if today what Trump retweet is a video showing a group of "researchers" claiming COVID is a bio weapon produced by Taiwanese government and that Taiwanese government has secretly vaccinated most of their citizens and that's why they have such a low number of cases reported...
and I don't agreeing that the platforms should be given power to do that, no. The court can decide whether it's false information or not, not a platform.
so basically a court can order Facebook to take down a piece of false info, but unless the court has gone through legal procedure and determined that a piece of information is false, the corporations have no right to do that.
I may be wrong. But as far as I know, currently there is no law penalizing spread of false information that is not part of libel. So the court has no place to come in to "decide" whether a piece of information is false or not.
On the topic of whether a platform should or should not have the power to decide what content can stay on their website... let's not forget, Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/etc. are all platforms run by private entities. And I believe currently there are no laws preventing them from setting what their content policy is and enforcing them.
Just like tv channels get to choose what content they air, stores get to choose what merchandise they sell... it seems weird to me to argue that these content platform should not be able to decide on such thing.
If today they can decide that they disallow content with nudity (which surprisingly is not a totally black and white thing as you might think) or hate speech, why can't they decide that they want to disallow disinformation?
Well, I dunno why US does not have one. Australia has Australian Press Council, and Taiwan has NCC. If US does not have one, that means the nation does not believe they should to have the government as a regulatory body to regulate its freedom of speech anyway
Well, the business do have a certain degree of freedom, to determine their policy on how they conduct their business , but they do not have absolute freedom. Laws such as Anti-Discrimination Act prevents business from only serving a subset of population.
So while they can have a content policy, they still cannot have a content policy that infringes freedom of speech, which is outlined and protected by the constitution.
Good luck trying to convince anyone here, I have absolutely no trust in Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. Hence why I'm on Plurk, because I don't get censored here.
Plurk does not try to manipulate the reach of my audience using algorithms, I don't have to pay to be heard. Nor does it has stupid policies on "Fake News".
"The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[6] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government." –
Yes. Congress can impose additional law that "restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others". But that's other laws. Not the Constitution.
I'm not sure why the US doesn't have some kind of national News Council like Australia or Taiwan. My suspicion is that there is a deep rooted distrust of centralized government control over journalistic freedom. Fwiw, this article seems to support that theory.
Also, having government regulatory body doesn't necessarily result in quality press. There is certainly a risk in the centralized regulatory body getting turned into propaganda machine. On the other hand, with the right check and balance in place, I think having centralized regulatory body can be effective. On this topic, tbh I'm ambivalent.
I am with you that I also don't trust Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, or any forum run by private businesses. And that's why people should have NEVER treated them as authentic news source OR assume they would uphold any kind of neutral stance OR somehow think they have any obligation to protect free speech.
They are private businesses. Their ultimate goal is to grow their business and make money and create value for their shareholder. They DO have the right operate their business however they want as long as what they are doing is "legal".
And let's not forget, most of the media companies, such as Breitbart, Fox, ABC, NBC, VOX etc. in the US are private, for profit businesses just as well.
And they are under exactly the same non-obligation as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. And they also have been choosing whatever kind of content would show up on their website, by only publishing the articles that they choose to put out.
So I don't see why people would hold a different standard to Facebook/Twitter/YouTube saying they cannot impose restrictions on the contents on their website.
And frankly, I believe that the reason behind Twitter/Youtube chose to take down certain posts is not because they are some kind of SJW (some employees may be like that but they don't ultimately represent the companies), but rather because they think keeping those content up will ultimately hurt their business, negatively impact their user/revenue growth.
懶得打字轉噗友 可以再多睡一下嗎？ 言論:
一家新聞網站直播一群醫生關於武漢病毒療法的記者會，川普轉連結，結果推特就刪掉他的訊息？
水管只要你貼反WHO的言論他也會刪你影片、臉書更不要講了，完全就是帶著他家的意識形態眼鏡來決定大家能不能說什麼，看什麼。
水管、臉書、推特這些訊息平台現在有比美國總統更大的權力了！只要他們不喜歡，就算有一整群的專業人士的建議他們也可以說這是謠言假新聞，然後把他刪掉，他們不是專業人士也不會請專業人士來確認，所以他們到底憑什麼來決定大家能不能看什麼資訊？
這哪有什麼正義可言？別說笑了
這是思想審查
人民有選擇的自由 他的言論不受歡迎自然會在選舉中被淘汰。
這樣隨便停人家帳號，就是霸凌，是歧視。謝謝。
民選政府都不能幹的事，大企業更沒資格幹。
照你這麼說企業若有能力管制客戶的言論的話，那麼你進麥當勞吃飯的時候。也可以因為說了某些話被踢出去。
如果你覺得這樣很好，那我們的想法肯定差很多，應該也沒什麼接下去討論的意義了。
企業的目的只有製造利潤，你不立法管制，他們是連一點保護人權的義務也沒有的。
請恕我無法認同你的價值觀。
他們目前的行為有沒有被法律約束，以及他們的行為道不道德，這兩碼子事。
唔，你想住在那樣的世界，是你的自由啦。我還是住在澳洲就好。
你今天要是像Apple一樣，先提交，經過一個審核期，後發布。當然是可以把你不喜歡的內容過濾掉。Apple App Store 那麼機車，也沒人說過什麼。
我們就來看看這些平台是否會因此被取代吧
都這麼明顯了看不出來的人大概是瞎了吧
說到銀彈攻擊 誰比得上中共大外宣ㄚ
信大神得永生
還是需要一物剋一物
所以照理說你所說的這些應該沒有台灣人不知道才對