Mark Zuckerberg. By Presidência do México - Flickr, CC BY 2.0, Link

Facebook Considering Editorialising Climate Change Posts

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Facebook have upped the ante in their ongoing challenge to the limits of Section 230 of the Communication Act, part of the law which shields social media giants from lawsuits over posts which contain libellous content, yet allows them to remove “offensive” material, by upping their intrusion into the private and public communications of members.

The next front in Facebook’s misinformation battle: climate change 

By Clare Duffy, CNN Business
Updated 1409 GMT (2209 HKT) November 7, 2021

New York (CNN Business)In August 2019, when a Facebook employee typed “climate change” into the platform’s search bar, the auto-fill suggestions that popped up included “climate change debunked” and “climate change is a hoax.” The results prompted the employee to ask in a post on the company’s internal site: “Do our policies combatting the spread of misinformation on Facebook apply to climate denialism?” 

The documents highlight how, for years, some employees of the social media company — which recently changed its name to Meta — have raised alarms about climate change misinformation spreading on its platforms, and called on the company to do more to crack down on it. 

On Monday, the company’s VP of Global Affairs, Nick Clegg, announced in a blog post additional steps Facebook is taking to address climate change, including expanding informational labels on some posts about climate change to more than a dozen countries. 

Experts, however, say the stakes could not be higher for Facebook to further ramp up its solutions for this problem — and soon. 

“Given that [climate change] is an existential threat, we can’t be casual about the seriousness about the threat of climate misinformation,” said John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “It needs to be addressed with the same level of urgency and proactiveness that they’re showing with Covid-19 and election misinformation.”

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/07/tech/facebook-climate-change-misinformation/index.html

The problem with Section 230 appears to be the definition of “offensive” is too vague.

I think most people would agree social media companies should be allowed to remove say child pornography videos, or videos of perverts filming themselves gang raping adult victims, but Facebook and other activist social media companies appear to want to extend this definition of “offensive” to include discussing theories they don’t like about the origins of Covid, the effectiveness of vaccines, what happened during the last Presidential election, and now, discussion of the causes of climate change.

Are these topics really offensive in the sense that child pornography is offensive? Or are Facebook and other social media giants completely out of control, abusing a weak section 230 law to impose arbitrary censorship on users?

Society really needs to make a decision about what speech is permitted, and what speech social media giants are allowed to censor.

To many people, social media communications are like phone calls. Imagine if you were say discussing current affairs with a friend on the phone, and suddenly a robot voice intruded, explaining a comment you just made conflicted with a fact check?

How is that different to say Facebook intruding on a closed discussion with friends, taking down or downgrading the visibility of posts, or adding their intrusive and in my opinion frequently questionable fact checks? Is it reasonable to do this, even with a public discussion? Are we really a society where it is appropriate to have Facebook censors interrupting private and public conversations with a big megaphone, shouting “fact checks” into the public square?

There is no doubt the heavy handed censorship by Facebook and other social media giants has a chilling effect on legitimate conversation and discovery of new information.

Look at Facebook’s treatment of the Covid lab leak hypothesis. Facebook suppressed suggestions Covid leaked from a lab in Wuhan, until the suppression of this increasingly mainstream theory got embarrassing, then they shamelessly backflipped and lifted the ban.

Facebook: People Are Now Permitted to Speculate Covid-19 Leaked from a Laboratory

Suppression of free speech is dangerous. Chinese suppression of free speech, arresting and intimidating doctors who tried to warn the world, allowed the Wuhan outbreak to grow into a global pandemic.

In my opinion Facebook’s abuse of censorship has strayed dangerously close to the CCP’s level of high risk suppression, through their manipulation and suppression of legitimate discussion about the origins of Covid. How does Facebook’s suppression of the Covid lab leak theory qualitatively differ from CCP suppression of the original medical warnings from Wuhan?

Unless the ambiguity and weakness of US decency laws is addressed, organisations like Facebook will continue in their hubris to impose their views about what speech is permissible on society, for in my opinion frequently opaque reasons, without having to explain themselves, while still enjoying the protection of Section 230.

There is a reason the founding fathers enshrined freedom of speech in the US Constitution. They recognised the anti-democratic nature of denying people access to facts and viewpoints, in order to manipulate the opinions and actions of ordinary people. The Founding Fathers knew the danger to civic society, of concentrating the power to decide what opinions can be expressed, into the hands of one person or a small group of people.

Next time social media giants make a mistake, and interrupt free flow of information because one of their politically radical employees has a hissy fit, the consequences for society might be far worse than the consequences of interrupting a legitimate academic discussion about the true origin of a horrible virus.

4.8 28 votes
Article Rating
142 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 7, 2021 6:11 pm

So, um, are they going to censor “climate change misinformation” such as John Cook saying climate change “is an existential threat”, which is absolutely false?

Last edited 10 months ago by Toby Nixon
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Toby Nixon
November 7, 2021 7:21 pm

Or ANY post about CC from the Obama White House..

Derg
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 8, 2021 1:41 am

People need to get off Facebook. I know it’s hard, but people need to try.

Reply to  Derg
November 8, 2021 4:26 am

Never got on. Not any Social Justice Network. Two decades TV free means more time to read.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Derg
November 8, 2021 4:16 pm

I was on Facebook for about a month or so maybe 10 years ago.
The only reason I got on it all was because a girl that I gave away at her wedding put their honeymoon pictures on Facebook and sent an invite to join so I could see them.
I enjoyed the pictures but I was then deluged with “friend request”. Most were from people I saw every week but some were from people I hadn’t seen in years.
All I had time to do was accept the request.
I did that for weeks. I decided to cancel my account. But I found out that if you cancel your account Facebook doesn’t tell all your friends that you canceled your account. It sends out a message that they were “unfriended”.
So, aside from a message about enjoying the pictures. I put up a message explaining how Facebook operated and that I was cancelling my account in 2 weeks. They were all still my friends no matter what Facebook says.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Toby Nixon
November 7, 2021 9:34 pm

The hilarious thing about farcebook is the shrill yelling of Social Justice Warriors whenever it allows ANY kind of political posts that are to the right of Stalin

Reply to  Toby Nixon
November 7, 2021 9:45 pm

Given that [climate change] is an existential threat, we can’t be casual about the seriousness about the threat of climate misinformation,” said John Cook

Please “God” save us from the ideological abuse of language! Every single time I hear “existential threat” uttered by anybody no matter how famous, powerful, educated or supposedly intelligent I want shove an existential dictionary up there existential fundamental!

