The major criticism for S230 is that social media companies are rampant with fake news, and not doing enough to combat misinformation. If anything, it gives FB and Twitter a defense against an accusation of spreading political misinformation.
Neutrality is only an option if you limit yourself to making cuckoo clocks.
Heretic! True clocks look like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Hexadeci...
> You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
> In Italy under the Borgias, they had thirty years of murder, bloodshed and warfare. And they produced indigestible noodles, boring operas and the FIAT. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The Swiss bank account, the best cheese in the world and Heidi!
:)
It's easy to be a free speech advocate when it benefits your own views. It's not easy when it doesn't.
Few free speech advocates think you should be free to call for violence. That's free speech that does threaten them. Speech that calls for discrimination against groups they don't belong to, however, is perfectly fine -- they know that they're too important to be threatened by it.
So practically all self-described free speech advocates do put limits on free speech, and there aren't any True Scotsmen.
If you're not being suppressed, you won't even realise you have it, and will happily advocate for censorship.
My political opinions are reasonably mainstream, but I'll happily defend the free speech rights of groups I disagree with (e.g. pro-lifers.)
'Free speech for my side, but suppress the other side' is not free speech. This is what Facebook / Twitter is engaging in.
You didn't see ANY suppression from them when Trump's tax returns were leaked like they're attempting to do with Hunter's emails.
If the roles were reversed and a similar story came out about Trump and his son, would Twitter and Facebook have taken it down as part of a misinformation campaign?
Yes.
Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target should be removed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lash...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
There needs to be more censorship on FB and YouTube which are in addition to Fox News doing WAY more damage to the United States than any foreign terrorists could ever dream.
> There was no immediate indication of Russian involvement in the release of emails that the Post obtained, but its general thrust mirrors a narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies have described as part of an active Russian disinformation effort aimed at the 2020 election.
So the only proof that it comes from Russia is basically "that's the kind of thing the Russians would do." Aren't you spreading disinformation yourself by claiming that it is Russian disinformation?
> To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”
0: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
You're talking about an ineffective hack that's used for scaremongering, that was caught and had little to no effect on the out come of the election.
https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/131658513181811507...
YouTube has spent the summer censoring doctors because their views didn't match the WHO. The WHO has changed its own views so much that it's now contradicted itself many times, showing how terribly naive Google's policies are on this. Google never used to be naive, but clearly, times have changed.
The real problem is that YouTube inexplicably chose to base its public health "ground truth" on WHO guidelines, when as a US company their appropriate source would have been the CDC. The two were often in conflict, particularly with regard to civilian usage of masks.
The WHO spent a lot of time being wrong -- or, at best, confusing -- and a lot of people got sick unnecessarily as a result.
Twitter, FB et al made a mistake ( calculated or otherwise ) and it is now hard to argue in good faith that tech companies are neutral arbiters.
To address your specific claim, if you showed me, say, RT post prior to yesterday that said what NY post posted, you would have a point. Instead, you have claims from Biden campaign staff and thanks to FB, Twitter, you now have a perceived bias in tech community that diminishes credibility of all those publications.
The fact that you seem to suggest that more like bias is needed, is, and I put it mildly, counter productive.
The story is already in full swing streisand effect mode.
edit: corrected some prepositions
^ This is the actual disinformation.
Their coverage in the lead up to the Iraq Invasion did more damage to this country, Her military, and the rest of the world than some mean tweets or made up BS about Russia. Should we ban the NYT, too?
Since the roles are not reversed, they're working together to bury it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because they're con-artists and fake journalists completely in bed with the Democrats and very willing to conspire to throw an election and commit election interference.
The barely existent election interference by the Russians is trivial compared to what big tech is doing out in the open (hell, they're practically bragging about it at this point it's so brazen).
Several executives at big tech need to be put in prison for election interference. Start with Dorsey.
Yeah, I remember when the editor-in-chief at WaPo settled a Federal suit for $20M to avoid facing charges for his role in running a fraudulent university. Good times. Then there was the NYT board member whose namesake cancer charity foundation was shut down by the state attorney general's office because it turned out to be a front for his own business and political interests. What a con artist, huh. Not to forget the time the chairman of the Democratic National Committee stiffed his contractors for $70 million on a casino project that later went bankrupt. There oughta be a law.
Re-examine your own biases, then post.
Poster didn't say "they are con artists", they said "they are doing this and this, because they are con artists".
Your response was tu quoque mixed with ad hom: "oh yeah? Well the other guy is a bad person!"
(If it does, take the opportunity to freshen up on your Kierkegaard.)
I'm sure you could engage with it directly and without fallacy, you're obviously bright, but your replies were very low-brow ad hominem and tu quoque.
PS I don't invest "moral authority" in almost any leading politician today, though I certainly rank Biden higher than Trump in the "personal morality" stakes.
None of the information was verified (even the easily verifiable bits) and the source, who was doxxed by the NYPost, is a Seth Rich conspiracist: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter...
In some hypothetical "whatabout the other party", the only way to test it is if it were to happen.