Savodnik excuses Youtube's censorship, saying"how else is the platform supposed to prevent the spread of bad information during a pandemic? ". But how does Youtube know what is "bad information". What makes them qualified to be the arbiters of truth? This is precisely the point of Free Speech, which is ALWAYS guaranteed by our Constituti…
Savodnik excuses Youtube's censorship, saying"how else is the platform supposed to prevent the spread of bad information during a pandemic? ". But how does Youtube know what is "bad information". What makes them qualified to be the arbiters of truth? This is precisely the point of Free Speech, which is ALWAYS guaranteed by our Constitution, with NO exceptions. What Savodnik suggests is that violating Free Speech is O.K., and that the media get to decide when it is O.K. This is a right that was never awarded to them by the Constitution and violates the law of the land. The very reason for having free speech is that truth is an intangible and evanescent phenomena that no human has a monopoly on. Orwell described the nightmare that evolves when power gets to determine what is "TrueSpeak" and what is "Falsespeak". We are in many ways living that nightmare.
What is apparent to most sub stackers is that what has been labeled "misinformation, disinformation, or conspiracy theory" is mostly correct and simply is opposed to the seemingly totalitarian agenda of the current administration. This is precisely the reason free speech must be protected, and one major reason why Kennedy has decided to run. It is one of many reasons I will support him. Williamson is a sincere person, and I would support her if she won the nomination over Kennedy and Biden, but I believe Kennedy is better qualified because he has been wrestling his whole life against corrupt government agencies in his numerous bids to protect the environment and child health. His vaccination positions have consistently been supported by science, and the majority of Americans now understand the COVID-19 vaccines' safety and efficacy was overstated by government. The weakness of his campaign on this particular issue will increasingly become a strength, as people hunger more and more for truth in an age of lying and obfuscation.
He also ignores the fact that bad information came from the government sources that were treated as official truth, and some of those sources directly contradicted each other.
So the WHO was allowed to say lockdowns don't have any scientific basis, but people under lockdowns on the pretence of complete lies are not allowed to criticize lockdowns.
Savodnik supported that and continues to support that. "We lie to you to prevent other people from misleading you"
Does Kennedy believe climate scientists who don't believe carbon dioxide emissions are going to cause a catastrophe should be allowed to state their opinions? I believe he wants to suppress First Amendment rights as much as any other Democrat, he just has different policy priorities.
The problem with what you're saying is the 1st Amendment is a proscription against the Government shutting down speech, not private companies controlling their product. With the Government effectively leaning on private companies it more or less comes to the same thing but I don't think it is technically illegal. The crux of the problem is the section 230 ruling (law?) That grants these companies prosecution for content, allowing them to be treated like neutral carriers of content they don't originate. When in fact they are "coloring the noise" to favor political sides. It could all be fixed without trying to misapply the 1st Amendment by stripping them of their Section 230 protections and treating these activities like the campaign contributions they in fact are.
Yes. 230 was intended to protect them because they may be allowing content that would normally get them in trouble and/or because they were allowing so much content there was no way they could moderate it.
Since some of these companies have decided to moderate anyway, I don't think they should have 230 protection. Basically just make it one or the other. Either allow free speech and get 230 protection or moderate and then you are liable for what is said and done on your platform.
My understanding is that removing Section 230 protections would likely add censorship rather than abate it because every platform would become paranoid its users would say/do something that would invite a lawsuit, and so they would be more restrictive on speech, not less. And it would hurt the up-and-coming little guys by making them easy to target and take out with a well placed lawsuit.
I think the best remedy would be to prosecute the Tech giants under existing law, which was already decided by SCOTUS: per T Reid's point—government cannot do via private means what it cannot legally do on its own. Problem is, we need a DOJ that isn't part of the collusion scheme.
You can't sue a phone company for not stopping phone-calls with illegal discussions. Why? Because they don't stop any calls and thus can't be held accountable. They are a conduit of unmonitored content. The Section 230 protections treat them like this. Once they start actually monitoring and suppressing content, they are no longer like a phone company, and shouldn't be protected as such. They are like a newspaper. The ones that act like phone companies shouldn't be sue-able. The ones that act like newspapers should be sue-able, but the burden of proof should be substantial - like newspapers - to make it too costly to engage in frivolous lawsuits. Relying on the DOJ to prosecute these things is probably the least effective course of action.
I'll take your word for it. I hear so many conflicting arguments re: the pros and cons of ditching 230 that I can't form a clear opinion. But I sure agree with you re: relying on the DOJ. Too easy to politicize. As we all know.
I think this can be fixed through the 1st Amendment. The government’s behavior could clearly be views as coercive. Let a court give social media companies the backbone they need to tell the FBI etc to F off
First they have to want to do so! All the majors (except Twitter under new ownership) are run by leftists who are absolute big gov't sycophants as long as Democrats are in charge.