It amounts to pure doublespeak because it means the exact opposite of what you think it means no matter what you think in means!

Existential means – quite literally – in your own mind! Therefore the threat is not real but imaginary; an existential threat! The secondary meaning of existential is real (Or exists), as in a real threat. Existential is a technical term in philosophy that refers to what is immanent, that is to say in your own mind or in your own head.

This is why, when Tony Blair announced -verbally- that weapons of mass destruction were an immanent/imminent threat, you could never be shore what he meant. Immanent (with an “a”) is all in your own head and imminent (with an “i”) is a real and immediate threat. These two different words have opposite meanings in the context, therefore he was employing the purest form of political doublespeak!

Please, stop using the planted words of ideologues. Just speak plainly and directly, say what you mean and never use ambiguous language because it is the surest path to Hell.

Last edited 10 months ago by Scott Wilmot Bennett
Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 8, 2021 1:04 am

YES! I have been saying this since the first time I heard existential used referring to the faux threat of CAGW. Now, thanks to media and other morons using the word with such authority, its meaning has become clouded in the minds of many. English may be a living language but this is silly, we already have a lot of perfectly good words that mean what they all seem to think existential means.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 8, 2021 4:25 pm

My sophomore year at one of the top Jesuit HS’s in the US, my Theology class was about “Existentialism”.
I don’t think they know what that word means.
(But it’s long enough and obscure enough that those who buy it probably don’t know what it means either. But it sounds important!)

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Toby Nixon
November 8, 2021 12:33 am

Also the greenhouse gas effect – which is fake science, based on an illegitimate mathematical model. Can’t see Facebook censoring that.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Toby Nixon
November 8, 2021 3:25 am

j cook opens gab
nothing true is said

Megs
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 9, 2021 9:06 pm

What about the 3%?

niceguy
Reply to  Toby Nixon
November 9, 2021 7:08 pm

Frances Haugen probably wouldn’t insist on that. The so called FB whistleblower said nothing about John Cook causing chaos.

Tom Halla
November 7, 2021 6:20 pm

Facebook/Meta has had problems, both with their own leftist employees and the Democratic Party activists in government threatening.to institute the sort of regulation Facebook has been trying to avoid. The Republican consensus is that Section 230 only applies to a neutral forum, that political editing is a violation.
The Democrats want good little doobies, who will label anything not proper in their circles “hate speech”, and ban it. As Zuckerberg and his management have hired mostly people sympathetic with the Democrat position, I have serious doubts as to Zuckerberg being even a libertarian on this issue.

AntonyIndia
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 7, 2021 10:09 pm

Facebook goes into Metastasis. As they have the bulk of their users in India they should be careful as these depend on reliable electricity to charge their mobile phones and run their modems going too far along with Climate Change nonsense. Profit – bigger loss = loss.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  AntonyIndia
November 8, 2021 3:28 am

love it !!metastasis
fkbk IS a CANCER on the planets pcs etc

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AntonyIndia
November 8, 2021 7:06 am

I believe I read not too long ago that 40 percent of Facebook’s employees were actual citizens of India, working in the United States.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 8, 2021 7:04 am

“I have serious doubts as to Zuckerberg being even a libertarian on this issue.”

Facebook does not censor any leftwing posts. That ought to tell you all you need to know about Facebook management’s political leanings.

michael hart
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 8, 2021 12:21 pm

Odd thing is that, in the past, Zuckerberg has said some eminently sensible things, suggesting that he really does get it. And then his giant company continues to travel in the opposite direction.

Quite apart from being confused about what he really believes, I think he has almost completely lost control of the monster he created.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 7, 2021 6:28 pm

Do as I do – don’t use social media sites. If you have an account, cancel it. You can live a perfectly fine life without Facebook.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 7, 2021 7:24 pm

I still have a FB account, but haven’t been on it in years. I had a TWITter account for a short time, tried to use it for local traffic reporting, since we’re kind of out in the boonies, accidents and such don’t make it to Seattle news, unless it’s REALLY bad. But even a simple accident at the Deception Pass Bridge can cause hours of backups.

But it didn’t pan out, no volunteers. So I cancelled that account. I got onto Parler just before they were cancelled, but that’s really it.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 8, 2021 3:04 am

I use Twitter to follow news on the Scottish football team I’ve followed for 65 years which despite winning a cup double last year rarely breaksunto anything published by the BBC. Several fans post stuff which means I am not titally out of touch.

(Another reason I think they’rena crap organisation despite winning more trophies than the Old Firm combined it didn’t get a mention on “Football Focus”)

John
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 7, 2021 9:29 pm

I agree I hate facebook
the sooner it is deconstructed
twitter
Whats app etc
then shut down meta

Russell
November 7, 2021 6:42 pm

I do wonder what Metalons will be actioning about other religions and their misinformation about the existence of an all-mighty, miracles and the future risk of leading an impure life. This must surely fall into the science-consistency basket?

Alba
Reply to  Russell
November 8, 2021 1:50 am

I was thinking about this:
“Given that [climate change] is an existential threat, we can’t be casual about the seriousness about the threat of climate misinformation,”
Well, what could be a greater threat to anybody than the possibility of spending eternity in Hell. So, on that basis, anything which denies the existence of God or the existence of Hell should be banned.
And the contrary to that is what Russell seems to be proposing. He seems to want Meta to ban anything which suggests that God exists and that miracles do happen.

MarkMcD
November 7, 2021 6:49 pm

And just when does ‘Meta’ get reclassified as a publisher? I mean given they are controlling the conversation by editing, banning and deleting only one side of a topic?

Also, when do the social media platforms get charged with aiding and abetting terrorism by letting clear calls for violence, bombings and recruitment into known terror organisation remain public?

And how about we STILL have paedo and porn posts and posters as evidenced by how many people keep getting arrested who built their contacts on social media?

