We have previously discussed the extensive censorship programs maintained by Big Tech, including companies like Twitter and Facebook taking sides in major controversies from gender identification to election fraud to Covid-19. The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted that the Biden administration is working with Facebook to flag “problematic” posts that “spread disinformation” on COVID-19. She explained that the Administration has created “aggressive” policing systems to spot “misinformation” to be “flagged” for the social media companies.
Obviously, anyone can object to postings. There is a greater danger when the government has a systemic process for aggressively flagging material to be censored. The real problem however is with the censorship system itself. We have seen how there needs to be little coordination between political figures and the media to maintain controlled narratives in public debates and discussions.
The concern is obvious that this allows for a direct role of the government in a massive censorship program run by private companies. There have been repeated examples of the censoring of stories that were embarrassing or problematic for the Biden Administration. Even when Twitter expressed regret for the censoring of the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election, there was an immediate push back for greater censorship from Democrats.
The concern is that these companies are taking to heart calls from Democratic members for increased censorship on the platform. CEO Jack Dorsey previously apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden story before the election. However, rather than addressing the dangers of such censoring of news accounts, Senator Chris Coons pressed Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:
“Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?”
“Robust content modification” seems the new Orwellian rallying cry in our society.
The same problems have arisen on Covid stories. For a year, Big Tech has been censoring those who wanted to discuss the origins of pandemic. It was not until Biden admitted that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan lab that social media suddenly changed its position. Facebook only recently announced that people on its platform will be able to discuss the origins of Covid-19 after censoring any such discussion.
The back channel coordination with Facebook further supports the view that this is a de facto state-supporting censorship program. That is the basis for the recent lawsuit by former President Donald Trump. As I have previously noted, there is ample basis for objection to this arrangement but the legal avenue for challenges is far from clear. The lawsuit will face difficult, if not insurmountable, problems under existing law and precedent. There is no question companies like Twitter are engaging in raw censorship. It is also true that these companies have censored material with a blatantly biased agenda, taking sides on scientific and social controversies. A strong case can be made for stripping these companies of legal protections since they are no longer neutral platforms. However, private businesses are allowed to regulate speech as a general matter. It will take considerable heavy lifting for a court to order this injunctive relief.
That is why we need legislative action. That includes removal immunity protections. However, the government should also consider how to incentivize the creation of alternatives to these companies which are now a threat to our political system. A few companies now control a huge amount of the political discourse in this country and have shown a clear bias in taking sides (even on issues later found to be wrong). Since litigation is likely to fail, legislation would seem an imperative. Congress has been spending hundreds of billions with utter abandon. Yet, there is little discussion over a government subsidized platform for social media or other measures to break up this unprecedented level of corporate control over our political discourse. I am no fan of government programs, particularly as it relates to media. However, Apple, Google, and these other companies are now operating like monopolies, including crushing competitors like Parlor. That is a direct and growing threat to our political process.
We need to consider a short-term investment in a social media platform that will focus any censorship on direct threats or criminal conduct. There is currently a lack of not only competition but any real opportunity for competition to challenge these companies. Either we have to redefine what we treat as monopolies or we need to invest in the establishment of competing platforms that are content neutral like telephone companies.
This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
The actions by Twitter and Facebook on Election Day were reprehensible and wrong. That should have been sufficient cause for action by Congress. It is now growing more precarious and chilling by the day.
I heard for months ” The 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies ” Which is true. And although the ” censorship ” supposedly will not come from The White House, which could be true, there is no doubt that the algorithms for censorship on Facebook etc. will undoubtedly reflect the will of the current Administration. I agree with Turley, the solution to disinformation is information. Not censorship. The solution for bad speech is more speech. Not censorship. Americans can make up their own minds. For four years all I heard was fascism. This is certainly the beginning of fascism. The government is using Big Tech as it’s proxy. And they are not even trying to hide it. OUTRAGEOUS!!
Music
Little David Susskind…shut up.
