In the past several months there has been a concerted effort to get information deemed to be false or fake removed from social media, such as Facebook and Twitter.   In your opinion, do you think it is correct to remove such content or does it infringe on free speech?

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

A very simple question that does not have a simple answer...

 

I am very much a free speech advocate, but also recognize that there is great potential harm in someone shouting "FIRE!!!" in a crowded movie theater.

 

On balance, I think there does need to be some editing of social media platforms as the potential damage can be huge. Don't believe me? Can anyone say "President Donald J. Trump" as selected by Vladimir Putin? How would it work? Who would be doing the editing? Those are the billion dollar questions, and I do not have an immediate answer for them.

 

Back in 2000 while doing a MA degree in the UK, one of my profs stated that the Internet would be the true test of our species and whether we could/should survive. I still remember sitting in the classroom thinking to myself "what a pretentious w****r", but now I think he was both correct and prescient. 

 

Social media allows everyone on the planet to talk with everyone else; this could be the single best thing that ever happened or the means by which we get snuffed out as a species.

 

I don't have a clue which it is...

 

 

 

But no there shouldn't be censorship on social media and youtube . What is happening now months before the US elections is appalling. Whether it is fake news or not , people like Alex Jones/infowars and other conservative voices shouldn't be removed .

Social media should be forced to keep free speech . Again appalling what is happening in europe , censoring everything about "migrant" crimes .

 

1 minute ago, BuaBS said:

But no there shouldn't be censorship on social media and youtube.

 

These are private companies.  How are you going to force them to publish things that are deliberately false and might lead to harm?

 

What about Wikipedia, and by extension print encyclopedias like Britannica?  Should we force them to publish articles supporting flat earth theory, geocentrism and all manner of supernatural woo?

 

If so, you'll get people like Stephanie Seneff who, although not a medical doctor or epidemiologist and has no training in any field of biological science, recommends feeding bleach to your autistic child to "cure" their autism.  Because of her, some parent is going to poison their child.  We have a duty to protect children by getting such videos reported and removed from YouTube.

59 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

Social media should be forced to keep free speech . Again appalling what is happening in europe , censoring everything about "migrant" crimes .

 

An excellent example of a fake news social media post asking for exemption on the basis of Free Speech.

 

Western security agencies have often warned the public about posting divisive content. In today's world I do not agree such false content should be permitted as it is proven to lead to violence by some groups.

 

Unfortunately the so called leader of the free world is a daily offender for abuse of access to social media.

I voted NO

 

BUT

 

I think false information should be removed.

 

 

I take exception at the wording of the question: "deemed to be false".

I'm not a native English speaker, but I understand "deemed" as meaning "estimated, judged, etc.", but it does not mean "proven".

 

I think only information that is PROVEN to be false should be removed. Any other information is an OPINION.

 

People removing opinions are censors infringing on free speech.

 

 

and... just give it some more thought: how many passages of the Bible or the Qu'ran will have to be removed?

Of course it is censorship. Speaking for myself, I'd rather see who the nuts are.

16 minutes ago, manarak said:

how many passages of the Bible or the Qu'ran will have to be removed?

 

There's a reason these allegorical works are not found in the non-fiction section of book stores.  

The main problem with this question is the word "deemed". Deemed by who is my question. If a platform is of one political or religious persuasion then they can deem anything against their ideology as being false.

It should be removed.   It is so disheartening to hear things like:

 

--Sandy Hook never happened and it was staged.   

--The Parkland shooting didn't happen and the students are actors.

--Hillary Clinton ran a child sex-trafficking ring (causing a shooting)

etc., etc., etc.,   

 

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

2 hours ago, BuaBS said:

But no there shouldn't be censorship on social media and youtube.

 

These are private companies.  How are you going to force them to publish things that are deliberately false and might lead to harm?

 

What about Wikipedia, and by extension print encyclopedias like Britannica?  Should we force them to publish articles supporting flat earth theory, geocentrism and all manner of supernatural woo?

 

If so, you'll get people like Stephanie Seneff who, although not a medical doctor or epidemiologist and has no training in any field of biological science, recommends feeding bleach to your autistic child to "cure" their autism.  Because of her, some parent is going to poison their child.  We have a duty to protect children by getting such videos reported and removed from YouTube.

 

they may be private companies but they have become so big and so encompassing that in essence they wield and influence public opinion. kind of like the old usa private phone company at&t that was deemed a defacto monopoly or such and the court forced them to split up.

 

different analogy; pre usa independance from great britain depended on dissemination of information to americans to guide and motivate them to gain independance from gb. had there been hugely powerful social media controlled by companies with vested interests in the uk they could have censored what they deemed as inappropriate. china does this.

deemed false by whom? If false ,prove it to be.

Twitter and Facebook removing hate speech and fake news that they don’t want on their site isn’t censorship and has nothing to do with 1st amendment protected free speech. 

 

If you think otherwise then I guess you wouldn’t mind if I put up a Trump sign or a Hillary sign on your front lawn. 

 

I have a right to do that on my own property, but not on yours. That’s what free speech is. 

7 minutes ago, johnmcc6 said:

deemed false by whom? If false ,prove it to be.

 

I receive telepathic transmission every third Saturday of each month from a purple walrus that lives on the far side of Pluto.

 

Prove me wrong.

3 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I receive telepathic transmission every third Saturday of each month from a purple walrus that lives on the far side of Pluto.

 

Prove me wrong.

That is the thing though, I do not care if you are obviously wrong or deranged, it is still free speech.

12 minutes ago, johnmcc6 said:

deemed false by whom? If false ,prove it to be.

Many ideas and points of view have been proven wrong, racism is an example, fascism is another.

 

These don’t need to be proven wrong and dangerous to individuals and society everytimme they occur.

2 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

That is the thing though, I do not care if you are obviously wrong or deranged, it is still free speech.

You might care if on the basis of the messages he receives from Pluto he starts encouraging your neighbours to attack you and your family.

 

 

I'm in the minority again as usual.  I simply find it amazing the number of people who actually ask their respective governments or mega-giant corporations to select what they are allowed to read and hear. <headshake> 
But - I'm not surprised.  It is a nanny-state mentality that that majority is comprised of who requests Big Brother and Big Daddy Warbucks to filter and censor information presented to them in the public domain before their delicate sensibilities can be offended by narratives that don't fit 'the commonly accepted and politically correct narratives' that they have been raised and indoctrinated to believe and accept.  And they fail to see the danger in that.  Some people can handle 'Freedom' as well as the personal responsibility that such freedom entails, such as being able to analyze information and draw your own conclusion as well as rejecting that which you concluded to be 'fake news'; but nowadays it seems most people can not handle personal freedoms by their own admittance and as such need a patronistic 'authority' to tell them what is acceptable and what is not. 

Dark days ahead I'm afraid.  Do birds who have lived their lives in a cage even want the 'freedom' of what lies beyond?  My guess is for the majority the answer is "No".  That is pretty damn sad.

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself."
-- Judge Potter Stewart

Designate social media platforms as publishers. That way they are legally liable for whatever gets posted, and they can remove/sensor what they want. Same as TV. 

5 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

That is the thing though, I do not care if you are obviously wrong or deranged, it is still free speech.

 

The statement was made in response to the claim 'if its false, prove it so', not as an example of an expression that shouldn't be suppressed.  The implication is that a statement shouldn't be suppressed unless/until it's proven to be false, which is shifting the burden of proof.  The correct position is "if it's true, prove it so'.

 

What about the obviously wrong and deranged woman I mentioned who advocates giving bleach to children to cure their autism?  She and her followers believe this to be true.  How do we prove it false?  By feeding bleach to children and watching to see if they die?

3 minutes ago, connda said:

I'm in the minority again as usual.  I simply find it amazing the number of people who actually ask their respective governments or mega-giant corporations to select what they are allowed to read and hear. <headshake> 
But - I'm not surprised.  It is a nanny-state mentality that that majority is comprised of who requests Big Brother and Big Daddy Warbucks to filter and censor information presented to them in the public domain before their delicate sensibilities can be offended by narratives that don't fit 'the commonly accepted and politically correct narratives' that they have been raised and indoctrinated to believe and accept.  And they fail to see the danger in that.  Some people can handle 'Freedom' as well as the personal responsibility that such freedom entails, such as being able to analyze information and draw your own conclusion; but nowadays it seems most people can not handle personal freedoms by their own admittance and as such need a patronistic 'authority' to tell them what is acceptable and what is not. 