Perhaps if the Big Tech controllers spent more time shaping algorithms to check for illegal activity and less on censoring normal people who simply have a different opinion to the communist agenda being preached BY Big Tech, social media would be a cleaner place to visit. Like, check for breaking actual real-world LAWS instead of making up new political rules to censor people.

That censorship removes them all from under S230 umbrella of protection and they should be charged for what they do in breaking the Constitution and for rank censorship in countries without the US Constitution.

Derg
Reply to  MarkMcD
November 8, 2021 1:46 am

Major news organizations will do everything in their power to get rid of FB. FB is taking “their” money.

Walter
November 7, 2021 7:13 pm

Facebook is a private platform and may flag or take down any content it wishes. I don’t always agree with their choices, but I defend their right to make them. Use of Facebook is voluntary.

MAL
Reply to  Walter
November 7, 2021 11:31 pm

Your use of the street I pay for is now forbidden. Face book travels on a public/private network they do not own. Why should they be allowed to limit speech. Yes their server house that information but with and open connection Facebook has nothing.

stinkerp
Reply to  Walter
November 7, 2021 11:57 pm

Great in theory except when they have a monopoly on the dissemination of information in the English speaking world. That goes for Google, Amazon, and Apple too, who all shut down Parler, a paid social media site whose only sin was publishing ideas offensive to their sensibilities. The deplatforming of Parler by Amazon is grounds for a massive antitrust lawsuit. These companies should be broken up just like Bell Telephone in 1982, which stimulated competition and paved the way for the ubiquitous, inexpensive cell phone and internet service we enjoy today.

Facebook and Twitter advertised themselves as platforms ostensibly hosting the largest free exchange of ideas in the world where anyone can post whatever they want. Except they weren’t. Just like their devious business plan, it was really a bait and switch. Once they had enough customers to generate massive advertising revenue and profitability, they transformed into something else.

It’s time to remove the special protections afforded these companies disguising themselves as public forums while in reality censoring ideas and information they don’t like. It should start with massive fines for improper in-kind contributions to the Democrat Party in the 2020 election by censoring and deplatforming prominent Republican candidates, like the sitting President of the United States at the time. They are either a public forum or they are not, and because they deceptively billed themselves as a public forum but did not behave as one and did not afford their customers the same protections as the First Amendment does in actual public forums, they should be severely penalized, regulated, or their monopoly broken up.

Last edited 10 months ago by stinkerp
Disputin
Reply to  stinkerp
November 8, 2021 4:45 am

Erm… sorry, but how can you have a monopoly on the dissemination of information… That goes for Google, Amazon, and Apple too. A monopoly is only of one, by definition.

George Daddis
Reply to  Disputin
November 8, 2021 7:12 am

Consistent with many comments on this thread, your point only applies in the strict literal or legal definition of “monopoly”. The Progressives have twisted the definition to mean any very large presence that controls a substantial part of the market. They went after Eastman Kodak and forced them to change their business model re film sales and processing – there were plenty other film companies, just none so big. IMO same as FB.

stinkerp
Reply to  Disputin
November 8, 2021 6:30 pm

Even when Bell Telephone was a “monopoly” that federal regulators broke up, there were other phone companies in service ostensibly “competing” with Bell. But they were fleas on the back of the elephant.

That help?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  stinkerp
November 8, 2021 7:12 am

“Great in theory except when they have a monopoly on the dissemination of information in the English speaking world. That goes for Google, Amazon, and Apple too, who all shut down Parler, a paid social media site whose only sin was publishing ideas offensive to their sensibilities.”

Google is now de-monetizing the conservative website “Worldnet Daily” (wnd.com).

It’s blatant censorship.

Last edited 10 months ago by Tom Abbott
Steve Stoddard
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 10, 2021 12:33 pm

It’s blatant censorship.

It is not censorship at all.

Neither “demonetizing” nor “deplatforming” is censorship in any way, shape or form. Not even a little bit.

]]]
Antitrust must be destroyed.

Reply to  Walter
November 8, 2021 12:42 am

Facebook is a private platform – Walter (Who? Mondale, Cronkite, Disney…)

Yes but it is a public forum, a public space or would you prefer it to be an echo chamber, an electronic ghetto!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 8, 2021 3:31 am

its already the latter two anyway

saveenergy
Reply to  Walter
November 8, 2021 1:32 am

Why are people marking Walter down for stating the truth ??

Facebook is a private platform owned by Suckerburg
Use of Facebook is voluntary
they have chosen a private policy … if you don’t like it, don’t use it.
You don’t have to smoke or eat fast food, but some people chose to & suffer the consequences.

But it’s hypocritical to demand freedom of speech / expression, yet deny Suckerburg the same rights … even if he is a shitbag !!!

I’ve never been comfortable with Fecesbook or Twater … so I dont use them.

Last edited 10 months ago by saveenergy
Derg
Reply to  saveenergy
November 8, 2021 1:48 am

Yes! Many people claim they want freedom but then fail to back up their words.

SxyxS
Reply to  saveenergy
November 8, 2021 2:20 am

Wait.
You really use freedom of speech to defend the censorship of free speech on a massive scale?
And in this case a guy who spent 400 mio bucks to support a specific party.

You really think that there i no difference between a gu who runs a lemonade
stand and a global megabank?

50 % of you white western guys a completely insane with your crazy radical attitude ,no matter left or right .
No sanity or common sense left at all.

On the left they pretend to hate the rich while kissing their butts of celebrities and repeating everything they gett from billionaires MSM
on the right they spout freedom/democracy/republic while opening all gates and paving the way to oligarchic tyranny and being proud of it.

This is about balance and open flow of information and it absolutely does not matter wether the monopol is controlled by the state or a private person- the abuse of the monopol ( which should not exist in the first place) must be prevented at all costs.

Imbalanced guys like you are the pest of mankind.

saveenergy
Reply to  SxyxS
November 8, 2021 3:38 am

I am conversant with every single word you wrote … but have no idea what you you are on about (or what substance you are on).

Reply to  saveenergy
November 8, 2021 2:40 am

Good point. There are no public platforms online! There are plenty of public forums but they are all privately owned. This is an issue because there is now, no analogue of the public square or speakers corner; it is all commerce or government.