Little David Susskind Shut up!
Fascist Book coordinating with the State….to censor American First Amendment rights….as directed BY THE GOVERNMENT….which is illegal.
Where is Antifa! Fascism alert! Calling all Antifa peaceful protestors…
You suggest, “If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged.” Ironically, that is just what Democrats are seeking to do – limit texts that include information that the ‘consensus’ disagrees with i.e. misinformation. https://youtu.be/tqmTjf6uSm0
However, the government should also consider the creation of an alternative to these companies which are now a threat to our political system.
Yes, by all means, let’s ask the fox to redesign the hen house.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato
This is no longer a Liberal versus Conservative issue; it is a Freedom versus Fascism issue. That is why we are hearing alarms from both the right and left, from people like Senator Cruz and Tucker Carlson and genuine, but also from very liberal, journalists like Glenn Greenwald. We might disagree on many political issues, but we make common cause against totalitarianism in any form.
That, by the way, is why it does not surprise me to see Greenwald on Tucker’s show agreeing on the common danger and why it does not surprise me that Greenwald and Tucker and others from the traditional liberals to the traditional conservatives join in defending Assange.
Thanks to Professor Turley for having entered the fray. Everything is at stake.
Along with the ‘conspiracy’ of the White House in sub-contracting censorship we also have indications of ‘conspiracy’ in Arizona.
“Arizona audit reportedly found ‘potentially thousands’ of duplicated ballots without serial numbers”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/arizona-audit-reportedly-found-potentially-thousands-duplicate-ballots?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Yes, as we have been saying for months, the election was stolen.
Now evidence from Georgia and Arizona is emerging to prove it.
Let’s get cow flop top deposed in his lawsuit.
The Australians don’t pretend Biden isn’t senile. Watch this: https://youtu.be/Slrs29r5KW8
THEY are the fascists they have been waiting for.
Based on section 230 of the CDA what the Whitehouse is now doing is sub-contracting censorship. That is solidly against first amendment rights. Below is the proof.
“White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted that the Biden administration is working with Facebook to flag “problematic” posts that “spread disinformation” on COVID-19. She explained that the Administration has created “aggressive” policing systems to spot “misinformation” to be “flagged” for the social media companies.”
Turley mentions other Democrats essentially admitting the same thing.
It’s not illegal nor is it censorship. Turley knows this. This is why he won’t directly discuss Trump’s lawsuit against Twitter and Facebook. He knows Trump doesn’t have a chance.
Your reply means you can only think one level deep.
We have gone over section 230 of the CDA many times. Any person of modest intelligence can see a problem potentially exists. You don’t see it. The only question is whether or not you don’t see it because you don’t want to or because you are not intelligent enough to formulate an argument that addresses the problem.
That is a question a number of people have asked. It’s hard to say with your answers that can be an attempt to confuse the issues.
SM
S. Meyer,
Removing section 230 doesn’t prevent censorship at all. The administration flagging comments or posts is not censorship. It’s not illegal for them to flag content that either Facebook or Twitter can review and shows it violates their terms.
Merely flagging content doesn’t automatically make Facebook a government agent any more than a communist flagging content makes Facebook communist.
My reply only means the problem is quite simple. It’s folks like Turley who are making it overly complicated because of the mental gymnastics needed to avoid the obvious.
“That is why we need legislative action. That includes removal immunity protections. However, the government should also consider the creation of an alternative to these companies which are now a threat to our political system.”
I have no problem with the removal of immunity, but I am very skeptical about government intervention in this market. The truth is that, compared to the world in which I grew up — a handful of television channels, a few prominent news magazines, and a de facto newspaper monopoly in each U.S. city — we have innumerable sources of information today with significant opportunities for expansion. This website is just one example (an excellent one too). If conservatives and libertarians are unhappy with the censorship employed by a few large companies — as I agree they should be — they have options. For one, they could stop using these services. The loss of roughly 50% of the U.S. population as users would put significant pressure on these companies and make them rethink their business model. Better still, conservatives and libertarians are being handed a silver platter upon which to build alternative social networks that eschew censorship. Under the present circumstances, I have little doubt there would be significant demand for such alternatives.
