Should Social Media Giant's Keep Their Immunity To US Libel Laws?

[edgeburner]

A controversial topic indeed. Many of these social media companies web-sites are the primary news source for a lot of folks in this day and age. If the old-guard media networks (television, print, radio, ect) were found in denial of freedom of speech via censorship, misrepresentation of the facts, ect... they would, and, have been, sued.

Now that these social media companies are practicing censorship and ignoring the "Passive" role that was the very reason they were granted this immunity by congress. Should they be held legally accountable for their actions?

The White Houses stance:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

 

 

[HadToRegister]

eh, social media is bad

 

What we need is the fairness doctrine brought back, and expanded to include cable and the internet.

Back in the day, the news was on for a half hour, and was read without emotion, very dead-pan, with no editorializing or the news announcer adding their opinions, they just read the news and moved on.

That desperately needs to make a comeback.

[gnarly1]

Back in the day, the news was on for a half hour, and was read without emotion, very dead-pan, with no editorializing or the news announcer adding their opinions, they just read the news and moved on.

Those were the days when the male newsreaders often looked remarkably like your avatar.....

[edgeburner]

The fairness doctrine? Not under the concept that it sported ten+ years ago....that was a feeble attempt to stifle conservative talk radio by forcing talk radio stations to allot the same air time to liberal programs as they did to conservative programs....liberal programs that had very few listeners and generated basically zero advertising dollars. Even a majority of Democrats voted against that. Of course...that was more than ten years ago....God forbid it happens under the very same guise in today's political climate. The basis concept is good, the political influence is not. Restructure it, clean it, and give it another go....wouldn't hold my breath....

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by edgeburner

[HeyYou]

Holding folks accountable for what other people post on their personal page on your website???? Hhhhmmmmm.... so, does that mean that hosting companies that allow ultra right/left wing organizations to host on their systems, should be held accountable for what those organizations post???? I really don't see that as accomplishing anything good...... other than silencing certain voices...... And then what happens as perspective shifts? Will then moderates be considered 'ultra right/left wing', and be silenced as well?

[edgeburner]

 

Holding folks accountable for what other people post on their personal page on your website???? Hhhhmmmmm.... so, does that mean that hosting companies that allow ultra right/left wing organizations to host on their systems, should be held accountable for what those organizations post???? I really don't see that as accomplishing anything good...... other than silencing certain voices...... And then what happens as perspective shifts? Will then moderates be considered 'ultra right/left wing', and be silenced as well?

No, not at all. If these social media giants are going to lord over content...decide just what gets cast aside and what is allowed to post...they should be held responsible for their actions. Do you want organizations such as twitter and google/youtube to be the voice of one singular political party? An entity that can attempt to sway facts and non-facts as they see fit...according to their political preference? Realize the power and influence those two have. With that, comes responsibility.

 

All I am saying is....once you step into the fray and cast neutrality aside, then you should be held legally accountable. Just like any other media organization.

[HeyYou]

 

 

Holding folks accountable for what other people post on their personal page on your website???? Hhhhmmmmm.... so, does that mean that hosting companies that allow ultra right/left wing organizations to host on their systems, should be held accountable for what those organizations post???? I really don't see that as accomplishing anything good...... other than silencing certain voices...... And then what happens as perspective shifts? Will then moderates be considered 'ultra right/left wing', and be silenced as well?

No, not at all. If these social media giants are going to lord over content...decide just what gets cast aside and what is allowed to post...they should be held responsible for their actions. Do you want organizations such as twitter and google/youtube to be the voice of one singular political party? An entity that can attempt to sway facts and non-facts as they see fit...according to their political preference? Realize the power and influence those two have. With that, comes responsibility.

 

All I am saying is....once you step into the fray and cast neutrality aside, then you should be held legally accountable. Just like any other media organization.

 

They have been showing their bias for years. Including in google search results. :) But then, the whole 'accountability' thing seems to have become a poison pill. No one is accountable for anything any more....... It's always someone elses fault, or, 'not my responsibility'...... They have been selectively removing things for years. (basically, since their inception.....) Numerous other sites do the same thing. Yahoo went so far as to disable comments on their news articles entirely. Seems they didn't like folks calling them out on their bias, and misinformation..... the disclaimer they now have in place of the comment section, talking about a 'safe environment', is friggin' laughable. The make noises about comments coming back, they even ran a survey, however, I haven't seen anything about the results of that survey, nor any updates on the status of comments. I suspect that they will magically reappear after the election. :D

[edgeburner]

 

They have been showing their bias for years. Including in google search results. :smile: But then, the whole 'accountability' thing seems to have become a poison pill. No one is accountable for anything any more....... It's always someone elses fault, or, 'not my responsibility'...... They have been selectively removing things for years. (basically, since their inception.....) Numerous other sites do the same thing. Yahoo went so far as to disable comments on their news articles entirely. Seems they didn't like folks calling them out on their bias, and misinformation..... the disclaimer they now have in place of the comment section, talking about a 'safe environment', is friggin' laughable. The make noises about comments coming back, they even ran a survey, however, I haven't seen anything about the results of that survey, nor any updates on the status of comments. I suspect that they will magically reappear after the election. :D

Amen. It's laughable. Remember the whole "safe space" thing? The media has some of these people so mind f*ck*d that they are honesty confused. They are utterly dependent on the government and the beltway/social media complex making thing "right" for them.

From selective editing to out-right lying, The American media complex can no longer be trusted for the unbiased truth. Politics are poison, and this poison is spreading through media, science, social issues and just about every other aspect of society.

[CameronMcGrath]

Dwayne Johnson v. Monsanto is the first ever cancer trial. Wow news. I hope everything will work out and there will be no serious consequences, since I would not like to have problems yet. At the moment, he needs to find a lawyer as soon as possible, as serious consequences are possible. I am currently using one site where you can find a lawyer for a trial. Personally, this site has helped me more than once, maybe it will help you too. You can also choose your own lawyer and make an appointment. If the court provides you with a lawyer, most likely you will not be able to somehow shorten the term. So try this site https://www.minclaw.com/california-defamation-law-state-guide/

Edited January 15, 2021 by CameronMcGrath

[Perraine]

If they want to editorialize and censor content, then they MUST be held responsible for ANY AND ALL content on their platforms, without exception. If they wish to not be responsible and claim they are providing a "public square" environment, the they MUST NOT be allowed to censor content in any way whatsoever, period! There is no "middle ground" or grey area.

 

Censorship of ideas is the most evil thing any group - be it an individual, company, organization or government - can do. Ideas MUST me allowed to be heard, regardless of their source or content. Without the freedom to express ideas - even "harmful" or "scary" ones - society cannot survive or progress.

 

To give an example - Once upon a time people were quite literally burned to death on a stake in a public square, as onlookers and "correct" people cheered, for even suggesting that the Earth was not the centre of the universe.