Category: Free speech

Does anyone else realize the significance of this move (and its predecessor) by FaceBook?

Facebook ends ban on posts claiming COVID-19 is man-made

If you recall, Facebook originally claimed that this particular COVID-19 source narative had been debunked and thus flagged a New York Post article on the subject as false, effectively limiting its distribution on their platform. FaceBook had decided the “truth”, and competing “truths” were simply not to be heard. But what entitles FaceBook to be the arbiter of all truth?

The argument has been made by some, and seemingly accepted by FaceBook, that facts are facts and thus no dissent should be allowed. But “facts” are frequently temporary; until only a few thousand years ago most people took as “fact” that the world was flat and the universe revolved around the earth. If it were not for the competing opinion of naysayers we might all still be living in the dark ages. Progress is driven by questioning the opinions and facts of the day, but if no competing opinions are allowed…  well, the world might as well be “flat”.

Social media companies can get away with selective censorship because the 1st amendment only applies to the government – not private companies or individuals. Facebook is therefore exempt from the free speech requirements of the 1st amendment. They are free to censor what and whom they want.

But what if these companies are subject to regulation by the government? Worse yet, what if they are protected by the government? Do you think these companies could act in a purely independent manner with respect to their censorship activities? Or do you think they might be swayed by political interests? By people capable of wielding the hammer of regulation? By those whose political support acts as the thread suspending the Sword of Damocles over their heads? Would they be independent of the government then?

An entity whose protection depends on the government (in this case, by Section 230 of the Telecommunications act) cannot act independently. So long as these government guaranteed protections exist, social media companies should be held to the 1st amendment as agents of the government. They should be allowed to reject these protections and censor if they wish, but if they accept them then they should be held to the same 1st amendment restrictions as the government. But they should not have it both ways.

Section 230 was intended to encourage “… a true diversity of political discourse …” on the Internet – not an environment where politically-motivated overlords could control who can speak and what may be heard. If social media companies don’t want to allow free political discourse, so be it – revoke their protections under Section 230.

George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth was fictional. Let’s keep it that way.

…but no one else can hear. After all, we can’t have any opinions publicly expressed other than those sanctioned by the state; it might stir dissent.

Conservative group says California school ‘digitally assassinated’ photo in move ‘straight out of Orwell’

Not allowing these students to express views unless they are school sanctioned is an act of oppression. And it should not happen in America.

Congress wants to change the protections offered under Section 230 of the Telecommunications act – but not in a way you might think (or want). While the previous administration wanted to remove the protections afforded by Section 230 to minimize potentially biased censorship,  the current administration instead wants to modify these protections to force more censorship:

Senate Democrats propose Section 230 reform bill to hold Big Tech ‘accountable’ for content

The authors (at least one of them) of this reform have taken the position that Internet service providers must protect their users from “unlawful [and] discriminatory conduct”. I disagree; if social media users truly post “unlawful” content then it is up to law enforcement to take legal action and protect the affected users. When such moderation is left to the potentially biased view of social media providers then we face a risk of the minority voice being extinguished.

The idea that Internet service providers should be held civilly and criminally liable for speech that they do not moderate on their platforms is like saying cities should be held liable for what their residents say in the public square. If someone posts something illegal on social media, it is only they who should be held accountable – the same as if they said it in the public square. Otherwise it should be left to the users whether or not they want to  listen – again, just as in public. Making social media companies liable for the speech of their users will only add legitimacy to their biased censorship of the minority voice.

I agree that Section 230 needs to be changed, but it needs to be changed to enhance free speech – not cripple it.