Last edited 10 months ago by Scott Wilmot Bennett
MarkW
Reply to  saveenergy
November 8, 2021 5:56 am

Walter is being marked down because Facebook is not a purely private organization. Because of the protections they receive from government, they are at best a private/public partnership.

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  MarkW
November 10, 2021 12:38 pm

Facebook is not a purely private organization. 

Actually, it is. Like most businesses, it is regulated by government. But the government hasn’t taken it over — yet.

Reply to  saveenergy
November 8, 2021 6:09 am

As a platform, they are immune (section 230 or Title 47 of the US Code)to liability for what those who post say. When they censor, they are no longer a platform, but a publisher and should NOT then be immune for prosecution for libel, THEN they have the right to censor, but also should have exposure to lawsuits for what they allow to be published

TonyG
Reply to  saveenergy
November 8, 2021 1:01 pm

The problem is that Facebook is immune from prosecution for misconduct due to Section 230, which essentially classifies it as a “common carrier”, meaning it’s not liable for content published on the platform – BUT, it exercises editorial control over that content regardless.

Remove Section 230 protections and make it liable, as any other non-social-media company would be. Then you have an argument.

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  TonyG
November 14, 2021 10:12 am

The problem is that Facebook is immune from prosecution for misconduct due to Section 230,

That is not true.

Redge
Reply to  Walter
November 8, 2021 5:26 am

Facebook is a private platform and may flag or take down any content it wishes. 

You’re correct, however, if Farcebook decides to take down posts on subjects they disagree with then they are exercising publisher control and should be treated in exactly the same way as any publisher i.e. they are responsible for anything published on their site

MarkW
Reply to  Walter
November 8, 2021 5:54 am

I would agree with you except for the fact that Facebook is protected by a number of laws. Which completely refutes the belief that they are purely a private organization.

Kevin
Reply to  Walter
November 8, 2021 8:09 am

These “private” platforms get numerous privileges from the government in return for incorporating under government rules. Shareholders are exempt from personal legal liability. The financial markets through which they raise capital are (admittedly imperfectly) regulated to give confidence to investors. Our monetary system inflates the monetary base to ensure adequate capital and bails out these the banks essential for liquidity when they get in over their heads. Their patents, copyrights and trade names are vigorously protected.

This is one libertarian position I no longer buy.

Jeff Alberts
November 7, 2021 7:21 pm

“Do our policies combatting the spread of misinformation on Facebook apply to climate denialism?”

The term “Climate Denialism” is itself disinformation.

SxyxS
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 8, 2021 2:22 am

It is for a simple reason.
Climate denialism does not exist.
There isn’t even a single person on this planet that denies the existence of climate.

michael hart
Reply to  SxyxS
November 8, 2021 12:44 pm

Indeed. And I’ve also never met a person that believes climate never changes. Most of the people that coin the phrase “climate change denial” have probably never taken the time to stop and parse their own words and what they are actually claiming. It’s an abuse of the English language, rather like the “existential threat” discussed upthread.

Insufficiently Sensitive
November 7, 2021 7:40 pm

suddenly a robot voice intruded, explaining a comment you just made conflicted with a fact check?

If there were any justice in this world, that robot and its ‘fact check’ would have no more moral standing than the comment you had just made. As with ‘misinformation’ in the world of social media, their ‘fact checks’ are no less subjective than any human expression of an idea – and they’re both cynical shields for the arbitrary veto power of the media company over the expression of opinions they dislike.

Worse, Zuckerberg and most all the bazillionaire nobility at the heads of those media entities have in their education been exposed to the scientific method, and it appears that their personal ‘fact checkers’ have carefully buried an essential part of it: that any hypothesis must stand perpetually to be verified, and is not to be believed a law of God simply because it has succeeded in some few, or some large number of cases. It must yield as soon as someone confronts it with better evidence.

These ‘fact checks’ appear to be no more than a shield against better evidence, which they want perpetually banished.

SxyxS
Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
November 8, 2021 2:39 am

The term fact checker is just another word for ministry of truth.

The only difference is that the monopol of the ministry of truth is now sold to the people as duopol
where the one half of the ministry pushes an agenda/censorship while the other half protects the agenda and censorship while claiming there is no agenda/censorship.

It is a little bit like those movie jokes where a person stands in front of a counter and is told by the bureaucrat that this is the wrong counter and told to go to the adjacent counter that is 1 yard away and as soon the person gets there it turns out it’s the same bureaucrat who moved from one chair to another.

MARTIN BRUMBY
November 7, 2021 7:47 pm

Is this the same nitwit John Cook who knocked about with Stephen Lewandowski and liked to dress up in Nazi SS gear?
Or another nitwit John Cook?

Julian Flood
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 7, 2021 11:39 pm

Picture?

JF

DaveS
Reply to  Julian Flood
November 8, 2021 5:05 am
Rory Forbes
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
November 7, 2021 8:25 pm

The other member of that trio is Dana Nuccitelli, co-author of Cook’s thoroughly falsified 97.1% “consensus” paper and currently a particularly noxious, Guardian “climate” propaganda writer.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
November 8, 2021 10:28 am

The very same plonker.

Independent
November 7, 2021 8:13 pm

As much as I consider Facebook and its ilk to be the digital equivalent of open streams of raw sewage running through a garbage dump, the fact remains that many people are going to use it. Therefore, what needs to be done is to clarify Section 230 so that it’s crystal clear that it does not apply to any company that censors legal content posted by its users.

Basically, if they want to censor, that’s fine – they can be subject to liability for everything posted on their site, including illegal activity such as child porn, IP theft, defamation, etc. But they have a way out of that: don’t censor anything legal. Congress needs to get this done as a top priority as soon as possible.

And if you read up on Zuckerberg and his corruption of the 2020 election, that will really get you going. Educate yourself on that as it’s a huge threat to our country and way of life: https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/14/zuckerbucks-101-how-a-media-mogul-took-over-the-2020-election-and-why-gop-leaders-must-never-let-it-happen-again/

roaddog
Reply to  Independent
November 8, 2021 12:25 am

BigTech must die.