Savodnik excuses Youtube's censorship, saying"how else is the platform supposed to prevent the spread of bad information during a pandemic? ". But how does Youtube know what is "bad information". What makes them qualified to be the arbiters of truth? This is precisely the point of Free Speech, which is ALWAYS guaranteed by our Constitution, with NO exceptions. What Savodnik suggests is that violating Free Speech is O.K., and that the media get to decide when it is O.K. This is a right that was never awarded to them by the Constitution and violates the law of the land. The very reason for having free speech is that truth is an intangible and evanescent phenomena that no human has a monopoly on. Orwell described the nightmare that evolves when power gets to determine what is "TrueSpeak" and what is "Falsespeak". We are in many ways living that nightmare.
What is apparent to most sub stackers is that what has been labeled "misinformation, disinformation, or conspiracy theory" is mostly correct and simply is opposed to the seemingly totalitarian agenda of the current administration. This is precisely the reason free speech must be protected, and one major reason why Kennedy has decided to run. It is one of many reasons I will support him. Williamson is a sincere person, and I would support her if she won the nomination over Kennedy and Biden, but I believe Kennedy is better qualified because he has been wrestling his whole life against corrupt government agencies in his numerous bids to protect the environment and child health. His vaccination positions have consistently been supported by science, and the majority of Americans now understand the COVID-19 vaccines' safety and efficacy was overstated by government. The weakness of his campaign on this particular issue will increasingly become a strength, as people hunger more and more for truth in an age of lying and obfuscation.
He also ignores the fact that bad information came from the government sources that were treated as official truth, and some of those sources directly contradicted each other.
So the WHO was allowed to say lockdowns don't have any scientific basis, but people under lockdowns on the pretence of complete lies are not allowed to criticize lockdowns.
Savodnik supported that and continues to support that. "We lie to you to prevent other people from misleading you"
Does Kennedy believe climate scientists who don't believe carbon dioxide emissions are going to cause a catastrophe should be allowed to state their opinions? I believe he wants to suppress First Amendment rights as much as any other Democrat, he just has different policy priorities.
The YouTube quote was egregious. It’s a platform and shouldn’t be picking and choosing which lawful content is available.
The problem with what you're saying is the 1st Amendment is a proscription against the Government shutting down speech, not private companies controlling their product. With the Government effectively leaning on private companies it more or less comes to the same thing but I don't think it is technically illegal. The crux of the problem is the section 230 ruling (law?) That grants these companies prosecution for content, allowing them to be treated like neutral carriers of content they don't originate. When in fact they are "coloring the noise" to favor political sides. It could all be fixed without trying to misapply the 1st Amendment by stripping them of their Section 230 protections and treating these activities like the campaign contributions they in fact are.
Yes. 230 was intended to protect them because they may be allowing content that would normally get them in trouble and/or because they were allowing so much content there was no way they could moderate it.
Since some of these companies have decided to moderate anyway, I don't think they should have 230 protection. Basically just make it one or the other. Either allow free speech and get 230 protection or moderate and then you are liable for what is said and done on your platform.
My understanding is that removing Section 230 protections would likely add censorship rather than abate it because every platform would become paranoid its users would say/do something that would invite a lawsuit, and so they would be more restrictive on speech, not less. And it would hurt the up-and-coming little guys by making them easy to target and take out with a well placed lawsuit.
I think the best remedy would be to prosecute the Tech giants under existing law, which was already decided by SCOTUS: per T Reid's point—government cannot do via private means what it cannot legally do on its own. Problem is, we need a DOJ that isn't part of the collusion scheme.
You can't sue a phone company for not stopping phone-calls with illegal discussions. Why? Because they don't stop any calls and thus can't be held accountable. They are a conduit of unmonitored content. The Section 230 protections treat them like this. Once they start actually monitoring and suppressing content, they are no longer like a phone company, and shouldn't be protected as such. They are like a newspaper. The ones that act like phone companies shouldn't be sue-able. The ones that act like newspapers should be sue-able, but the burden of proof should be substantial - like newspapers - to make it too costly to engage in frivolous lawsuits. Relying on the DOJ to prosecute these things is probably the least effective course of action.
That is what I think too - they are publishers as soon as the moderate content.
I'll take your word for it. I hear so many conflicting arguments re: the pros and cons of ditching 230 that I can't form a clear opinion. But I sure agree with you re: relying on the DOJ. Too easy to politicize. As we all know.
The govt can’t do via private means what it cannot legally do itself.
I think this can be fixed through the 1st Amendment. The government’s behavior could clearly be views as coercive. Let a court give social media companies the backbone they need to tell the FBI etc to F off
First they have to want to do so! All the majors (except Twitter under new ownership) are run by leftists who are absolute big gov't sycophants as long as Democrats are in charge.
Excellent point!