency and a potential slippery slope of excessive censorship have me wondering whether selective censorship is a wise idea.

When should or shouldn't a private entity censor content on its platform(s)?

Please note that this question isn't about state law or government departments (e.g., Congress). It is strictly about private entities and platforms.

I'm almost never on Facebook any more because there are local news stations and groups that will post news about most every topic. When people make comments that support for issues that trump conservatives oppose there are loads of negative comments. For example if there is a story about a trans person getting some victory in a school or job and someone supports that story and person, there is an avalanche of negative posts. It is a real negative feeling to read comments these days with such vile people who seem to want to bully good-willed citizens. It's as if these folks are gangs just waiting for a "snowflake" to post some liberal view. Most of these comments don't seem to violate the rules, but they will express untrue beliefs or conspiracies or just derogatory comments.

Facebook feels like what Parler was trying to do. It's a really toxic place these days. I have heard Facebook is losing frequent users, and this could be the reason.

 

[F1fan]

History shows that this can be extremely harmful in a lot of situations. One of the cornerstones of the Third Reich was hate speech against "non-Aryan" people. Weighing the potential risks of censoring such speech with the risks of allowing it, I think the latter are much greater.

It seems to me that the question then becomes how to consistently apply a reasonable balance between censorship and free speech and what constitutes a reasonable balance to begin with.

Just look at the rise of Qanon. It used to be a fringe phenomenon and it seems to be gaining strength and influence.

But the weakest part of a society are the least educated and the most gullible. The USA has a large percentage of citizens who fall into one or both categories.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But the weakest part of a society are the least educated and the most gullible.

Sounds like an elitist dig at the working class and poor.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sounds like an elitist dig at the working class and poor.

Aside from reduced access to academic qualifications, why would the poor and working class necessarily be the least educated or most gullible part of a society? The vast majority of intellectually bankrupt public figures and politicians are highly educated in an academic sense, as are a considerable portion of their supporters.

 

[SomeRandom]

Private companies should only censor abusive behavior, imo. They have no business censoring political speech as long as it's expressed civilly. However, if they want to be censors, they need to state clearly in the rules/terms of service exactly what sort of speech and viewpoints are banned. Facebook's censorship being out of control is one of the reasons I left.

Interestingly Facebook has seemingly gained a reputation for being the platform that “radicalises your older relative/friend into conspiracy theories.”

Not sure if that’s just how Gen Z sees it, or if that’s just a meme.
But it has become something of a running joke as of late.

I’m usually too drunk to notice or care. But there are some ummm “interesting rabbit holes” to be found on social media, let’s just put it that way

 

[F1fan]

Sounds like an elitist dig at the working class and poor.

Explain why you interpret it that way.

 

[NArdas]

Over the years here in the U.S. there has been a big push at the top levels to censor and ban any speech under the excuse of being misinformation, outright lies (even when true) or part of some whack a doodle conspiracy theory that other nations are somehow undermining our democracy if it proves problematic for a certain political party. Several domestic big tech companies have been more than happy to oblige the undermining of democracy by banning and censoring as well as disabling links to truthful reports along with CNN, MSNBC, WAPO etc. media presstitutes pushing their own conspiracies, lies, and misinformation that serves their masters. We have been told over and over that outsiders and foreigners (them) are trying to undermine our democracy but facts show that all of our enemies are domestic.

 

[F1fan]

Over the years here in the U.S. there has been a big push at the top levels to censor and ban any speech under the excuse of being misinformation, outright lies (even when true) or part of some whack a doodle conspiracy theory that other nations are somehow undermining our democracy if it proves problematic for a certain political party. Several domestic big tech companies have been more than happy to oblige the undermining of democracy by banning and censoring as well as disabling links to truthful reports along with CNN, MSNBC, WAPO etc. media presstitutes pushing their own conspiracies, lies, and misinformation that serves their masters. We have been told over and over that outsiders and foreigners (them) are trying to undermine our democracy but facts show that all of our enemies are domestic.

Your post rings of MAGAism in it's references.

Perhaps offer us some examples so we can know EXACTLY what you are talking about. Then we can assess your attitudes and comments.

 

[NArdas]

Your post rings of MAGAism in it's references. .

So you can dismiss whatever I say no matter how true it is

Unless you've been asleep for the last six years you should know exactly what I am talking about

 

[F1fan]

So you can dismiss whatever I say no matter how true it is

Unless you've been asleep for the last six years you should know exactly what I am talking about

You sound ashamed.

 

[NArdas]

You sound ashamed.

What do you make of the collusion and complicity between big tech, many MSM outlets, and social network sites censoring, banning, and disabling links to truthful stories to meddle in U.S. elections and what threat do you think it may pose to democracy and freedom in the future if not kept in check? They used to do it in the shadows, now they openly talk about it

 

[F1fan]

What do you make of the collusion and complicity between big tech, many MSM outlets, and social network sites censoring, banning, and disabling links to truthful stories to meddle in U.S. elections and what threat do you think it may pose to democracy and freedom in the future if not kept in check? They used to do it in the shadows, now they openly talk about it

Vague question using code speak.

Ask a coherent question with precise examples (that aren't disinformation and just accusations) so we can offer an assessment and position.

From what you say above I'm guessing you think ethics and honest reporting is a bad thing?