SxyxS
Reply to  roaddog
November 8, 2021 2:49 am

All monopoles,duopoles ,Oligarchopols must die.
Everything too big will eventually become a weapon of a few to abuse the many,
wether it is a government,a corporation,an oligarchy,a foundation etc etc is of no relevance .

SxyxS
Reply to  Independent
November 8, 2021 2:43 am

Your argument is spot on but has a flaw.

As soon as they make “denial ” illegal(by some hatespeech trick or executive order etc)they can again censor.

Craig from Oz
November 7, 2021 8:23 pm

There are some among us who like to say that FaceBook is a private company and can ban whatever it likes, or words to that effect.

The phrase you are looking for here is ‘Cake and Eat It Too’.

FaceBook is claiming that you can’t blame them for what people publish, but also that they have the right to control what is published.

This is the problem. You cannot be both an impartial hosting service who only provides the platform for discussion (in the same way a street can’t be blamed for the actions of the protestors who march down it) and also very strictly control what content is displayed on the same platform (which is admitting you DO have a stake in what is being published under your name)

Cake.
Eat.

MAL
Reply to  Craig from Oz
November 7, 2021 11:33 pm

Even worse the do not own the pipe that the servers are hooked to without the pipe Facebook has nothing.

SxyxS
Reply to  Craig from Oz
November 8, 2021 2:58 am

Nothing that has a monopole(which must not exist in the first place)
should be allowed to abuse the monopole.
No matter what the monopol is,the monopolist must not be allowed to manipulate the prize and it does not matter wether the product is hardware,software or information

One can not cry for freedom while paving the way for the tyrants by claiming,
Marxist tyranny by billionaires is evil
but i am perfectly fine with it as long as the tyranny is sold to me as capitalistic.

steve
November 7, 2021 8:29 pm

“Are these topics really offensive in the sense that child pornography is offensive?”

No they are not offensive and those topics are completely legal and legitimate topics as opposed to the illegal offensive child porn comparison. I suspect Facebook’s bias is so bad, they cannot even tell the difference.

MarkW
Reply to  steve
November 8, 2021 6:04 am

Leftists have hyper sensitive sensibilities.
Even the tiniest amount of disagreement is enough to send them into fits of rage.
Leftists believe that they have a right to live in world where nobody disagrees with them, and they are willing to kill in order to make that right a reality.

November 7, 2021 9:16 pm

Anything representing, reporting, or conveying the truth is always highly ‘offensive’ to Facebook or Meta.

John
November 7, 2021 9:27 pm

This is Nazzism at its worst

a company believes it has the right to control your thoughts and eliminate any that are not aligned with its view

obviously they had failed to transform the companies bad image changing name from Facebook to meta

oh well bad luck

gringojay
Reply to  John
November 7, 2021 10:32 pm

Strategy has been proposed before.

8D55DC97-11BF-4855-9EA0-D2BD410DD183.jpeg
mothcatcher
Reply to  gringojay
November 8, 2021 12:20 am

Right on point, Gringojay.
Do you have a reference for that clip?

gringojay
Reply to  mothcatcher
November 8, 2021 1:03 am

Sorry, but no – it’s an on-line meme. I have not read the man’s writings and can not personally verify where the quote would be found on a printed page.

November 7, 2021 9:46 pm

Youtube already editorializes everyone of my videos. They add a box pushing climate change is caused by humans, changing every few weeks, and linking to wikipedia before and now to the UN

roaddog
Reply to  Jim Steele
November 8, 2021 12:27 am

I noted that this evening, and BigTech must die. Pressure must be applied to our congressional representatives to break up the monopolies that enforce the GroupThink.

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  roaddog
November 9, 2021 3:54 pm

BigTech must die.

Note that there are no “Big Tech monopolies,” and the government most certainly should not break up any companies. Congress should keep its hands off.

___
Antitrust must be destroyed.

Reply to  Jim Steele
November 8, 2021 4:53 pm

Jim, no doubt you and Anthony are high on the Left’s list to send to re-education camps.

Chris Hanley
November 7, 2021 10:14 pm

J S Mill (On Liberty) saw the suppression speech as evil (the ‘opinion’ silenced is that of skeptics):

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

In other words by depriving climate worriers of the skeptics’ point of view they can never be sure their untested convictions are truly warranted.

Last edited 10 months ago by Chris Hanley
Harry
November 7, 2021 11:03 pm

Facebook should cancel itself, everything about it is offensive

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  Harry
November 9, 2021 7:07 pm

If you find Facebook offensive, don’t go there!

Terry
November 7, 2021 11:32 pm

Facebook needs to be shut down.

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  Terry
November 9, 2021 3:38 pm

Facebook needs to be shut down.

No, it doesn’t. Just ignore it if you don’t like it.

Julian Flood
November 7, 2021 11:36 pm

USians might look at the remit and actions of the UK’s Behavioural Insights Team. It’s nickname is ‘The Nudge Unit’ and its purpose is to influence public opinion and responses.

It has offices round the world which sounds sinister. Would it be a legal organisation in the USA if one of those offices is on American soil?

JF

Thomas Gasloli
November 7, 2021 11:54 pm

I do not know understand why they have not been sued. 230 exempts them from responsibility for the statement of a post on their site, but 230 does not protect them from suits regarding their own statements. When they wrongfully label a post as “misinformation” that is still libel. And if they have a written policy of libel the case is even more clear.

Some conservative attorney needs to get a spine, be a David and slay this Goliath.

Thomas Gasloli
November 7, 2021 11:57 pm

P.S. It is time they were treated as a common carrier like the old phone companies. They would have to allow everything that was not clearly, demonstrably a crime.

John Endicott
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
November 8, 2021 3:40 am

Indeed. Spot on.

Last edited 10 months ago by John Endicott
roaddog
November 8, 2021 12:24 am

Scientific presentations on YouTube (OK, one that I viewed this evening) are amended with an editorial note defining Climate Change, and specifically stating that Climate Change is principally a result of human activities. We have got to bring pressure on Congress to break up the BigTech monopolies.