“taking sides in major controversies from gender identification to election fraud to Covid-19.”
Is it really taking sides or being responsible when one side is advocating an overthrow of the government and sacrificing the lives of friends and family rather than take a vaccine?
It is still illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. Is Turley advocating that private companies are supposed to provide megaphones?
“Is it really taking sides or being responsible when one side is advocating an overthrow of the government”
That is a good question. We have seen BLM and Antifa advocate overthrowing government. We have seen the left rioting destroying property and lives while torching cities. We have seen these people group together without masks so that the virus could spread faster. We have seen these people stirring up race hatred.
You ask a good question Enigma, but you fail to see what your friends are doing.
“when one side is advocating an overthrow of the government and sacrificing the lives of friends and family rather than take a vaccine?”
Hyperbole alert!
If you are vaxxed and you are protected then how are the unvaxxed “sacrificing the lives of friends and family”?
Do you hear any information out there about natural immunity? Do you know who has had covid and recovered? Are you aware that natural immunity is robust, enduring and broader protection than a vaccine? Of course you don’t.
I am not vaxxed and our “sacrificing of family and friends” will take place during the next full moon.
Come on, man. Listen to yourself.
Oh the hypocrisy: “Biden Calls On Allies To Defend Freedom, Accuses Russia Of Undermining Democracy”
https://www.rferl.org/a/biden-calls-on-allies-to-defend-freedom-accuses-russia-of-undermining-democracy/31112066.html
The federal government is COLLUDING with big tech to CENSOR Americans speech.
Other words for it: fascism, authoritarianism, illegal
“The real problem however is with the censorship system itself. We have seen how there needs to be little coordination between political figures and the media to maintain controlled narratives in public debates and discussions.”
Um, no, the real problem is “THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CENSORING SPEECH!
The evidence is mounting that our systems and laws are inadequate to prevent the tech giants from subverting our democracy.
Many Lefties (and some conservatives) are authoritarians, willing to tolerate damage to the country in order to impose their will.
We (all of us), need to speak up to our representatives.
There is a profound naivete in thinking that Congress would pass a bill to undermine the interests of its majority party and the White House by establishing an objective media platform that would have any integrity. After all, NPR, FBI, et al have all been coopted into serving party rather than national interests.
Democrats need to be punished at the polls for their arrogance and disregard for the Constitution, and I believe they already know its coming, hence the pressure on Breyer to retire.
This is very troubling, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. It is happening. Here. Now
No it’s not. It’s not troubling at all for the left. You’re simply ignorant to think it is.
By any other name
The evidence is irrefutable. Big Tech social media have become an arm of the State and it is terrifying. Marxism in sheep’s clothing.
Actually Big Tech/Social Media is an arm of the LEFT WING or Democratic State, because neither the FB nor Twitter sycophants would ever do a thing against them.
Penney: “Marxism in sheep’s clothing.”
Looking more like the wolf now. They have dropped the disguise.
Perhaps Judical Watch can sue and obtain (FOI Act) as who was the Insuer (Underwriter of the Insurance Policy,) Peter Strozk’s insurance policy; he apprised Lisa “want me” Page’s email thereto? Was the DOJ, FBI, or what Enty(IES) were the Underwriter, owner(s).? I continue to believe the Deep State from Obama, Biden on down attempted a Coup against DT, from the time DT became Rep candidate until 1-20-21. Where is an unredacted copy of the Joh Durham report? Is it Going through the final stages of the “Whitewash (WH) building?
It appears to me that Psaki has made the case for Trump’s lawyers, that the government is censoring speech by either colluding with or holding a gun to the head of these tech companies to censor speech that does not conform to the party line.