It's true, but that would be within Twitter and Meta's rights. The real issue was that they did so at the behest of the incoming administration, in behind-the-scenes meetings. It's the involvement of government officials that may have broken laws and trampled the First Amendment. Also egregious and painful to see was that they shadow-banned accounts rather than banning them outright.
I don't believe there is any evidence for any of these claims. Rather the opposite: pro-freedom pro-business anti-regulation conservatives have been crying wolf for years now, demanding special meetings with tech companies, demanding special treatment, demanding government intervention, demanding that they be allowed to say anything without consequences.
Modern US conservatives are a minority. How big of a minority depends on how you draw the lines. Republican policy proposals are often (but not always) even more unpopular. Cognitive dissonance (or just good old fashioned politicking) demands some conservatives insist otherwise and see everything as some kind of suppression effort or conspiracy.
It's the whole "conservatism can't ever fail... it can only be failed" thing at work. Or the Simpsons Skinner meme: "Am I Out of Touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong!" If only the big mean tech companies weren't suppressing my clearly superior views everyone would agree with me. No... maybe your views are just way less popular than you think. Maybe instead of being shadow banned people just think you're an asshole.
“We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more,” responded a Facebook vice president in charge of content policy, speaking of the Biden administration. “We shouldn’t have done it.”
The discussion took place three months after Facebook, which is owned by Meta Platforms META -0.14%decrease; red down pointing triangle, decided to stop banning posts asserting that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured, in light of increasing debate about the virus’s origin.
So, you mean to tell me the gov't wanted them to continue to ban covid disinformation even though Meta decided it wouldn't? and then changed it's mind? Seems like Meta did the right thing. I'm not sure I come to the same inference that you do, where covid disinformation is some form of speech that is protected by the 1st amd as opposed to the other numerous forms of speech that the gov't does have the power to regulate, such that you get to the conclusion that this is somehow antithetical to the purpose of the 1st amd. I'm no "free speech absolutist" because there is no such actual thing nor ever was in american jurisprudence
i tend to agree with you, there isn’t a free-speech absolutist who wouldn’t fire someone if that person went on a rant cussing them out at work. free-speech absolutism is absurd.
if a free-speech “consequence free” absolutist were to berate their wife and call her disgusting every day, we could ask them how seriously anyone takes their “i have free speech” as she walks out the door with their kids.
there isn’t a free-speech absolutist who wouldn’t fire someone if that person went on a rant cussing them out at work.
if a free-speech “consequence free” absolutist were to berate their wife and call her disgusting every day, we could ask them how seriously anyone takes their “i have free speech” as she walks out the door with their kids.
"In light of increasing debate about the virus’s origin" — as in, the government has changed it mind and now certain branches believe COVID-19 might be man-made after all. So the "disinformation" may have been true.
Comments
I don't believe there is any evidence for any of these claims. Rather the opposite: pro-freedom pro-business anti-regulation conservatives have been crying wolf for years now, demanding special meetings with tech companies, demanding special treatment, demanding government intervention, demanding that they be allowed to say anything without consequences.
Modern US conservatives are a minority. How big of a minority depends on how you draw the lines. Republican policy proposals are often (but not always) even more unpopular. Cognitive dissonance (or just good old fashioned politicking) demands some conservatives insist otherwise and see everything as some kind of suppression effort or conspiracy.
It's the whole "conservatism can't ever fail... it can only be failed" thing at work. Or the Simpsons Skinner meme: "Am I Out of Touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong!" If only the big mean tech companies weren't suppressing my clearly superior views everyone would agree with me. No... maybe your views are just way less popular than you think. Maybe instead of being shadow banned people just think you're an asshole.
Your belief is incorrect. To give one isolated example (out of many): https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bowed-to-white-house-p...
Really? Linking to taking down covid disinformation seems to be making the poster's exact point
So, you mean to tell me the gov't wanted them to continue to ban covid disinformation even though Meta decided it wouldn't? and then changed it's mind? Seems like Meta did the right thing. I'm not sure I come to the same inference that you do, where covid disinformation is some form of speech that is protected by the 1st amd as opposed to the other numerous forms of speech that the gov't does have the power to regulate, such that you get to the conclusion that this is somehow antithetical to the purpose of the 1st amd. I'm no "free speech absolutist" because there is no such actual thing nor ever was in american jurisprudence
i tend to agree with you, there isn’t a free-speech absolutist who wouldn’t fire someone if that person went on a rant cussing them out at work. free-speech absolutism is absurd.
if a free-speech “consequence free” absolutist were to berate their wife and call her disgusting every day, we could ask them how seriously anyone takes their “i have free speech” as she walks out the door with their kids.
Of course! Both the insulted boss and battered wife have freedom of association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
"In light of increasing debate about the virus’s origin" — as in, the government has changed it mind and now certain branches believe COVID-19 might be man-made after all. So the "disinformation" may have been true.
I don't see where it says "the government has changed it mind"
In other reporting: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2023-02-27/us-departme...