Jan
November 8, 2021 12:34 am

I hear alot about what happening. My question is, what should and can we do about it

bonbon
November 8, 2021 1:03 am

As Lee Camp over at RT hilariously showed – the only way to deal with Facebook – Meta , is to declare it a nation itself. After all it has it’s own currency, the Diem, and a few billion netizens, and a GDP of the largest economies. It’s President is already a billionaire. Give Meta a seat at the UN, and the Charter applies!

Problem solved!

Oh wait – then Guterres will declare a climate emergency at Meta – land, and Marc Carney might use the Diem as the Global Single Digital Currency….. Come to think of it that’s looks like what is going on….

Last edited 10 months ago by bonbon
griff
November 8, 2021 1:17 am

h/t Dr. Willie Soon

Hmmm… who’s ‘Oor Wullie’ working for these days?

Derg
Reply to  griff
November 8, 2021 1:55 am

Your back? Phew, I thought Simon was the only troll left.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Derg
November 8, 2021 3:59 am

Your back?

No, I think that was its front.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
November 8, 2021 3:20 am

For those who don’t get the reference, probably the majority of the English speaking world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oor_Wullie

Although Wullie’s hometown was unnamed in the original Watkins strips, it has been called Auchenshoogle since the late 1990s.
Wullie and his friends roam the streets of his town, though he is sometimes depicted at school which he finds confining. Praise from his teacher, who addresses him as “William”, is rare and acutely embarrassing. His adventures often consist of unrealistic get rich quick schemes that lead to mischief, to the despair of his parents Ma and Pa (Wullie’s Pa is called “Tam”; the only reference to this is in a strip from the sixties during a conversation between Pa and PC Murdoch) and local policeman (and Wullie’s arch-nemesis) P.C. Murdoch.
Wullie’s gang consists of himself, Fat Bob, Wee Eck, Soapy Soutar and Primrose Paterson. Wullie is the self-proclaimed leader, a position which is frequently disputed by the others. In early strips the gang met in a wooden shed – usually located in the garden at Wullie’s house. He also owns a pet mouse named Jeemy.

Reply to  griff
November 8, 2021 3:43 am

Dr Willie Soon is famous public intellectual while you are a gutless and uncredentialed sock puppet. You have no status, whoever you are. While I am a real person with actual accomplishments and my contact details are a matter of public record. You on the other hand are a nobody. If I ran this site, I would not allow anonymous comment because it demeans the standard of dialogue.

Last edited 10 months ago by Scott Wilmot Bennett
MarkW
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 8, 2021 6:09 am

As someone who has lost jobs over my political beliefs, if anonymous posting were not allowed, I could not afford to be here.
That fear has become even more justified the last few years as the woke seek to silence even the slightest amount of disagreement.

Last edited 10 months ago by MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 9, 2021 4:07 am

MarkW, perhaps I would make an exception if your “reality” was fully disclosed to me as site owner. But in the end anonymity is poison for the real world because it is completely unaccountable and stake less.

Lacking “skin in the game” it allows for bad actors, provocateurs, activists and paid trolls.

Ultimately it is gutless because you don’t put your money where your mouth is. You have my full sympathy and I do hear you. Your comments are particularly prolific and though I’m mostly in agreement with them, I find myself wondering if you are a paid to do it.

No, at some point you must make a stand for the real and come out of the shadows because it is clear right now that the reality of the whole world is being completely devalued by the hypocrisy of avatars and thoroughly gaslighted by apparatchiks that are enabled entirely by anonymity!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 8, 2021 6:08 am

Not just an offensive troll, but a racist offensive troll.

meab
Reply to  griff
November 8, 2021 8:09 am

Who are you working for, griffter?

Shane Gresinger
November 8, 2021 2:45 am

Just think when Trumps new platform comes online we can all jump ship.
I dare say he will get over 100 million to start with which means many will leave Facebook and Twitter…

bonbon
November 8, 2021 2:45 am

The problem is best looked at from a financial angle. Take the 1934 Bank Act, known as Glass-Steagall, where FDR split off high risk investment from commercial activity – i.e. no bailout possible for the “animal spirits”, and took the US economy from absolute collapse in 10 years ready for WWII. Fast forward to 1999, Glass-Ateagall repealed, and a crash again by 2008, endless bailouts and money pumping.
So first regulate that financial problem. Then it will be obvious what to do with Meta. Problem with Google, Alphabet, is right now it is basically a DoD subcontractor – it won a Pentagon Big Data tender, with an internal strike going on over that. To break that up one confronts the Pentagon.
I only wonder what Meta is up to buying up every VR firm – will they offer Pentagon or CIA VR Drone operations? Or offer gamers ¨drone your favorite target, anywhere anytime¨? Pentagon for all?

Last edited 10 months ago by bonbon
MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
November 8, 2021 6:13 am

Like most of your history, this too is absolute bollocks.
The US economy did not recover from FDR’s great depression until after the start of WWII.
It wasn’t the war spending that did it either. It was the elimination of the many FDR era regulations on the economy that allowed the recovery. Fortunately FDR died before the war ended, so he wasn’t able to re-instate those regulations.

bonbon
Reply to  MarkW
November 8, 2021 8:03 am

Austrian Hayek stuff is simply superstition.
Funny how FDR gives them a fit.
It was Clinton and Nixon who torpedoed Betton-Woods and Glass-Steagall, and look at the current financial disaster – the entire FLOP26 is a gangrened attempt to rescue that with $150 trillion of your green.
Better do as FDR did when he cancelled the British gold-standard conference and signed off on Glass-Steagall.

Last edited 10 months ago by bonbon
Mark Pawelek
November 8, 2021 2:49 am

There’s a Reclaim the Net press release/article about this. They a campaign group called “The Real Facebook Oversight Board” are coordinating this censorship campaign. They have a twitter account but no web site yet.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
November 8, 2021 2:50 am

Faulty WUWT – published my comment as I was editing it!

