Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Government Republicans The Internet United States

FCC Will Move To Regulate Social Media After Censorship Outcry (theverge.com) 325

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: On Thursday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said that the agency will seek to regulate social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter at the behest of the Trump administration's executive order signed earlier this year. "Members of all three branches of the federal government have expressed serious concerns about the prevailing interpretation of the immunity set for in Section 230 of the Communications Act. There is bipartisan support in Congress to reform the law," Pai said in a statement Thursday. "Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."

On Thursday, Pai said that the commission's general counsel said that "the FCC has the legal authority to reinterpret Section 230." He continued, "Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning."
"Pai's decision to move forward with rulemaking follows a series of moderation decisions on Wednesday made by Facebook and Twitter against a New York Post article regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, who has been the subject of political attacks from the right throughout the 2020 presidential election," the report adds.

Facebook reduced the reach of the story, while Twitter banned linking to the story entirely. "These moves from Facebook and Twitter incited an outcry over conservative bias from Republicans," reports The Verge.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Will Move To Regulate Social Media After Censorship Outcry

Comments Filter:
  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @10:35PM (#60613308)

    What if I post stuff here that's non nerdy? Will anyone be able to tell me to fuck off? Free Speech! yay!! fire!

    Buy my fart supplement scent pills to stuff up your ass. Only $29.99.

    Section 230 this.

    • That's one outcome. The other is to just become Digg.
      • Then everyone who upvotes or even downvotes on digg is taking on the role of publisher and therefore susceptible to libel lawsuits? No, that's not a viable path either .. only crazy people would upvote things. Meanwhile there would be people or maybe even bots willing to get paid to upvote spam.

      • The other is to just become Digg.

        Is that the one that is going to be the "next slashdot" someday?

    • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @01:47AM (#60613702) Homepage

      Or if you can’t get advertisers and can’t get your customers to pay a subscription fee, you just pull the plug.

      Of course, that’s what they really want, an Internet that exists as a one-way media consumption platform, where he who has the gold makes the rules.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That and Islamic terrorism. It's funny how Trumptards never complained when we spent the last 20 years silencing Islamic hate preachers and their brand of terrorism. Now their little alt-right/far-right terrorist groups are being censored it's suddenly a problem?

      We literally crippled the Islamic terrorist threat this last 20 years not by winning wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (we didn't, we lost) but by cutting off their recruits in the West by censoring their ability to spread hate speech and recruit by doin

      • by quall ( 1441799 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @06:03AM (#60614106)

        Last I checked, terrorism was illegal in the United States. There is a big difference between censoring content that's illegal or advocating for illegal activity, versus legal content that you don't like.

        Nobody is saying that these social platforms can't have rules or remove content that doesn't align with their business model. The problem is when they enforce rules differently, and choose who may or may not follow their rules.

        If you think that it's censorship to require platforms to enforce their rules evenly, then you have a funny way of defining censorship. Most would argue the complete opposite - that's it's censorship when you enforce rules differently and choose what you want to keep or delete regardless of your rules.

        • No that absolutely is censorship. As a private entities, technically Twitter, Facebook, ect have the right to (in general) arbitrarily do anything (non violent) they want to anyone. They will retain this right until they are classified as public utilities like the phone. I think what this specific regulation is about is if they are publishers or distributers. Even as publishers they would still be able to endorse a specific political candidate and never publish anything that would not advance his career.

  • Dupe? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @10:36PM (#60613310)
    Another dupe? [slashdot.org]
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by bobstreo ( 1320787 )

      Another dupe? [slashdot.org]

      The FCC isn't apparently regulating duplicate posts.... Yet.

    • It doesn't matter how many times people repeat it, Pai isn't going to be able to "interpret" the laws that Congress passed.

      We have other people that do that. I wonder if they've told him yet.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @10:39PM (#60613320)
    Pai is attacking Section 230 of the CDA. He is doing this because the powers that be want to be able to control what is said online. The goal here is to turn the Internet into Cable TV; e.g. a media format where only a few big players can safely post content.

