Tidings logo

Tidings

Subscribe
Archives
December 28, 2020

Censorship

I’d like to explore some common ground on censorship, specifically on social media platforms. Is this a legitimate complaint? Possibly - but a lot of this rests on all of our shoulders.

Facebook and twitter put warning labels on all posts dealing with the election, whether those posts talked about Biden or Trump. Partly this was a response to public outcry when a group used facebook to plot the kidnap of Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, qanon conspiracy posts and foreign interference. So is this justified?

In some ways. Facebook and twitter act as a megaphone, giving a platform to those who don’t have an audience otherwise. Before the internet, a manifesto had to be published at the author’s expense. Qanon and kidnappers can’t exactly broadcast on the evening news, and most would face restrictions in the newspaper (with an exception of the classifieds or other advertising). Newspapers are a good example; the editor chooses what can be published, including on the editorial page.

This may be the crux of the issue. Instead of censoring some posts, facebook and twitter really ought to have a disclaimer that “This is not a news site” or “This post is merely an opinion”. Of course, they don’t - and probably would not agree to such a posting. So back to we the people.

We, the readers and consumers, need to use a high level of diligence on these social media platforms. It appears to me that the majority of Americans do not, and are happy to repost things that agree with what they think. Fox news argued, in a recent court case, that “any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism.” Until we get to that point, what IS reasonable?

I believe that we should apply rules that match common limitations to free speech in this situation. Libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, and public security. The same reasons you will be sued for crying “fire” in a crowded theater (you remember crowds, before COVID?). Also from Wikipedia’s list of common limitations are the right to privacy and dignity - our public discourse would be greatly improved by those limitations. Cyberbullying covers a lot of these rules also.

The newspaper editor could apply these rules before the paper goes to print; newsrooms can apply these rules before stories go on the air. Can these rules be applied on facebook and twitter? I can’t see a direct way. Coming back to the election, facebook and twitter tried by labeling all posts, and actually covering some, but not all - so this isn’t a good solution. They could state these in their policy and let lawyers get litigious - but that’s a bad solution in many ways. Another option would be to add an alternative to “thumbs up” - something like “I challenge the truth of this” - but the statement has already been made and had an impact.

Once you cry “fire”, the crowd runs. Add pitchforks, and innocent people are hurt.

Again, it is back to us to treat these platforms the way they should - and that is equally relevant with instagram, youtube, tik-tok, parler, and others.

One thing that all platforms CAN do, and to some extent are doing - blocking bad actors and foreign influence. If Mabel from Iowa (who has cat pictures dating back to 2006) loses her account password to a Russian hacker, who then begins posting about Nazis, qanon, the flat earth or the protocols of Zion - said hacker should not have the added credibility of Mabel’s cats. See a youtube series from Destin Sandlin (Smarter Every Day) about this (and related) topics:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHf9jaFs8XVAQpJLdNNyA8tzhXzhpZHu

I think the majority of us are on common ground regarding censorship. This is the first freedom listed in our Bill of Rights. That said, it is up to we, the people to police that right appropriately. What are your thoughts?

Don't miss what's next. Subscribe to Tidings:
Powered by Buttondown, the easiest way to start and grow your newsletter.