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
November 8, 2021 3:09 am

There’s a Reclaim the Net press release/article about this. They say a campaign group called “The Real Facebook Oversight Board”, RFOB, are coordinating this censorship campaign. These people (RFOB) have a twitter account but no web site yet.
Funny how both the pro-censorship people make such a fuss about being “real”. Do they fear we suppose they’re “fake”?
I recommend you all edit your replies here in source code mode – until WUWT give us the edit button we’ve been asking for at least a decade. I had to close my connection to WUWT just to post this correction.

bonbon
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
November 8, 2021 3:38 am

The edit button does work for about 15 minutes. Mouse-over the wheel…

Last edited 10 months ago by bonbon
John Endicott
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
November 8, 2021 3:44 am

This is an edit button (if you scan through the comments you’ll notice a “Last edited” comment at the bottom of several posts). You just have to click on the little gear icon at the bottom right of your post to find the edit option. I think there’s an time limit on how long after you make you post that you can edit.

ETA: see, this line here was added in on an edit!

Last edited 10 months ago by John Endicott
Steve Stoddard
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
November 8, 2021 10:32 am

this censorship campaign

If there were a “censorship campaign,” it would have to be being run by government officials, otherwise it could not really be censorship.

Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Stoddard
TonyG
Reply to  Steve Stoddard
November 9, 2021 7:04 am

“If there were a “censorship campaign,” it would have to be being run by government officials”

Where do you get that idea from?

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  TonyG
November 9, 2021 3:21 pm

Where do you get that idea from?

From the way censorship works in the real world (as opposed to political fantasies).

ozspeaksup
November 8, 2021 3:24 am

why anyone filths up their pc with fkbk and windoze beats me

MarkW
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 8, 2021 6:15 am

Apple is worse than Windows by a long shot.

DocSiders
November 8, 2021 4:49 am

Our politicians gave Monopolies to these evil Clowns…which…being Leftists…they all love to abuse to destroy our Constitutional Freedoms… by Proxy.

These are the guys our Founders tried to protect us from. It’s our turn to Save It All…or not.

November 8, 2021 5:01 am

The entire world is represented at COP#26 and 100% of them blind to global warming cause. Now Facebook is going to address it and determine what people can post.

Zuckerberg is so far over his head, his entire team was technically overwhelmed by a plastic head called Specific Absorption Rate(SAR). The entire science supporting wireless communications(electromagnetic RADIATION) is a plastic head and used to bypass all jurisdictions.

The plastic head doesn’t have a brain wave, it is specific to heating(gently cooking babies, children in schools, teens, adults, seniors and blanketing planet earth)

The plastic head left out 100% of all bio-electrical information associated with anything, we are meat or tissue in a microwave.

The heart beat of mother earth that sustains all life is 7.83 Hz
The human heartbeat is 7.83 Hz.
Delta wave in brain when healing is .2 Hz
Wireless smart meter network antenna is 900,000,000 Hz
Wi-Fi antenna frequency in smart meter is 2.45,000,000,000
There is nothing electrically compatible with microwave EMFs at billions of electrical cycles per second.

Here is a picture of the test used to microwave the planet for ease of communication and what they left out which is blanketing of the planet for ease of communication. EMFs are an electrical jurisdiction first and the reason I cross examined “experts” technically overwhelmed by a plastic head.

http://thermoguy.com/cross-examination-of-fortis-bc-expert-panel-on-application-for-wireless-smart-meters/

Here is the SAR test on the end use device(only) The dangerous grid was left out and keep this is mind, there are real and practical reasons we wire the world. Does this test represent you, family or technical background? https://www.nutwooduk.co.uk/archive/tuv/sar_update.asp

AC is in fact refrigeration reacting to the symptoms of solar EMFs interacting with absorbent or unshaded areas. These are 2 time-lapsed IR videos from outside and inside a building. You will see the cold heavy air from AC laying on the floor.
https://youtu.be/EA3py3us5VM

None of this is at COP26 nor have microwaves been added as an extremely dangerous CAUSE of atmospheric warming and destruction of the entire planet. I was asked to co-present with Al Gore and could not based on perceived GHG emissions heating the planet from atmosphere down. Heated air doesn’t work like that. i.e. think about a hot air balloon.

Expand on the above, it isn’t for debate. Forest fires are still being fought blind and the eco damage and loss of ground cover has serious ramifications. Thermal gradients can be tracked giving lead time for first responders or forestry.

Forest-Fire-Interfaces-with-Kelowna1-785x1024.jpg
Reply to  Professor Curtis Bennett
November 8, 2021 4:56 pm

… just a smidgen off-topic.

DocSiders
November 8, 2021 5:03 am

Off topic:

In case anyone missed this…AOC and her Democrat Leftist comrades set aside most of the CLIMATE CHANGE planks in the “Not-Really-Infrastructure Bill” in favor of the Socialist planks in their Anti-American Globalist Socialist Agenda.

Steve Stoddard
November 8, 2021 5:35 am

The really significant point that so many people are missing is that Facebook cannot censor anyone, and most certainly is not doing so. Only government can censor: it’s a government power, not anything any private parties can impose.

TonyG
Reply to  Steve Stoddard
November 8, 2021 1:17 pm

Only government can censor? Based on what?

censor (verb)

  • to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
  • to suppress or delete as objectionable

Is that not what they’re doing?

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  TonyG
November 8, 2021 2:33 pm

Only government can censor? Based on what?

Based on the “police power” that only governments have, that is, the use or threat of official force. No private person, group or agency can silence a person or suppress a publication.

Facebook can delete stuff from its platform, but that is not censorship because it applies only to FB, not the country as a whole. What Facebook wishes is not legally binding on everybody else.

Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Stoddard
TonyG
Reply to  Steve Stoddard
November 9, 2021 7:18 am

“Facebook can delete stuff from its platform, but that is not censorship because it applies only to FB”

I see that you completely ignored the definition provided. What facebook is doing is censorship by definition. You’re redefining things to suit your own purposes.

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  TonyG
November 9, 2021 3:19 pm

I see that you completely ignored the definition provided.

How can you pretend to “see” the opposite of what really happened?

The definition you provided included “suppress as objectionable,” and I pointed out that Facebook cannot do that.

Even if you concentrate on the “delete as objectionable” part, even though FB can delete stuff from its platform, that is hardly the sort of universal (or at least society-wide) deletion you were talking about.

What facebook is doing is censorship by definition.

Not by any reasonable definition taking into account the real world.

TonyG
Reply to  Steve Stoddard
November 10, 2021 7:16 am

Nothing in that definition, nor in common usage historically (remember the “television censors” in the late 1900’s?), requires universal deletion or suppression. You are adding that to the definition to suit your own purposes.