Dark days ahead I'm afraid.  Do birds who have lived their lives in a cage even want the 'freedom' of what lies beyond?  My guess is for the majority the answer is "No".  That is pretty damn sad.

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself."
-- Judge Potter Stewart

What because you believe websites, forums, internet search engines, online media doesn’t listen to their advertising sponsors?

1 minute ago, Gulfsailor said:

Designate social media platforms as publishers. That way they are legally liable for whatever gets posted, and they can remove/sensor what they want. Same as TV. 

This!

17 minutes ago, attrayant said:

26 minutes ago, johnmcc6 said:

deemed false by whom? If false ,prove it to be.

 

I receive telepathic transmission every third Saturday of each month from a purple walrus that lives on the far side of Pluto.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

thats why you are a tv platinum member and your opinions are welcome as is your freedom of expression.

1 minute ago, Gulfsailor said:

Designate social media platforms as publishers. That way they are legally liable for whatever gets posted, and they can remove/sensor what they want. Same as TV. 

 

Publishing houses review the material they publish for content and sometimes for accuracy.  Facebook has over 2 billion users and about 25 thousand employees.  How are they going to filter that?

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

Publishing houses review the material they publish for content and sometimes for accuracy.  Facebook has over 2 billion users and about 25 thousand employees.  How are they going to filter that?

Engage the users in reporting abuse.

 

Automate the removal of comments /images/videos that have already been reported and removed.

 

Spend some of the billions of profit on managing the platform.

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

21 minutes ago, connda said:

I'm in the minority again as usual.  I simply find it amazing the number of people who actually ask their respective governments or mega-giant corporations to select what they are allowed to read and hear. <headshake> 
But - I'm not surprised.  It is a nanny-state mentality that that majority is comprised of who requests Big Brother and Big Daddy Warbucks to filter and censor information presented to them in the public domain before their delicate sensibilities can be offended by narratives that don't fit 'the commonly accepted and politically correct narratives' that they have been raised and indoctrinated to believe and accept.  And they fail to see the danger in that.  Some people can handle 'Freedom' as well as the personal responsibility that such freedom entails, such as being able to analyze information and draw your own conclusion; but nowadays it seems most people can not handle personal freedoms by their own admittance and as such need a patronistic 'authority' to tell them what is acceptable and what is not. 

Dark days ahead I'm afraid.  Do birds who have lived their lives in a cage even want the 'freedom' of what lies beyond?  My guess is for the majority the answer is "No".  That is pretty damn sad.

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself."
-- Judge Potter Stewart

What because you believe websites, forums, internet search engines, online media doesn’t listen to their advertising sponsors?

 

no, not at face value. each individual must use their own cognitive ability-intuition to decide what they deem as real-credible, etc etc.

 

something akin to a child growing up and mommy no longer making the decisions

Really looking forward to when the AI bots decide what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.

3 hours ago, BuaBS said:

 

But no there shouldn't be censorship on social media and youtube . What is happening now months before the US elections is appalling. Whether it is fake news or not , people like Alex Jones/infowars and other conservative voices shouldn't be removed .

Social media should be forced to keep free speech . Again appalling what is happening in europe , censoring everything about "migrant" crimes .

 

 

There just shouldn't, because you say so, oh and because you believe some of the lies.

26 minutes ago, Gulfsailor said:

Designate social media platforms as publishers. That way they are legally liable for whatever gets posted, and they can remove/sensor what they want. Same as TV. 

 

They are communication platforms, turning social media into publishers would be no different to turning telephone companies into publishers and expect them to censor your calls.

40 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Many ideas and points of view have been proven wrong, racism is an example, fascism is another.

 

These don’t need to be proven wrong and dangerous to individuals and society everytimme they occur.

 

If you want to prevent them from causing damage then they need to be called out every time they occur.