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

[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

Just out of curiosity, do you accept that Trump lost the 2020 election?

 

[sun rise]

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.

The classic test here has been "crying fire in a crowded theater" speech is not permitted. In other words, inciting people to riot, to panic, to commit acts of violence against people for bigoted reasons.

 

[NArdas]

The classic test here has been "crying fire in a crowded theater" speech is not permitted. In other words, inciting people to riot, to panic, to commit acts of violence against people for bigoted reasons.

Like saying we should support the Ukraine? How many billions of U.S. tax dollars were spent supporting a government that was stated to be the "most corrupt government" in the EU.?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

The arguement it's a private entity is pure bull****.

It's not private. It's publicly owned and used shareholder corporations with no one single owner and needs to fall under all laws regarding publicly owned media. That includes constitutional protection of its content.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The arguement it's a private entity is pure bull****.

It's not private. It's publicly owned and used shareholder corporations with no one single owner and needs to fall under all laws regarding publicly owned media. That includes constitutional protection of its content.

"Private" in this context is a contrast to being state-owned or state-run.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Private" in this context is a contrast to being state-owned or state-run.

Which brings up my point that it should be treated in the same way as state owned or run.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Which brings up my point that it should be treated in the same way as state owned or run.

Which corporations should this apply to, and where do we draw the line?

Your argument is inching quite close to a key socialist principle (that is, public ownership and state regulation of utilities and certain enterprises). The laws of physics might malfunction now.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Which corporations should this apply to, and where do we draw the line?

Your argument is inching quite close to a key socialist principle (that is, public ownership and state regulation of utilities and certain enterprises). The laws of physics might malfunction now.

I would say any public shareholder owned entity should fall under the same criteria as public owned and run representive government which we already have, or supposedly we have .. hopefully.

I don't think that nessessarly puts it as being a socialist call, but I wouldn't mind a vodka or two and quipping "here's to you comrade" on occasion.

Well far short of the red star, and hammer and sycle of course.

Personally I'd be immensly happy with a revised fairness doctrine, where all public owned media must provide both sides of any issue or contention.

 

[SomeRandom]

Like saying we should support the Ukraine? How many billions of U.S. tax dollars were spent supporting a government that was stated to be the "most corrupt government" in the EU.?

In fairness, Russia still outranked the Ukraine as the most corrupt nation from the same investigation. (Ukraine ranked 132 but Russia ranked 136 out of 180 countries.)
Technically wouldn’t supporting Ukraine still be the “lesser of two evils” in context?

Corruption in Ukraine - Wikipedia.

 

[F1fan]

Like saying we should support the Ukraine? How many billions of U.S. tax dollars were spent supporting a government that was stated to be the "most corrupt government" in the EU.?

That was the pro-Putin government BEFORE Zelenskyy was elected. This pro-Putin government was why Obama did not give Ukraine military aid until the corruption was addressed. After Zelenskyy was elected our foreign policy changed and Congress voted to give them military aid. As we know trump tried to extort Zelenskyy over the aid.

As a reminder let's not forget how trump tried to extort Zelenskyy due to the history of corruption that trump thought was still in place. Which is wasn't, and led to a trump impeachment. And of course Manafort was involved in that corrupt government before Zelenskyy, and we know Manafort became trump's campaign manager, and who worked for free, for some reason. Odd.

So, do you still want to talk about the corruption in the pre-Zelenskyy government?