    Without Section 230's protections sites like Twitter, Facebook & YouTube, etc can't risk letting people upload content or posting (since they're legally liable) without a ton of controls in place. Big Sites like the 3 mentioned will survive by using "Content Aggregators" that take a big cut of the ad revenue, squeezing out smaller posters and channels. Personal websites will be risky to folks like Go Daddy and they'll shut you down at the drop of a hat, chilling free speech.

    What pisses me off is how few people get that this is happening. I'm still seeing posts from people who think killing Section 230 will somehow create a free speech paradise because it'll end content moderation. It won't. It'll mean everybody but the biggest guys gets kicked off. Just like Cable TV. Which is exactly what these Establishment Hacks want.
    • by slinches ( 1540051 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @11:14PM (#60613384)

      Big Sites like the 3 mentioned will survive by using "Content Aggregators" that take a big cut of the ad revenue, squeezing out smaller posters and channels. Personal websites will be risky to folks like Go Daddy and they'll shut you down at the drop of a hat, chilling free speech.

      How is that different from how the internet operates now? It's pretty much the same except the "content aggregators" are the big 3 companies themselves and aren't held accountable for it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        aren't held accountable for it.

        This is the key phrase. The problem is with people like you that see "being accountable" (i.e.: facing legal consequences) for speaking is a good thing. It isn't.

        Everyone, including the "Big 3", should be free to speak and free to allow others to speak without being "accountable" to anyone.

        • by Chas ( 5144 )

          Sorry, but that doesn't work if the Big 3 can simply censure and censor people based POV discrimination.

          • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @12:21AM (#60613514) Journal

            Sorry, but that doesn't work if the Big 3 can simply censure and censor people based POV discrimination.

            So you don't think corporations have 1st amendment rights? Go and read about Citizens United.

            • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @12:25AM (#60613528) Journal

              They don't. The Supreme Court deliberately went out of its way to point out in the ruling it wasn't about "corp"-orations as embodied legal people. Rather, the people who own the corporation have First Amendment rights, and take their rights with them wherever they go, and Congress cannot demand they give up that right as the cost of participating in Congressionally-created groupings like corporations.

              • by Xenx ( 2211586 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @01:05AM (#60613620)
                From what I read, the association of people itself retains first amendment freedoms. That means, the corporation itself retains the freedom. Admittedly, it was a summary of the decisions. As such, it may not technically be accurate. Either way, it's just a matter of semantics. "Corporations retain the freedom of speech" is no different from "Corporations retain the freedom of speech, because it's comprised of people that retain their freedom of speech".
                • How is it "just" a matter of what the words mean? You're saying that two statements don't mean the same thing, but basically mean the same thing. I don't see how that makes sense.

                  How about "individuals retain their freedom of speech when speaking collectively through an association"?

            • Marsh vs Alabama says that the town square becomes public when it is owned by a private company.

              • by dryeo ( 100693 )

                So just have to argue what a town square is. It's not like you need to live on one and only one, of these platforms.
                And even in the town square, there's obnoxious behaviour that isn't tolerated, including getting charged with disturbing the peace.

              • In Marsh, the Court held that a private entity operating a company town is a state actor and must abide by the First Amendment. Id. at 505â"08. But in Lloyd Corp. and Hudgens, the Court unequivocally confined Marshâ(TM)s holding to the unique and rare context of "company town[s]" and other situations where the private actor "perform[s] the full spectrum of municipal powers."

                Tell me when a social media company "perform[s] the full spectrum of municipal powers.". Until then, Marsh vs Alabama is just a curiosity which only applies to actual company towns. Which essentially was what the judge told PragerU.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Chas ( 5144 )

              If they're enjoying S230 protections, they have some obligations to fulfill.

              • Do you know what those obligations are?

              • by meglon ( 1001833 )
                https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

                Have you even read it? It really doesn't seem like you have when you say stupid things about it. From the ACTUAL SECTION:

                (d) Obligations of interactive computer service

                A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

                That's it. that's their only obligation according to 230. You may not like that, and you might continue to lie like a little bitch about it, but the law doesn't give a fuck what you wish for. It's written right there, for everyone to read. Try that.

          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            Sorry, but that doesn't work if the Big 3 can simply censure and censor people based POV discrimination.

