This is not a good riposte! 1) Yes, being unable to say false things curtails free speech. You may say that's fine, but still, it's an imposition on free speech and it's silly to pretend otherwise. 2) Besides that, fact checkers get a lot wrong and censored a lot of true things, esp in the pandemic
Comments
this is not remotely complicated to understand. dumbest take i've seen in awhile.
Of course, this is not the end of the story. Homeostasis is a process, not an end point. Comm tech revolutions are not new. They have been bloody, however.
You brought no receipts to show the censorship you allege
Baa baa bad faith
Does a privately owned social media platform have to provide their wares to let a bigot amplify their voice, particularly when there's an alternative platform that will allow it? Isn't them denying use of that platform for hate speech also free speech?
We've let the right wing redefine the meaning of the very simple constitutional right.
Society places limits on what is and is not acceptable in terms of actions and words. If it did not then murder would be legal and there would be nothing to stop the racism of the far right.
Hypocrite take is hypocritical.
Our freedom of speech protects us from govt retaliation
It has nothing to do with a “right” to say whatever you want on a private business platform
Making bait posts to farm replies doesn't increase your reach, it just makes you look like a bit of an idiot.
FYI.
I think he scrapped it in the USA because he was confident not to suffer any repercussions while boosting revenue, elsewhere it has not been scrapped. He does nothing for our sakes.
2) give me an example.
Knowingly amplifying lies is not free speech, because it isn’t communicating freedom, it’s communicating oppression.
Misinformation is different. That is just believing something that can be proven wrong. That’s human nature.
That is not protected in law, that is not freedom.
Schenck was overruled 50+ years ago by Brandenburg: incitement requires speech intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action.
"Maybe", the cornerstone of a great argument. I'm out, gl.
Nor has there EVER been an absolute right to free speech.
threatening to prosecute those
who denounce MAGA chills speech this is a First Amendment violation. A business corporation’s curating the content of its social
media site is not government action, thus failing the first test of a Constitutional violation.
So you place opinion on the same footing as fact.
This would seem to suggest that ignorance TRUMPS enlightenment.
Have we not had enough of that already?
First, setup your strawman (factchecking doesn't stop people lying, just as this post shows) it just points out that it's a lie. As I'm doing. Your false things post still exists.
I’m fine with people saying what they like - part of being “free” is being an ignorant idiot if you so choose.
But false statements should be fact checked so we don’t implode on this rapid misinformation descent we’re on now.
I didn’t offer an opinion. You jumped to conclusions.
Private entities may prohibit speech in advance. All media edit the contents of their publications.
Fact checking doesn't make users 'unable' to say false things. It just introduces a consequence for doing so.
Everyone else is free to call you a fool, point out all your lies and errors and deny you a platform in their space.
If one doesn’t like being called out on misinformation then maybe we should return to the days when people verified things for themselves before spreading them around.
Also, private companies and citizens can “curtail” your free speech all they want anyway. The First Amendment only protects us from government censorship.
Meta has said fuck it, we don’t want to anymore, have some fight videos
But many Americans believe:
1. Russia wasn’t intimately involved in 2016 elections, intimately with Trump Canaan.
2. HLQ is an effective antiviral.
3. Masking doesn’t work.
In an environment where right wing assholes spread disinformation constantly, limiting a story that is biased but 'technically contains no misinformation' is not a big loss. (1/3)
The only true part about the Laptop media circus was that Hunter Biden had a Laptop as far as I'm concerned.
Was there anything criminal related to it in the end?
No.
Was that the impression that was given?
Yes.
(2/3)
Compare that to explicitly allowing, pushing and algorithmicly faboring disinformation which is what's actually happening.
The Telegraph?!
The FUCKING Telegraph?
are you Alison Pearson?
Clearly, the type of free speech it generally limits, in a huge proportion of cases, is the type that suggests you can treat covid 19 with bleach. Not sure that's a bad thing.
Fact checking doesn't prevent free speech, it challenges it. Which is...speech. Which also presumably should be free.
Point 2 is circular. If wrong statements are free speech, why wouldn't that apply to fact checkers?
Zuckerberg made a choice. He chooses to let people post disinformation because it makes him money.
That’s rather the point of fact checking. The checkee was free to say what they want, and the checker(s) are free to state the facts.
Fact checking is about reducing harm. Any media platform that algorithmically amplifies content should be obliged to fact check.
Free speech is not free of consequence. If you say incorrect things or misinformation, that's your right. But you that misinformation can be labelled as such, and doing so does not infringe on that right.
This approach wouldn’t work in other real-world situations. Take things like…
A person being told that they are spreading false info is not curtailing speech.
In fact, free speech doesn’t guarantee freedom from dispute or from consequences.
They simply stated whether what was said was factual or not!
What you seem to be labouring under, is a sense of entitlement coupled with narcissitic victimisation syndrome.
'How dare the correct ME!' 🙄
2) Fact checking needs to be done in a transparent way so that the veracity can be verified and challenged as necessary.
Unlike your post.
What purpose does it serve reasoned discourse if you have to lie to convince someone? Perjury is a crime for a reason.