People hold signs during a protest against the coronavirus shutdown in front of State Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, on April 24, 2020. Kamil Krzaczynski | AFP | Getty Images Social media networks are working to remove or stop the spread of a viral pandemic conspiracy video that contains false, misleading or unproven claims about Covid-19. The roughly 26-minute “Plandemic Movie” video claims to be an excerpt of a larger documentary to be released this summer and contains claims about the origins of the virus and how it spreads. The video tries to argue that the coronavirus pandemic was created to make profits off vaccines. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/07/fac...ing-to-remove-plandemic-conspiracy-video.html So... here we have it, only the fake news media and talking heads can disseminate false, misleading or unproven claims! Corporations are wholly controlled and regulated by the US Gov, apparently they just happened to forget all about enforcing your rights to freedom of speech. Do tell peeps, how is censorship freedom?
Maybe the title of this discussion should have been "Censorship on Facebook about Coronavirus". also don't think this belongs in the Law & Justice section. maybe Media & Commentators? You have it exactly. It's the same situation in Germany with their laws about what can be said about the Holocaust.
'some people upset with facebook TOS policy' should be the title people have a right to use their free service, facebook does not have to post what ever you tell them to post on their site
"So... here we have it, only the fake news media and talking heads can disseminate false, misleading or unproven claims!" Fox owns their network and servers, yes, they can put out whatever content they want, if you own your own servers, you can too what one can not do it force others to host your content - should one be able to force a Christian site to post Muslim propaganda and visa versa?
Nothing like the situation in Germany where it against the law to deny the holocaust. This is about private companies refusing to allow people a platform, its a free enterprise issue nothing to do with free speech. Would you force private companies to platform views they do not agree with?
Wow! I wasnt aware you had to 'tell' them what you wanted to post before it was posted, news to me. Oh so they can operate as a government 'sanctioned' entity in the public domain and censor 'political' speech by proxy? No company is private that operates in the public domain, privately owned yes, private no. Especially those who broker communication services which is what their function is. People need to wake up to how their rights are being subverted by proxy.
facebook is run by a republican, they just don't want fake stuff that endangers the public posted to their site about a virus that is causing a pandemic don't worry, facebook already said they would allow Trump to post fake political ads "Facebook again refuses to ban political ads, even false ones" https://apnews.com/article/90e5e81f501346f8779cb2f8b8880d9c of course when dems tested this rule with a false political ad, facebook banned it "Facebook takes down fake political ad meant to test its fact checking" https://www.engadget.com/2019-10-27-facebook-takes-down-fake-lindsey-graham-ad.html "Facebook's stance on truth in political ads has been put to the test. The social media giant has removed a 'stunt' ad from a Political Action Committee, the Really Online Lefty League, that falsely claimed Republican Senator Lindsey Graham supported the Green New Deal"
You don't have to tell them what you post before you post it but I am sure the terms and conditions will tell you they have the right to remove post if they do not meet their standards. The same would be true on PF or almost any social media platform.
irelevant endangers? So words endanger the public? ah and a double standard too? So you are a-ok with FB deciding what 'truth' is? Youtube is far worse that FB for censorship, yet the gov allows them to operate unabated. But then it serves their purpose as long as it matches the govs agenda. So that make it ok right?
Sure but most users of social media accept those rules (censorship). I post on this forum knowing full well that if my post do not fall within their guidelines my post can be removed or I can be banned from the forum. Probably over 90% of the users here understand and are willing to operate under those rules. If I don't like the rules I can find a social media outlet that allows my type of post. The same is true with FB. Their site their rules. What you could try to do is use cancel culture and get all the people that don't like their type of censorship to boycott them and if you can get enough maybe FB will change their policies or go bankrupt.
Normally I would agree, but the most insidious form of censorship is the censorship that people don't know is happening. I would be much more at ease if Facebook had a giant obvious disclaimer letting everyone know it enacts censorship, and the real reasons it does, and what types of things have been removed. The problem with "rules" is they can be vague and open to a great deal of interpretation. The "rules" don't always let people know what is going to be banned and censored. Plus a lot of this is fine print that no one is ever going to read. Which is fine, I don't have a problem with them enforcing these fine print rules, but I just have a problem with everyone else not realizing these rules are there, and not knowing what they are not able to see.
I'm not asking private companies to platform views they do not agree with. That is not really my exact issue here. It's just, if they are a really big company vasts swaths of the public are relying on, I want those ignorant masses to know (or have some idea) of what's going on. Because it's not just a normal news source, these platforms can easily give the illusion that you are hearing opinions from everyone, when you are really not. It's not really merely just "one sided", it's a lot more complex and thus insidious than that. In some situations you might hear both sides, in some situations you won't, and you'll never really know which of those situations are which.
The 'state' has the market cornered on that!! That is precisely what the govmint is demanding these site do. Social media sites do NOT platform their members views that is pure bullshit, they are nothing more than a conduit to pass communication between parties of interest. Forcing them to remove content the gobmint does not like or feels is offensive is a violation of free speech mandated by the constitution. Likewise using proxies to do their statist dirty work, holocaust denial laws making it a crime in Germany and throughout most of the Eu case in point. This cancer is already in play in theaters in the US and growing. Free speech works like this ron, if my free speech offends thee, turn the ****ing channel or sue me, NOT infringe on everyones rights with censorship and subterfuge free speech with 'doublethink'.
So your solution is social media should censor your speech entirely! Sure that will work until all social media is forced on board LIKE GERMANY with the ANTI-FREE SPEECH draconian holocaust denial laws, and you are forced to communicate your views by the shut the **** up freedom of speech rules. Brilliant! Discrimination suit right around the corner.
you were the one that said to change the channel if you were not happy Trump wants more laws so the rich and the corps can silence people the DMCA is already abused - it's the corps that will most try to silence you never gonna be able to sue cause a free site won't let one post propaganda that endangers the public
That right there are plenty of threads, you dont need to view the one that offends you, not me you are the one thats suggesting hence promoting the draconian shut the **** up freedom of speech rules like germany with comments like that.
If people choose not to familiarize themselves with the rules then they have to accept the fact they may unknowingly break the rules and similar to the law, ignorance of the rules does not absolve you from them. I have no problem with people not liking the rules of a social media site. I disagreed with many of FB's personal information and copyright rules. I hated them so much I stopped using FB years ago. I don't miss it a bit.
Private companies do not have to platform your favourite conspiracy theory of the moment, learn to live with it. And look up what a private company is! Its probably the Jews after you again, bye bye!
I don't think you were understanding what I was saying. I don't have a problem with people being kicked off for obscure rules. My problem is everyone else not understanding why others are kicked off, or why messages are deleted. Despite what some naive people may think, rules do not necessarily give people a good idea why people will be kicked off or why messages will be deleted. There are rules with obvious interpretations, which are fine, and then there are rules prone to all sorts of very non-obvious interpretations, as well as plenty of bias and selective enforcement.
If a private company wants to say no ideas on the Left are allowed, or no ideas on the Right are allowed, and they make that obvious to everyone reading, I don't have a problem with that. The problem I perceive is when they have these policies but the people reading don't know what's really happening - that they don't know it's being heavily censored, or have any real idea how it's tending to be censored, and in what sort of ways. So again, the problem is not really inherently that people are banned or posts are deleted, it's that everyone else reading it does not realize this is happening. The invisible, insidious nature of it.