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

[JimmyRJump]

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/

 

 

 

Social media are just an expansion of what's on people's minds and are only tolerant on subjects that aren't 'controversial' towards their own agenda. That agenda isn't substancial, but goes along with what's deemed 'mainstream'. 'Mainstream' is what society deems okay; not rocking the boat in any way or not going against the general consensus. Do what you're told to do, pray when it's thought necessary, be critical only of things you're told to be critical of. There's no freedom of speech when 'social media' shut you down because you go against the grain. Religion and politics are just constructs to keep you obedient. Social media are there to make you believe you have anything to say, that you matter. You don't. You're here to do what you're told, or you get excluded.

 

I've been on the outside looking in all my life, and the older I get, the more glad I am my future is getting shorter and shorter.

[HeyYou]

 

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/

 

 

 

Social media are just an expansion of what's on people's minds and are only tolerant on subjects that aren't 'controversial' towards their own agenda. That agenda isn't substancial, but goes along with what's deemed 'mainstream'. 'Mainstream' is what society deems okay; not rocking the boat in any way or not going against the general consensus. Do what you're told to do, pray when it's thought necessary, be critical only of things you're told to be critical of. There's no freedom of speech when 'social media' shut you down because you go against the grain. Religion and politics are just constructs to keep you obedient. Social media are there to make you believe you have anything to say, that you matter. You don't. You're here to do what you're told, or you get excluded.

 

I've been on the outside looking in all my life, and the older I get, the more glad I am my future is getting shorter and shorter.

 

I don't know about that. I kinda enjoy the "Stupid Human Tricks" show. :D

[Deleted137969948User]

Depends on how much Free Speech they are and if they allow Free Journalism and News or play any other Political role to control News.

 

btw. There is a New Ukranian Crisis evolving at the moment with situations around the Balkans and the Black Sea. Same time Russian Investors are pulling off their Investements in Balkan countries although its done almost silently. Something's breeding up there.

 

So if a social media site does what Facebook does and tries to control and supress such News due to the Site being involved with Political centers then no and people should avoid using them.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Guest

[ScytheBearer]

I want to preface my comments by first separating "news reporting" from "social exchange".

 

News reporting is exactly what it's name implies. News reporting is simply an accounting of the events of the day. News reports should be required to be truthful and based in facts which are verifiable from disclosed sources. News reporters and news outlets should be held responsible for any and all false statements. Statements attributed to "undisclosed sources" or "wishing to remain anonymous" should either not be reported or should be reported as rumor or opinion. Any false statements in the news should be considered deliberately slanderous and prosecuted.

 

Social exchange is what occurs here, in living rooms, on "social media", and around campfires, and water coolers in offices. It is the exchange of ideas, information, thoughts and opinions. Social exchange is not meant to by confrontational, yet is is bound to happen. Social exchange only becomes slanderous when someone is disparaged to a third party. I can call someone a liar to their face, but should I say the same to someone else in private, it is slander.

 

The problem arises when the "social exchange" occurs via an intermediary, like Facebook, Twitter, Whats-app, or public forums (like this one). The communications via an intermediary produces two distinct challenges for the intermediary, created by the very anonymity which the intermediary supplies. First, the anonymity created by that intermediary emboldens some to become aggressive, threatening, abusive or even assume a false persona, polluting an intellectual exchange and turning it toxic. Second, communications via an intermediary provide the opportunity for the presentation of false or misleading information as facts or truth, without accountability.

 

It is the opinion of this writer that the intermediary has a responsibility to the community to interrupt and stop behaviors which add toxicity to what should be intellectual discourse. I also believe the intermediary has a responsibility to ensure that any information labeled as "fact" on it's service is indeed factual, verifiable and complete with references and associated documentation. Most will agree with the former, but few will agree with the later. And that is where I have a disconnect.

 

So, I will expand. If I publish here that the moon is actually a very large photograph suspended in space, and that the reason no one ever gets to see the back side of the moon is because the developer put an advertisement on the back of the photograph, everyone here would know that to be a falsehood, untrue, and fabricated. No one will accept that falsehood, simply because is is ludicrous. Besides, everyone has some affinity to the moon and knows it to be a celestial body orbiting the earth (well most everyone).

 

But, lets change the scenario, and insert a bit of reality. Let us say that some "theorist" gets the idea that one group of humanity runs a human trafficking ring, importing children for dietary fulfillment. A notion which is unverified, and has no facts supporting it. But, this "theorist" publishes this idea, and, because one sector of the population hates the group being accused, they accept the preposterous notion and begin repeating it as fact. This acceptance is not based in truth, but in the fact that the alleged behavior gives them yet another reason to hate the accused group, aka conformation bias. And this "information" is presented as "fact", represented as "truthful", with no supporting documentation, and the intermediary should have the responsibility to see that such falsehoods are expunged.

But alas, the question is multifaceted. Where does the freedom to speak one mind end and the responsibility to speak honestly and truthfully begin? Where does the freedom to speak ones mind end and slander begin? Where does the freedom to hear new ideas and information end and where does the responsibility for critical thinking begin? Where does social responsibility end and censorship begin? Where does the responsibility to protect people from dangerous behavior end and social suppression begin. Who decides what it truth? Who decides that Is false?

 

For those latter two, I fall back on the criteria for news reporting. Truthful, factual, and verifiable. With out that triumvirate, there is no truth. Only falsehoods and opinions remain. And we all know what opinions are like.

 

If "social media" wants immunity from libel, they MUST take action to ensure that what is presented on their platform is not libelous.

Edited February 13, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[Perraine]

ScytheBearer, on 14 Feb 2022 - 04:57 AM, said:

But alas, the question is multifaceted. Where does the freedom to speak one mind end and the responsibility to speak honestly and truthfully begin? Where does the freedom to speak ones mind end and slander begin? Where does the freedom to hear new ideas and information end and where does the responsibility for critical thinking begin? Where does social responsibility end and censorship begin? Where does the responsibility to protect people from dangerous behaviour end and social suppression begin. Who decides what it truth? Who decides that Is false?

That's the question which, IMHO, can only lead to one answer within the context of this thread = ALL speech MUST be allowed, because it's impossible to formulate any "rules", "laws" or even guidelines for content that will satisfy all those who hear/read it, with perhaps the exception of the simplest ones that are already in place (paraphrasing) Words or phrases that are virtually guaranteed to cause direct physical harm to another person or property (i.e. 'shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre')

 

To use a similar argument to your "moon photo" example - Once upon a time everybody NEW that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and anyone saying any different was murdered ... publicly! In that example, was "public consensus" or "social consensus" and/or even the denunciations of the "establishment" (both secular/scientific and religious) the truth? Did that belief make it "truth" or "fact"?

 

In your example, yes there is the possibility of people using your statements as validation for nefarious acts, but, unless you were also providing conclusive and irrefutable proof of your claims, the number of "believers" would be insignificantly small, and so too would the longevity of your ideas.

 

That's the price we pay for the ability to learn and grow.

 

ScytheBearer, on 14 Feb 2022 - 04:57 AM, said:

For those latter two, I fall back on the criteria for news reporting. Truthful, factual, and verifiable. With out that triumvirate, there is no truth. Only falsehoods and opinions remain. And we all know what opinions are like.

I wholeheartedly agree, It's sad though that most news organisations today fail miserably at sticking to this edict (or at most will reference their own words and articles, or those of their colleagues/allies as "proof" of legitimacy of their statements)

 

 

ScytheBearer, on 14 Feb 2022 - 04:57 AM, said:

If "social media" wants immunity from libel, they MUST take action to ensure that what is presented on their platform is not libellous.

Well that's the issue in question. These companies currently enjoy immunity because they are claiming to be simply "platforms" or hosting services for other peoples opinions (= the modern day "public square)

The problem arises from the fact that these companies are censoring and/or editorialising that content in a biased manner, which means they are no longer simply a "platform" and are in fact a "publisher" and should therefore lose their immunity and be held accountable for ALL content hosted.

 

So according to the current laws, and the current behaviour of "social media" platforms, they should NOT have immunity!

