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.