            But they can't. Nothing they do can meaningfully prevent you from building out your own server and paying for your own bandwidth and using it to share whatever the heck you want.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @05:17AM (#60614014) Homepage Journal

            I'd be interested to know if any platform in history never engaged in censure and censor based on views they didn't like.

            Even 4chan's /pol board has rules. Usenet was always at the discretion of the server operators, they chose which groups to carry.

            Can you name just one?

          • by AC-x ( 735297 )

            Sorry, but that doesn't work if the Big 3 can simply censure and censor people based POV discrimination.

            That's a problem of monopoly and antitrust behavior, and can be dealt with by those appropriate laws. Allowing the government to control freedom of speech (especially the government forcing private individuals and companies to publish speech they disagree with) is a grave danger to democracy.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by onyxruby ( 118189 )

          The problem is not with their saying what they want. The problem is with their interjecting into what everyone else is saying, especially since they are monopolies. It's the equivalent of the phone company or post office interjecting and deciding to detune you based on your content. That would never be tolerated, and it would be absurd to allow them to do so simply because they own the infrastructure.

          Nobody is stopping them from saying what they want. However there is a big difference between them saying it

          • by RazorSharp ( 1418697 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @12:47AM (#60613584)

            It's the equivalent of the phone company or post office interjecting and deciding to detune you based on your content.

            I don't have a Facebook or Twitter account and I function just fine. I would not be able to meet my legal obligations to society without a phone or the postal service.

            Until people stop being jackasses, discourse requires moderation. On the internet, we have figured out various solutions to this problem. Slashdot has one.

            Discourse without moderation devolves into something resembling the last presidential debate: the loud jackass prevents actual discourse from occurring by being a loud jackass.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ufgrat ( 6245202 )

          It's all relative. If I accuse you of being a goat raper in public, and your reputation is permanently damaged, you should have some form of legal recourse against me.

          If you incite people to kill abortionists-- you should have to face some form of accountability when someone kills an abortionist.

          What's absolutely crazy about this is that the reason the US government is wading into this quagmire is that the President is offended by Twitter and Facebook labeling his posts as "nuts", "fake", "debunked conspir

      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @11:44PM (#60613420)
        anything you want. There are exceptions, but they are very few and far between. YouTube, for example, didn't take action against Qanon for being lies, they took action because they kept baselessly accusing people of pedophilia. And you've got to really try to get banned from FB.

        Those 3 companies provide platforms and an audience for just about any viewpoint you can to find (albeit sometimes with a dog whistle or two). After S230 dies it'll go back to the 1960s. 24/7 All Establishment All The Time.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

          Those 3 companies provide platforms and an audience for just about any viewpoint you can to find

          And when they don't, you can buy this for 35 coins of the realm [raspberrypi.org], plug it into your own internet connection, type apt-get install apache2, and thank $deity for section 230 when you have to boot people who choose not to follow the rules of your platform.

          They should teach this shit in school.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Even that's not necessary, loads of hard right sites are able to get commercial hosting.

            - Gab
            - Parly
            - ThinkSpot
            - Voat
            - 4chan
            - Infowars
            - Daily Stormer

            All commercially hosted. What upsets people is not that they can't put their sites online, it that other people refuse to provide them with free advertising and promotion. YouTube has a big audience so naturally they want to be on YouTube to get a slice of it, and get very upset when they are relegated to some niche site.

            • Some nuance to this; Gab isn't able to get access to credit card payments, or even a bank account because of deplatforming due to their free speech stance. Granted, it's a horrible, awful place, but financial deplatforming is an issue. I don't really care about the rest as it is as you state; it is replacable, people should build their own thing. But you can't create your own paypal, or stripe, or your own credit card company.
              • Granted, it's a horrible, awful place, but financial deplatforming is an issue.

                The issue is that in capitalist western democracies, people vote with their wallets. If I knew somewhere I banked was providing financial services to Gab, I'd yank my business and tell all my friends to do the same. Often it's the only means of protest that works for us.

                It's just not worth the bad press Humungous Bank would get to provide financial services to a wretched hive of scum and villainy like Gab.

      • by ras ( 84108 )

        How is that different from how the internet operates now? It's pretty much the same except the "content aggregators" are the big 3 companies themselves and aren't held accountable for it.