Since you insist on using your own definitions for words, you make it impossible to engage in rational discourse.

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  TonyG
November 10, 2021 8:56 am

Nothing in that definition, nor in common usage … requires universal deletion or suppression.

Even when dealing definitions and/or “common usage,” it pays to be realistic. Why in the world should the fact that something does not appear on Facebook mean that it has been suppressed? The notion simply seems fantastic.

You seem to be improperly conflating “deleted on Facebook” with “suppressed in public discourse.” That is an incredible stretch, and does not make sense.

engage in rational discourse.

To be really useful (and quite rational), discourse should check into whether the definitions fit the facts. Not the other way around.

Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Stoddard
Steve Stoddard
Reply to  TonyG
November 10, 2021 10:33 am

If you define “censorship” as “not liking an idea and therefore not promoting it,” then you have basically taken a very important word and emptied it of all rational meaning.

[I wanted to add this to my previous post, but the edit button does not seem to have much endurance.]

___
Antitrust must be destroyed.

Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Stoddard
Steve Stoddard
Reply to  TonyG
November 12, 2021 5:24 pm

 you make it impossible to engage in rational discourse.

By using rational definitions? You have a very odd attitude.

ResourceGuy
November 8, 2021 6:16 am

So the Arctic really is ice free and Al Gore is a leading scientist worthy of a Nobel Prize and … /sarc

Andy Pattullo
November 8, 2021 8:18 am

Zuckerbeg (spell check keeps changing it to Sucker berg) hasn’t sold his soul, only because no one will pay more than pocket change for the novelty of watching it wither in real time.

Giordano Milton
November 8, 2021 8:44 am

They already do. It’s why I deleted my account and stopped using their services a year ago.

November 8, 2021 9:01 am

A company like Facebook produces little value added to a society. It has no product other than a internet platform where it scoops up personal information about users to resell to advertisers, and the users become the product.
It is easily argued that the toxic effects of social media on teens and adolescents far outweighs any benefits it brings to society. Facebook and its Instagram which Meta owns are prime examples of toxic social media for teenagers and those easily swayed.
So Facebook could just collapse into Chapter 7 liquidation, taking all $900 Billion in market cap with it, and the world would be better off for it.

I argue Meta should just collapse and disappear. We’d all be better for it.

TonyG
November 8, 2021 9:09 am

Or are Facebook and other social media giants completely out of control,

Yes, they are. And nobody does anything to try to hold them accountable.

Imagine if you were say discussing current affairs with a friend on the phone, and suddenly a robot voice intruded, explaining a comment you just made conflicted with a fact check?

Not that farfetched – I’ve already seen proposals chillingly close to this. Apple monitoring the content of SMS messages, for example.

Coach Springer
November 8, 2021 10:05 am

Facebook intruded on me this weekend – not with a fact check, but to present the Democratic Party’s take on an issue that conflicted with my post. Yes, it is exactly like a private conversation at, say, a restaurant only to have the eavesdropping owner come over and start arguing with you and then, if you insist, kick you out.

I suggest that Facebook come up with an option where we can “unfriend” them so we can avoid having them tell us what to say.

Last edited 10 months ago by Coach Springer
Steve Stoddard
Reply to  Coach Springer
November 8, 2021 11:22 am

I suggest that Facebook come up with an option where we can “unfriend” them so we can avoid having them tell us what to say.

They have that option already, viz., don’t use FB.

Yes, it is exactly like a private conversation at, say, a restaurant …

You should not have to go to a restaurant you don’t like — and no restaurant should have to cater to you if the owner doesn’t want you there.

buggs
November 8, 2021 10:16 am

Carl Sagan, 1995, Demon-Haunted World:

I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance

Gunga Din
November 8, 2021 3:59 pm

If we want to shut down Facebook because they edit/censor/delete content they deem to be “offensive” or “misleading” because they disagree with the opinions of those who run the company that enjoys legal protections because they aren’t “publishers”, the solution is simple.
Let me run it.
It won’t be long before I’m the only member.
Then I’ll find an old thing I’d said then that I disagree with now and ban myself.
Voila! No more Facebook!

Bob Meyer
November 8, 2021 4:10 pm

Meta? Meta? Aha! Meta as in Metaluna! Maybe Zuckerberg has assembled an Interocitor and that’s where he got the name. Or maybe Zuck just has no imagination.

Captain climate
November 9, 2021 9:16 am

At some point, if they editorialize, they own the content. That’s going to cost them.

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  Captain climate
November 15, 2021 7:21 am

if they editorialize, they own the content.

Under the circumstances, that is not a reasonable idea. The NYT, for instance, does have exact control over what it chooses to print. FB, on the other hand, is open to the public for unsolicited input (i.e., FB does not choose everything that shows up on its platform, unlike the NYT).

Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Stoddard
November 9, 2021 10:18 am

Seems to me that they are not following the intent of the Section 230 FCC rule. How can they change the words of another person’s “Opinion” in a way that would cause harm to that person and not be sued for that action?
For example, If I were to publish something that was absolutely true on this site, such as Pi equals 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 … and The “moderator, editor” changed it to 8.8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 … and I was the dean of the math department of a prestigious university and this caused me to lose my position. Seems to me that they should be held responsible for their actions. Even a non-mathematician can look it up on the internet, use their calculator, computer to verify the truth.

niceguy
November 9, 2021 7:02 pm

Anyway the 1A argument against the GAFA is extremely strong, despite what all the libs and the fake cons “1A is for the US gov” wants to believe.
Problem is, Trump’s lawyers managed to f ck up badly their lawsuits with fake quotes.
F cking unbelievable.

Steve Stoddard
Reply to  niceguy
November 15, 2021 7:32 am

1A argument against the GAFA is extremely strong,

In reality, there is no valid “1A argument” that “GAFA”/”Big Tech” is doing anything to violate rights. They all have their businesses to run according to their own judgments as to what the market will bear. They do not owe it to anyone to host/platform ideas they don’t like.

If anything, the First Amendment protects Facebook’s right to deplatform anybody it pleases.

%d bloggers like this: