US Surgeon General asking Facebook to reign in misinformation on vaccines

[Crwth]

He does, but that's irrelevant. Lies and misinformation are not necessarily protected speech.

False statements of fact - Wikipedia

"Irrelevant??" How is "protected" speech not a function of who defines what is and what isn't "misinformation?"

 

[Under One King]

Seems off topic - this is about the surgeon general asking a company to help stem the tide of anti-vaxx misinformation.

It's not my fault if you can't understand what I said.

 

[Yttrium]

It's not my fault if you can't understand what I said.

We understand what you said, but since there's nothing in the topic about regulating beliefs, your statement was off topic.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Irrelevant??" How is "protected" speech not a function of who defines what is and what isn't "misinformation?"

Ultimately, that's settled by a judge if it comes to that.

 

[Fantine]

I think we need to be careful about outright censorship, but perhaps in matters of public health any dangerous life-threatening information without any scientific basis could carry a mandatory warning label such as:

"**This false comment is completely unsupported by scientific evidence."

 

[Under One King]

We understand what you said, but since there's nothing in the topic about regulating beliefs, your statement was off topic.

You really don't see the connection, huh?

 

[Yttrium]

You really don't see the connection, huh?

Considering there is no regulation by the federal government in this case, no, I don't. There would be no penalty to Facebook if Facebook chose to ignore the Surgeon General.

 

[hedrick]

Remember that Facebook makes money from advertising. I wouldn’t be in favor of them censoring users’ comments to each other, but I’d like to see them not accept ads that contain false information.

 

[Strathos]

Right-wingers: Teaching Critical Race Theory* in schools needs to be banned! The government can't be allowed to teach our children anything we don't like!

Also right-wingers: The government has no right to even suggest that Facebook not allow dangerous misinformation that will end up getting people killed! Free speech!

*Whatever that is

 

[Ophiolite]

The social media sphere is full of misinformation about vaccinations.

It's noteworthy that on Facebook, 65 percent of the anti-vax content is produced by only 16 people. This is not a mass movement of reasonable debate, it's an orchestrated campaign of misinformation by cranks, trolls, and bad actors.

But surely you wouldn't want Facebook to forego all the revenue that is derived from the resultant exchanges, debates and views, just to put matters straight? Corporate revenues should always take precedence over human wellbeing. And if you are concerned about human welfare then recognise that removing this information will take away an essential prop for the self-deluded. How cruel! /sarcasm

 

[Under One King]

Considering there is no regulation by the federal government in this case, no, I don't. There would be no penalty to Facebook if Facebook chose to ignore the Surgeon General.

The connection is there if you use your brain a bit. You seem to not want to see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is a private company being used to censor speech on behalf of the government? I think this is plain and blatant constitutional overreach and a direct violation of their oaths.

How so? They are merely asking Facebook to do the right thing. They are not ordering them to do so.

And Facebook has always censored harmful speech. If I posted to friends and relatives asking them to physically attack my next door neighbor or advocated that they vandalize his property with hate speech you can bet that would be "censored" too. In fact we have them same sort of censorship here. If I openly posted blasphemy I would be in big trouble.

When we join social media we have to agree to the rules of those sites. That is true here, it is true for Facebook. Why are people complaining?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When did we give the government the right to regulate our beliefs?

They are not doing so. People are free to have whatever beliefs that they want.

 

[Yttrium]

The connection is there if you use your brain a bit. You seem to not want to see it.

I can imagine a very wide array of conspiracy theories you might have against the Surgeon General in particular and the federal government in general. You'll have to be more specific.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think you misspelled “free thinkers.”

"The Truthseeker blog I subscribe to said that Soros/Bilderberg/Bill Gates are just using it to try to..."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's well past time. The social media sphere is full of misinformation about vaccinations.

It's noteworthy that on Facebook, 65 percent of the anti-vax content is produced by only 16 people. This is not a mass movement of reasonable debate, it's an orchestrated campaign of misinformation by cranks, trolls, and bad actors.

On a personal level, I would agree with you 100%.

But my fear is that many on the left painted themselves into a corner on this one.

I stated in a thread a month or so back, that it was flawed to look at Facebook/Twitter as simply "they're a private entity, they can do what they want" (a position many on the left were hastily getting on board with to fight back against efforts by people like Ron DeSantis when he was suggesting penalties for the platforms when/if they banned & blocked conservative candidates)

I believed then (like I believe now), that despite being "private", on-paper, once an entity accumulates a large enough critical mass that makes it the de facto "public square" and the primary vehicle for speech, there does need to be safeguards and checks in place to prevent negative manipulation from happening on the platforms.

The topic then was political outcomes, the topic now is health outcomes...but both are important.

The sticky situation we're in now is that, the side that's being more reasonable about vaccination (the left) is the same side that just got done saying a month ago that "Facebook is a private entity, they can set whatever TOS they want, and a government shouldn't be able to interfere with that"

And the side that said a month ago "despite being a private company, they've become the new public square, and thus, are subject to regulatory efforts to make sure they're not manipulating certain types of outcomes" (the right) certainly can't be counted on to provide a rigorous opposition to vaccine misinformation.


I think what I said in that thread about a month ago was to the effect of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to secure a small victory over something trivial, because that may come back to bite us all in the rear when something much more substantive comes down the road"

Vaccine misinformation is that "something much more substantive".

Many on the left were so amped up on being able to defend Twitter/Facebook with regards to the premise that the platforms can reserve the right to deplatform a GOP candidate who espouses an unpopular viewpoint on Trans issues or election conspiracy theories, that they went "full libertarian" and said "they're a private company, if you don't like it, find another platform or build your own Twitter"

In doing so, opened themselves up to the predictable response that the right is going to have, which is going to be telling them "if you don't like that Facebook is allowing vaccine information, go find another platform that doesn't or build your own"


People on both sides have become somewhat conditioned these days to seek short-sighted gratification in the form of "owning the other side", over prudence and a strategy that extends beyond the next 3 days.

 

[Strathos]

On a personal level, I would agree with you 100%.

But my fear is that many on the left painted themselves into a corner on this one.

I stated in a thread a month or so back, that it was flawed to look at Facebook/Twitter as simply "they're a private entity, they can do what they want" (a position many on the left were hastily getting on board with to fight back against efforts by people like Ron DeSantis when he was suggesting penalties for the platforms when/if they banned & blocked conservative candidates)

I believed then (like I believe now), that despite being "private", on-paper, once an entity accumulates a large enough critical mass that makes it the de facto "public square" and the primary vehicle for speech, there does need to be safeguards and checks in place to prevent negative manipulation from happening on the platforms.

The topic then was political outcomes, the topic now is health outcomes...but both are important.

The sticky situation we're in now is that, the side that's being more reasonable about vaccination (the left) is the same side that just got done saying a month ago that "Facebook is a private entity, they can set whatever TOS they want, and a government shouldn't be able to interfere with that"

And the side that said a month ago "despite being a private company, they've become the new public square, and thus, are subject to regulatory efforts to make sure they're not manipulating certain types of outcomes" (the right) certainly can't be counted on to provide a rigorous opposition to vaccine misinformation.


I think what I said in that thread about a month ago was to the effect of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to secure a small victory over something trivial, because that may come back to bite us all in the rear when something much more substantive comes down the road"

Vaccine misinformation is that "something much more substantive".

Many on the left were so amped up on being able to defend Twitter/Facebook with regards to the premise that the platforms can reserve the right to deplatform a GOP candidate who espouses an unpopular viewpoint on Trans issues or election conspiracy theories, that they went "full libertarian" and said "they're a private company, if you don't like it, find another platform or build your own Twitter"

In doing so, opened themselves up to the predictable response that the right is going to have, which is going to be telling them "if you don't like that Facebook is allowing vaccine information, go find another platform that doesn't or build your own"


People on both sides have become somewhat conditioned these days to seek short-sighted gratification in the form of "owning the other side", over prudence and a strategy that extends beyond the next 3 days.

Is anyone suggesting that the government should force these companies to follow certain policies?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is anyone suggesting that the government should force these companies to follow certain policies?

Yes, both sides are...just on different issues.

The premise of this thread is that the government should get involved to get facebook to reign in misinformation on vaccines.

The premise of discussion a month or two back (from the conservative side) was that facebook should be restricted from setting terms of service that, by default, skew heavily against conservative viewpoints and end in their getting banned from the "public square".


Both sides have a point, but they just choose to selectively enforce that position based on the topic of conversation.

The reality is Facebook and Twitter have become the primary vehicle for both speech, as well one of the primary ways a candidate connects with potential voters. They built their critical mass on the premise that they're a platform for speech and communication...and after they established themselves (and the majority of people were using that platform), they played the "we're a private company card" and established terms of service that makes it "against the rules" to espouse certain republican talking points.

On the flip side, when you have a platform that reaches so many, it becomes the preferred method of misinformation spreading by people who otherwise would be standing on the street with a megaphone yelling at buildings like a crazy person.


Both sides need to come to a consensus...

Either they're
A) Platforms for speech
B) Private companies

Regardless of which way it went, both sides would need to make some concessions. Right now, we have both sides selectively choosing what it should be depending on the topic de jour

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Right-wingers: Teaching Critical Race Theory* in schools needs to be banned! The government can't be allowed to teach our children anything we don't like!

Also right-wingers: The government has no right to even suggest that Facebook not allow dangerous misinformation that will end up getting people killed! Free speech!

*Whatever that is

...but we have to look at other double standard on that...

Left wing: "Ron DeSantis has no right to establish a rule that says that facebook can be sued if their TOS allows them to ban GOP candidates, they're a private company, they can do whatever they want and establish whatever TOS they want, if you don't like it, don't use it or go build your own social media platform"

Also Left Wing: "The Government needs to step in to make sure that these platforms aren't allowing vaccine information"


For the record, everything you said about the right wing is true as well.

Neither side is innocent in terms of "wanting it both ways" regards to social media outlets.

 

[Under One King]

They are not doing so. People are free to have whatever beliefs that they want.

The government doesn't seem to think so.