[Mktavish]

 

That's the question which, IMHO, can only lead to one answer within the context of this thread = ALL speech MUST be allowed, because it's impossible to formulate any "rules", "laws" or even guidelines for content that will satisfy all those who hear/read it,

 

Well the way I see it ... nobody is actually getting silenced as in a public square burning , even virtual ... with regard to the social media site giants.

Because people just go some where else , and even create new accounts. Plus there is no way to have one big social media square ... it always needs delineated down into smaller chat rooms so to speak.

But what say you about the block feature ? And if people start making posts to block said person ... err why can't they be kicked into another forum channel because said community doesn't appreciate their spamming (not adverts) ?

IDK just wondering your thoughts on the block feature derived for the community to use at their discretion ?

 

But here is another thought , which is a censorship that happened to me on Youtube a few months ago on an account I have had since 2011.

They turned off my "Reply" feature ... or more precisely ghosted my replies so that only I can see them.

I can however make an original thread comment ... but no I can't even reply to my own comment.

So anyways ... I wondered what could have caused them to do this to me ... obviously probably to many contentious replies/reports.

But I would say I do a heck of lot better than most in my discourse.

So anyways ... I had a thought as to why could be the case. Being something brought about by an algorithm policy since I have used add blocker for the majority of my time on youtube. That the amount of space on their server I took up personally , and the lengthy amount of replies I would elicite ... caused them to put the kabosh on my reply feature. And not saying it was a me personally thing ... just that I fit into a group (millions) who are taxing their servers for space.

 

IDK ... does that sound crazy ?

[HeyYou]

 

 

That's the question which, IMHO, can only lead to one answer within the context of this thread = ALL speech MUST be allowed, because it's impossible to formulate any "rules", "laws" or even guidelines for content that will satisfy all those who hear/read it,

 

Well the way I see it ... nobody is actually getting silenced as in a public square burning , even virtual ... with regard to the social media site giants.

Because people just go some where else , and even create new accounts. Plus there is no way to have one big social media square ... it always needs delineated down into smaller chat rooms so to speak.

But what say you about the block feature ? And if people start making posts to block said person ... err why can't they be kicked into another forum channel because said community doesn't appreciate their spamming (not adverts) ?

IDK just wondering your thoughts on the block feature derived for the community to use at their discretion ?

 

But here is another thought , which is a censorship that happened to me on Youtube a few months ago on an account I have had since 2011.

They turned off my "Reply" feature ... or more precisely ghosted my replies so that only I can see them.

I can however make an original thread comment ... but no I can't even reply to my own comment.

So anyways ... I wondered what could have caused them to do this to me ... obviously probably to many contentious replies/reports.

But I would say I do a heck of lot better than most in my discourse.

So anyways ... I had a thought as to why could be the case. Being something brought about by an algorithm policy since I have used add blocker for the majority of my time on youtube. That the amount of space on their server I took up personally , and the lengthy amount of replies I would elicite ... caused them to put the kabosh on my reply feature. And not saying it was a me personally thing ... just that I fit into a group (millions) who are taxing their servers for space.

 

IDK ... does that sound crazy ?

 

Yes, You are obviously insane. You should seek help. Paranoia and all that. :D (just to be sure, I am kidding here.)

 

 

YouTube is pretty famous for silencing folks that don't toe the party line. Make statements that the 'powers that be' there dislike, and odd and strange things happen. Censorship is alive and well on youtube. They aren't the only ones either. Facebook goes out of their way to suppress views they don't agree with. (or, views that don't agree with them.....) Any level is dissent is pretty much stepped on. Twitter, instagram, et al, are the same way. Of course, it IS their platform, so, technically, they have the legal "right" to do so..... but, advertising yourself as a 'free speech advocate' and then turning around and censoring folks...... Yeah. Say one thing, do something entirely different. They would make GREAT politicians.

[Mktavish]

 

 

 

That's the question which, IMHO, can only lead to one answer within the context of this thread = ALL speech MUST be allowed, because it's impossible to formulate any "rules", "laws" or even guidelines for content that will satisfy all those who hear/read it,

 

Well the way I see it ... nobody is actually getting silenced as in a public square burning , even virtual ... with regard to the social media site giants.

Because people just go some where else , and even create new accounts. Plus there is no way to have one big social media square ... it always needs delineated down into smaller chat rooms so to speak.

