Facebook and YouTube are receding from their role as watchdogs against conspiracy theories ahead of the 2024 presidential election

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What is disinformation but free speech by another name? And every American has the constitutional right to free speech regardless of how unhinged and divorced from reality that speech may be.

    8 hrs later, an update:

    I don’t believe this. There are absolutely limits to free speech.

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      People have a huge misconception of what free speech is. Free speech is the ability to speak against or question the government without consequence. It doesn’t have anything else to do with saying whatever you want to say.

      Example:
      “Cheerios are made by milking bats.” is not free speech. It’s just a lie.

      “The president is wrong, and doesn’t know what he’s doing.” is exercising my right to free speech.

      • dmention7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The misconception is that freedom of speech means anything other than freedom from prosecution by the state for your speech. It does not mean you are entitled to a platform, it does not mean you cannot be shouted down, and it does not mean private entities cannot (or even should not) censor your speech.

        It’s important to keep unpopular speech legally protected. It’s not at all important to ensure it has a robust platform. For example, Nazis should not be arrested for saying Nazi things; but they should absolutely be deplatformed, socially shunned, and have a blind eye cast when they get punched in the mouth for saying Nazi things in public.

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        What about “The radical, left-wing Democrat president is continuing Antifa’s crusade against Americans by forcing Cheerios to adopt the supposedly environmentally friendly policy of milking bats to produce the classic American breakfast cereal.”

        Where does that fall? It sounds like free speech to me.

          • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Lol see? Just like that, you can lie profusely as free speech. America!

            It’s even more effective if you just assert random bullshit, mention someone political figure you hate or like, whatever the intent. It’s free speech even if it is completely divorced from reality as long as you criticize the government, I guess.

            • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Back in the day journalists wouldn’t have been able to publish a story covering what you just quoted. It had to be factual. But that was ripped away, unfortunately. Hell, before Trump and Conway outlets would still point out when someone was flat out lying. But “alternate facts” get more views so they went along with it.

              Liable should come up more, imo. I don’t know why it doesn’t.

    • dmention7@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Constitutional right to free speech does not equal a right to a platform for that speech. Disinformation should not be legally prosecuted but, it’s absolute horse shit to claim that social media companies owe it the same indifference as the government does.

      Stop conflating the legal right to free speech with the (non-existent) right to use someone else’s platform for said speech.

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Constitutional right to free speech does not equal a right to a platform for that speech.

        Exactly. That’s why communists don’t have a voice anywhere. It’s no one’s fault that rich and/or politically powerful people more easily align with authoritarianism and fascism and just so happen to own those platforms. It does mean that groups and individuals advocating for under-represented perspective languish in obscurity. And there’s no reason why those voices should be represented on any mainstream platform. They have a constitutional right to scream at the top of their fossil-fuel charred lungs about climate change on the corner of the street like any homeless person. They don’t have the right to do it on Twitter or Facebook.

        • JamesStallion
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          People say this but no one ever wants to nationalize social media

    • winky88@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Much like screaming FIRE!! in a crowded venue, there has to be a limit on free speech, and that limit is typically when it causes harm to other people