“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
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...