        You only have one cable tv connection and a few newspapers in your area. If you have something to say and none of them are interested, then tough, shut up, it's a oligopoly. The big 3 may be big, but there are literally billions of web sites out there. If you don't like one of them make one of your own.

        So there is a huge

    • I guess we'll see it then, as this is the likely outcome no matter what happens in November, just as it was with the dismantling of Net Neutrality, there's nothing we can do to stop it. I'm sorry for my part in cheering this on.
    • I really want to see an immediate ban on Donald Trump in response.
      "In compliance with proposed rules from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, we have terminated this account for putting us at legal risk."
      #streissand_effect

    • > Without Section 230's protections sites like Twitter, Facebook & YouTube, etc can't risk letting people upload content or posting (since they're legally liable) without a ton of controls in place.

      If Section 230 disappeared entirely (it won't), we'd then be back to pre-230 law. That law gives web sites two options:

      1. Don't choose what is posted and you aren't liable (what Slashdot does).

      2. Decide what to have one your site, and be responsible for that decision.

      What 230 allows is that sites can choos

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      Section 230, in the US, is what prevents OTHER countries from applying their own interpretation. US companies have largely been held not liable for their user-generated content. If that changes, kiss away sites like Twitch and Youtube. As long as it was legal to have in the US, the content could exist as long as it didn't stumble into some edge-case where the site ToS would have to kick in. If that goes away, then content will get hosted outside the US, and beyond the reach of US law, to where who knows.

      As

    • You KNOW thats not true, you are just pissed that the tools of your 'side' to hide their lies are under threat.

      Section 230 is not being removed, it is being removed from people who prove that they CAN control the speech on their platforms.
      Section 230 was put in place to allow sites that cannot control content to exist - but these few want it both ways, they are controlling the speech AND wanting the protections given because they apparently cannot..

      There are no two ways, they should either allow all legal s

    • What pisses me off is how few people get that this is happening

      That pisses you off? They don't get that, but "that" is way more complex than a ton of political lies/fake information/deceptive tactics that people don't get either. People don't like to think.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @03:56AM (#60613882) Homepage Journal

      It's far worse than that. You know what they do in dictatorships? Take control of the media. State controlled TV and newspapers that only publish government approved narratives.

      This is a very dangerous moment for the US. The government has been attacking the free press for 4 years now. Started by banning ones that asked hard questions from Whitehouse briefings and bringing in their own stooges, and constantly attacking the "lying media" (google "lugenpresse"), and now on to social media. The president is refusing to confirm he will accept the result of the election and already calling it illegitimate. Even the judiciary has been stacked with government loyalists, not just SCOTUS but all down the lower courts too.

      This could get really bad if you don't put a stop to it pretty damn quick, and then reform the system to prevent this kind of abuse ever happening again.

  • by niftydude ( 1745144 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @10:42PM (#60613324)
    Always remember - truth in advertising laws have never applied to political ads, and these stories (whether they're fake or not) are essentially dressed up political ads.

    Politicians have never liked to be held up to any sort of standard of truthfulness.

    Twitter and Facebook are about to receive an unprecedented bipartisan screwing.
    • Political statements, including ads, are the most protected speech of all. Even lies are protected, lest the politicians with power become arbiters of the truth said agsinst them.

      The only response to this is more speech.

      In any event, facebook and friends are not censoring of their own free will, contrary to some statements around here. Rather, they are reacting in terror to a possible Democratic win, when the debators all stood around one-upping each other on how they could alter 230 and other laws so as

  • ... social media regulates YOU! No wait, that's in America.
  • Would be the person to kill the internet, I would have said "Who the fuck is Hunter Biden?"
  • by dragonturtle69 ( 1002892 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @11:09PM (#60613374)

    How can someone, or company, control what is displayed and not be responsible for what is displayed?

    They become responsible once they filter the information, especially if the filtering is not unbiased. "Hacking" by a computer repair shop finding crap on a SSD is not a defense to filter out the article.

    I am going to guess that a lot of us on /. have found all sorts of stuff while doing PC/laptop/cell phone support. That was not hacking/cracking.

    • Heh... I just realized. This is going to kill independent content creators.

      Take YouTube for example. Their moderation is bad enough, and it's all they can do to automate it and use some staff to focus on some of their more visible screw-ups. It might be possible to have a free-for-all or closely moderated text-only social media site... but video is something else. Even without screwing with Section 230 you *must* moderate that and you can never do it perfectly. If the penalty for imperfection is death (fin

      • by Chas ( 5144 )

        Not if the erstwhile platforms return to being actual PLATFORMS, instead of acting as publishers.

        The government delivers real value by using the law to protect these ventures from prosecution.
        It's time they stop abusing that privilege to practice viewpoint discrimination and election interference.

        • Video, graphical, and audio media must be moderated. A site like YouTube or Facebook/Instagram choosing not to moderate such content is legal suicide already. They must make a good-faith effort to deal with copyrighted and criminal content or risk suffering the same fate as MegaUpload.

          Even a text-only social media site can be at risk when left unmoderated. I only think it's possible because the algorithms for detecting text-based violations are easier to make. Any time your politicians have an issue with

          • by Chas ( 5144 )

            "Video, graphical, and audio media must be moderated."

            And we're not talking about Pornhub or Napster here.

            We're talking about a common discussion and information dissemination platform.
            We're not talking about flat earthers and holocaust deniers.
            We're talking about these services silencing ACTUAL NEWS OUTLETS and the government as well.
            And not to protect their ass from lawsuits.
            But to service their political ideology (and at this point, interfere with a general election).

        • We are stuck with Democrats threatening section 230 unless internet media censor harrassment, with an immediate facetious chaser that their political opponents are tweeting harrassment, please silence them, and Republicans threatening 230 because the media companies are censoring on behalf of Democrats for the exact same reason.

          People fought and died for freedom of speech. What a shameful embarrassment this crop of politicians are. All it does is emphasize that the Founding Fathers, whatever their other f

  • So? (Score:2, Insightful)

    Don't like their editorial rules, go to one of the social media platforms created for conservatives.
    The Republicans use to be big on voting with their feet. Now they whine about bullshit.

    • Just as soon as the government steps in and breaks up these monopolies.

      • Just as soon as the government steps in and breaks up these monopolies.

        You can certainly argue google is a monopoly (as in large enough to have a distorting, anti trust effect) on the market for search. And web browsers and a few other bits and bobs.

        Twitter isn't a monopoly by any stretch. So go to gab. The trouble is that the conservative, free speech bastions are utter shitholes it turns out.

    • The party of personal responsibility, supposedly small limited government, and let the market decide, is now throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting enough likes on social media. Please daddy government do something! Punish all those people who don't agree with us!

      That said I used to agree with Reagan era republicans and even up until the early Clinton years. Now the party has been hijacked by religious nutjobs along with the good ol' boys club. These people are ideologically closer to the Taliban th

  • by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxrubyNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Friday October 16, 2020 @12:02AM (#60613462)

    They need to be treated as the monopolies that they are. The abuse in this case was to vagrant and too in your face, the fact that big tech was able to shut down the media and the people showed their power to chill free speech in this country. Now if only the politicians had a clue just how much big tech has done to manipulate the 2020 election.

    Big tech needs regulated as monopolies and treated as utilities, just like AT&T and the USPS. You can do limited good by breaking them up, but that isn't the solution. You have to treat them with RAND (Reasonable And NonDiscriminatory) This is the standard used to address monopolies by the FTC for a very long time (since the 1800's). This has withstood dozens of reviews in the US Supreme Court so the precedent is about as good as anything that this country has for Supreme Court precedent.

    Big tech should not have the power of an oligarch where they get to pick and choose our leaders. Yet they have behaved in exactly that manner, impacting our election with behavior that is orders of magnitude worse than what the Russians were accused of doing in 2016. Even if you don't like Trump this should really bother you as this sets a precedent of Big Tech picking our leaders. Just remember you may not like the leaders that they pick next time.

    The idea that a handful of companies can pick and choose the discourse of the American public would once have existed only in the works of science fiction, and never in a positive light. The fact that so many people are supporting those very companies in their censorship is madness. Censorship is wrong and it has no moral acceptably place in a civilized society.

    • You can compete with the current internet application leaders if you have a competitive/better/compelling application. Random piece of recent evidence: Tiktok.

      Second, social media companies are not in the business of creating content. They facilitate sharing of user-generated content. If some content is illegal, it should be the original publishing user who is liable, not the platform. If I post a lie about Joe Biden on a billboard, and some law says it's illegal defamation or whatever, should the billboard
      • Great, so, they will be leaving the content up then.

        but no, these sites ARE censoring, they ARE demonstrating control over their content.
        In which case, section 230 SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THEM. Simple, really.

        • Great, so, they will be leaving the content up then.

          Yes if they didn't take down stuff violating their ToS they would instantly become completely overwhelmed with spam. I'm amazed about how many techies seem instantly forgetful about the incredibly obvious things when "their team" is doing something.

    • 10 years ago: The internet will simple route around this problem.

      Today: Please government do something!

  • "Pai's decision to move forward with rulemaking follows a series of moderation decisions on Wednesday made by Facebook and Twitter against a New York Post article regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, ...

    If it's in the New York Post, it must be true, with sources totally above board and reporters dedicated to the highest journalistic standards. /sarcasm

    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      You'd prefer the New York Times, whose own reporters demand censorship of their own colleagues?

      You'd prefer the New York Times, who employ actual racists?

      You'd prefer the New York Times, who stealth edit articles at the behest of the Biden campaign?

      Crikey, the New York Post must truly be a haven of villainy and corruption.

  • Consider this... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Dan East ( 318230 )

    Consider this for a moment. Facebook and Twitter are blocking a news article, because the article contains information that came from a laptop that was legally, knowingly and voluntarily forfeit by a customer (likely because they didn't want to pay, or couldn't be bothered). That laptop and the information on it were knowingly conveyed to another party, after numerous notifications and grace periods had lapsed over many months.

    Now remember that Trump's personal tax information was leaked by the New York Ti

    • Re:Consider this... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PraiseBob ( 1923958 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @09:14AM (#60614578)
      Now remember that Trump's personal tax information was leaked by the New York Times. This was indeed illegal, as courts have ruled that Trump is still a private citizen, and as such was not forced to release this private and personal information.

      But, he has said, over and over and over, including in the past 24 hours, that he wants to release his tax returns and show the American people what they contain, but that he was unable to due to audit. So, the New York Times is helping him by releasing those documents, and offering exactly what he said he wants. Unless you think, he was really lying, each time he made that statement about his taxes?
    • by mikeg22 ( 601691 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @09:53AM (#60614728)
      The reason the Biden story was banned is because it was fake news Russian disinformation fed from the Kremlin straight to the Trump campaign. It has been discredited by all reputable investigative journalists who have looked into it.

      If your side doesn't want it's stuff banned, then produce true, at a minimum defensible, content.
      • by malkavian ( 9512 )

        Care to show the citations?

      • Twitter said no such thing. They said it contains "private" and "unauthorized" information, which, quite the contrary, suggests that the contents are genuine.

        I mean... Do you think Hunter Biden gave the Post his spicy videos of himself passed out on drugs, because he just likes journalists so much?

    • by drew_kime ( 303965 ) on Friday October 16, 2020 @10:08AM (#60614776) Journal

      Consider... why did Twitter and Facebook not block a single news article that contained Trump's personal tax data, but they did block the article related to Biden?

      Because they determined that the tax data was most-likely true, while the Biden story was most-likely disinformation.

      Journalism is not blindly parroting everything that anybody says. It's finding and sharing the pieces that you believe are true and relevant and explaining why.

      This is where someone complains about using "journalism" when talking about Facebook and Twitter. But the issue is whether they spread a news article, so that seems to apply.

  • But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.

    Isn't the point, though, that Twitter et al are not a "media outlet" like a newspaper. A newspaper chooses what to publish, even what type of content to think about publishing. Twitter et al are "publishing" whatever some other party chooses to post, and then are given the impossible task of fairly and consistently applying some cleanup rules afterwards. An argument could be made about various promotional mechanisms such as trending or 'suggested' content. Which, now that I think about it, might be how they

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

Working...