But what say you about the block feature ? And if people start making posts to block said person ... err why can't they be kicked into another forum channel because said community doesn't appreciate their spamming (not adverts) ?

IDK just wondering your thoughts on the block feature derived for the community to use at their discretion ?

 

But here is another thought , which is a censorship that happened to me on Youtube a few months ago on an account I have had since 2011.

They turned off my "Reply" feature ... or more precisely ghosted my replies so that only I can see them.

I can however make an original thread comment ... but no I can't even reply to my own comment.

So anyways ... I wondered what could have caused them to do this to me ... obviously probably to many contentious replies/reports.

But I would say I do a heck of lot better than most in my discourse.

So anyways ... I had a thought as to why could be the case. Being something brought about by an algorithm policy since I have used add blocker for the majority of my time on youtube. That the amount of space on their server I took up personally , and the lengthy amount of replies I would elicite ... caused them to put the kabosh on my reply feature. And not saying it was a me personally thing ... just that I fit into a group (millions) who are taxing their servers for space.

 

IDK ... does that sound crazy ?

 

Yes, You are obviously insane. You should seek help. Paranoia and all that. :D (just to be sure, I am kidding here.)

 

 

YouTube is pretty famous for silencing folks that don't toe the party line. Make statements that the 'powers that be' there dislike, and odd and strange things happen. Censorship is alive and well on youtube. They aren't the only ones either. Facebook goes out of their way to suppress views they don't agree with. (or, views that don't agree with them.....) Any level is dissent is pretty much stepped on. Twitter, instagram, et al, are the same way. Of course, it IS their platform, so, technically, they have the legal "right" to do so..... but, advertising yourself as a 'free speech advocate' and then turning around and censoring folks...... Yeah. Say one thing, do something entirely different. They would make GREAT politicians.

 

 

So you don't think it is because of server space , and not letting adverts play ? As in what a group of a few hundred million people over time would take up on their server ?

But so you know ... I definitely don't hearken to the right side politically ... albeit I try to come from center left . But I am sure some days I sounded like a raging lefty on some contentious subjects . So which party line are you referring to getting censored ?

Although one subject I did bring up a lot was ... maybe the US just needs to split ideologically into at least 2 federal entities.

[HeyYou]

No worries. Not agreeing with everything I think or say, does NOT make you my enemy. :D It makes you more fun to chat with.

 

Drive space has gotten dirt cheap over the years, and has become a LOT less of an issue that it has been in the past. I remember paying close to 100 bucks for a 40 GB drive in the not so distant past. (relatively speaking......) Today, you can get a couple terrabytes for that kind of money. That, and drives last a fair bit longer as well...... So, not really one of the major expenses. Bandwidth I would expect is one of the chief costs..... Dark0ne could probably speak more to that aspect of things though.

 

As for who gets censored, depends on the platform, and what THEIR core beliefs are. Wanna post on facebook? Better not lean too far to the right..... I got banned from the ABC news site, for pointing out the errors (with sources) in a previous posters comment. Imagine my surprise the next time I tried to log in, and discovered I had been banned....... There wasn't anything untoward in my post.... (bad language, insulting anyone, etc.) I got banned because I pointed out some inconvenient truths..... Censorship at it's finest.

 

But yeah, there are some sites out there, that won't let you access them, if you don't turn off your ad blocker. I just don't go to them, and find what I am looking for elsewhere, as their ads are notoriously the the scam fellers. And those ads are one of the main reasons I got an ad blocker in the first place. (not to mention, it helps pages load faster on my slower connection. :) )

[ScytheBearer]

Free speech is not the same as diarrhea of the mouth. The first speaks the truth, while the later spouts nonsense. The first seeks to teach and learn, the latter seeks to indoctrinate. The first seeks to provide information, the latter seeks to coerce. The first seeks new facts, the latter regurgitates the same old lies. The first seeks to spread enlightenment, the latter spreads hatred.

 

Free speech is fine, and removing it is censorship. Diarrhea of the mouth is just so much crap, and it's removal is a public service, much like washing horse crap off the street after a parade.

 

But alas, those with diarrhea of the mouth complain the loudest about censorship. I wonder why that is?