Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Richard Smith]

I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public.  Before the internet that was done by news organizations.  It was done voluntarily, and in most  cases, with few notable exceptions, continues.  It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.

With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content.  But internet site owners can still be legal liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S.  And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public.  They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do.  U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability from removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.

The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder.  And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives.  The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example.  There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush.  If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.  There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship.  Sadly that day has passed.  Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share.  A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media.  It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.

[Jerry Organ]

The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder.  And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives.  The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example.  There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush.  If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.  There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship.  Sadly that day has passed.  Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share

There is no substance to the Hunter Biden allegations. It's moot he had no "oil-and-gas experience" because his law firm took the Burisma account to do legal work. By contrast, Joe Biden and Kamala showed great honor by not attacking the Trump family members, most of whom are leeches and some a danger to society.

One thing in need of investigation (that the conservative media--which is neither small, benign or non-influential--shut down in the closing weeks of the campaign) was how far up did the Giuliani-proffered laptop go.

A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media.  It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.

Aren't you far-rightists really just looking for a lazy means to be given a "pass" on misogynistic and racist "jokes" and offhanded comments?

[Andrew Mason]

The problem is that what is "true" or "false" in a political context is often in the eye of the beholder.  And it is clear that social media platforms are run by folks that are biased in their views against conservatives.  The suppression of the Hunter Biden story is a classic example.  There was censorship of that story that would have made Big Brother blush.

I hate to break it to you Richard but Fox News does not always present the truth. The reason responsible news media is not covering the Hunter Biden story is because there is no story and there may never be one.  It is not censorship.  You are talking like a CT.

The state must not engage in fishing expeditions to see if it can dig up evidence against a person that someone suspects did something wrong.  They may do that in Russia.  If the FBI receives a specific complaint with evidence that Hunter Biden did something illegal, the FBI will decide whether the complain merits serious investigation. If it does, it will investigate and if sufficient evidence is found charges will be laid.  Responsible news organizations don't talk about FBI investigations until a charge is laid.

If these social media platforms are going to decide what is permissible to be discussed, then they are no longer just platforms but publishers that should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.  There was a time when liberals were at the forefront in the fight against censorship.  Sadly that day has passed.  Now they are advocates not only for censorship of stories that they do not like for political reasons but actually want to destroy the lives and careers who anyone who voices an opinion that they do not share.  A Stalinist-like approach with the full cooperation of social media and the mainstream media.  It is a very frightening time for free speech advocates.

You have it backwards.  A free but responsible public media is an essential component of democracy.  Otherwise, media platforms become instruments of propaganda.  This is why Congress was all over Facebook and other social media platforms for not policing their data and allowing their platforms to be used for promulgating Russian hoaxes.  Congress was hinting that in return for Safe Harbour laws given to internet service providers the public is expecting some level of control over abuse.  What is wrong with holding mass social media platforms to a minimal level of responsible journalism?  Or do you think that the internet equivalent of screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre should be protected free speech?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public.  Before the internet that was done by news organizations.  It was done voluntarily, and in most  cases, with few notable exceptions, continues.  It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.

With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content.  But internet site owners can still be legally liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S.  And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public.  They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do.  U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability for removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.

The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.

Nobody thinks (I don't think?) that if these allegations involved Donald Trump, Jr. and his father - either now or five years ago - that they would have suppressed the story. Do you? We've heard all sorts of allegations about Trump for the past four years. None were suppressed.

Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.

And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.

[Gerry Down]

And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.

Then you voted for the media.

[Martin Weidmann]

The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.

Nobody thinks (I don't think?) that if these allegations involved Donald Trump, Jr. and his father - either now or five years ago - that they would have suppressed the story. Do you? We've heard all sorts of allegations about Trump for the past four years. None were suppressed.

Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.

And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.

The owners of the social media outlets - Twitter, Facebook - were forbidding people to state the allegations against the Bidens. The allegations. Merely mentioning the story, re-tweeting the NY Post story about the allegations - was not allowed. And the NY Post wasn't allowed to tweet their reports.

Making allegations is easy. Way too easy.... The Republicans made all sorts of allegations against Hillary Clinton and nothing ever became of them. Although she was never prosecuted and convicted for anything, her political career was destroyed. It was trial by media.

As Andrew Mason correctly pointed out, it's up to law enforcement to determine if a crime was committed or not. The allegations made against Hunter Biden are not yet proven and no credible evidence has so far been provided by the Republicans, yet they insist to have unverifiable allegations be made public by the media for their own political purposes in much the same way as they are now claiming all sorts of massive voter fraud where there was none.

Refusing to play their game is not censorship, it's doing the right thing. If the allegations against Hunter Biden or about the voter fraud are proven in court there is plenty of opportunity to report about it at that time.

[Andrew Mason]

Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.

Social media sites saying that there is no verifiable evidence to support the allegations is not making a determination of what is true or false.  The political aspect is that the allegations are being made for political reasons, not that social media does not want to be associated with them.  Do you think that judges who throw out meritless Trump legal actions for lack of evidence are operating with political bias? 

As far as the allegations about Trump not being suppressed, what allegations made without supporting evidence are you talking about?  Allegations about Trump wrongdoing, such as Trump paying to cover up affairs, committing sexual assaults, and trying to get the Ukrainians to start an investigation into Joe Biden were based on evidence e.g. hard documents, actual victims and official transcripts of the President's calls.

And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.

For what it's worth, I didn't.  Congress passed a law that took away my vote - not because I am a convicted felon or anything like that, but merely because I am Canadian.  How unfair is that?

[John Iacoletti]

Social media didn’t “stifle” the Hunter Biden story. But reputable news organizations didn’t run with it because it was unverifiable Rudy-invented tabloid nonsense. Lying “Richard” should be ashamed for uncritically swallowing it.