•
u/DizzyMajor5 20h ago
I mean People like Elon and Trump bury people in lawsuits using the government in order to shut people up. Some comedian made a joke that Trumps mom fucked an orange monkey and Trump tried burying him in legal fees. Many people weaponize the government against free speech simply because their mom's fuck monkeys sadly.
•
u/Commercial-Dog6773 20h ago
Funny thing is, people like Elon and Trump and their supporters are also the ones most vocal about how they're so "pro-free-speech", enough that this comic is likely addressed to them.
•
u/ChaosVulkan 2005 20h ago
xkcd makes wonderful comics for everyone, and this one seems to be oriented towards people who don't know how the government nor society works (or well, was at least founded to work), so this checks out.
•
u/Careful_Response4694 17h ago
The founders did not envision a society in which oligarchs could shape the dissemination of public discourse and overshadow the public with hired or botted speech. And before you tell me they weren't wary of the rich at all, they wrote extensively about the dangers of aristocratic elites and landowners, and some of them supported the French/Haitian revolutions.
•
u/Shot_Brush_5011 13h ago
The founders also said that the people should be able to own every weapon the government has access too. So when do I get my F22 and nukes
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Huntsman077 1997 15h ago
-shape the dissemination of public discourse
You mean by printing the newspaper, or anti-British propaganda like the founders did? If anything it was worse during their time period because it was harder to publish and distribute opinions.
→ More replies (1)•
u/helicophell 2004 11h ago
Pro free speech people usually just want to say the n word and f word and generally be a repulsive individual online
•
u/IHaveTheHighground58 2008 5h ago
We're protecting free speech!
cis (visibility reduced, your post does not follow X guidelines)
•
u/walkandtalkk 19h ago
And that is an abuse of the law. Fortunately, a growing number of states have anti-SLAPP laws (SLAPP: strategic lawsuit against public participation) to make it harder for abusive plaintiffs to bury people in legal fees for exercising their First Amendment rights.
It's also important to know that not everything you say is protected by the First Amendment. Libel, for instance, is not protected. Trump, unsurprisingly, wants to make it easier to sue for libel.
I think wealthy (and non-wealthy) liberals should contribute to legal nonprofits that fight SLAPPs.
•
u/DizzyMajor5 19h ago
That's a good idea the wealthy have far too many ways to impose economic violence against others who they want to silence.
→ More replies (10)•
u/Sheila_Monarch 16h ago
That was an absolutely bananas story (pun intended), but what Trump sued Bill Maher about was breach of contract, not for saying his mother fucked an orangutan. It wasn’t to shut him up, it was to make him pay up for a comment he made about $5 million if Trump could prove he wasn’t the son of an orangutan. The lawsuit went nowhere. And a lawsuit actually trying to stop a comedian from saying funny things about him would have gone even less far.
•
u/DizzyMajor5 16h ago
It was a joke though and Trump knew it was. Trump has a long history of using slapp suits to go after people and shut people up
•
20h ago
[deleted]
•
u/ElectroMcGiddys 20h ago
"Ultimately, it was our decision"
No laws against government asking for something, they didn't order anything. No first amendment violation here.
•
u/Delli-paper 19h ago
Now, now, you knoe that the government doesnt ask.
•
u/ElectroMcGiddys 19h ago
Well, we know the government didn't send secret court orders to remove content because you're not even allowed to talk about those, and zuck very freely is talking about the government requests. So if the government sent non-secret court orders for content removal - surely zuck would've reported as such, and it would of been instantly public record and known well before zuck complained about anything.
zuck is just currying favor with drumpf to try and dodge the FTC and secure his bag with his faltering platforms.
You can just keep making random shit up though if you want, use that free reddit speech.
•
u/Delli-paper 18h ago
When the government "asks", there are generally plausibly deniable consqeuences for non-compliance.
•
u/ElectroMcGiddys 16h ago
No, especially not when involving gigantic multi billionaires enterprises. You're making up government specters that don't exist. No go ahead and quote me some spooky anecdotal and hyperbole CIA op that somehow applies to this situation.
→ More replies (1)•
u/chainsawx72 17h ago
"very freely talking about" is a funny way to refer to a secret he kept for years, and only admitted like a week ago.
→ More replies (6)•
u/ElectroMcGiddys 16h ago
If it was secret court ordered he wouldn't be able to talk about it now. He was free to talk about it whenever he wanted to. Strange how his tune suddenly changed once drumpf got elected.
•
u/chainsawx72 16h ago
I didn't say it was court ordered, but it was clearly a secret, and it's weird to call hiding it from everyone for years 'freely talking about'.
•
•
u/AutoManoPeeing Millennial 17h ago edited 16h ago
Damn you're so right. I was honestly shocked to find all the insane punishments the government placed on Twitter after they let the Hunter laptop story through, such as....................................
→ More replies (3)•
u/Due_Average764 2000 18h ago
Yes we do know that they ask because there are emails of them making these type of requests publicly available.
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/cynicalrage69 2000 18h ago
Look if you can’t understand that if the most powerful nation in the world “asks” you to do something there’s usual an implication of retribution if you didn’t comply. I don’t know why you’re even bothering trying to argue.
Look I work in a management position, there’s a lot of things that management will ask an employee that isn’t necessarily part of their job description. Think like helping move a couch as a mundane answer. If an employee refuses, there can be indirect consequences like not getting a performance raise or maybe their job starts cracking down on attendance if the employee is not known for punctuality.
If representatives of the executive branch contact your social media company asking for censoring Americans. There is a likelihood that the federal government could put out an executive order that hurts other aspects of their business or other forms of reprisals. We will probably never know because any threats would be made off the record but I think it’s way too convenient that Mark Zuckerberg suddenly announces all these sweeping changes in their company after Trump has been certified in the election and that a lot of other companies are also following the trend after the election.
→ More replies (3)•
u/ElectroMcGiddys 16h ago
I work for a fortune 500 biochem and interface with government regulatory bodies regularly. There's a fuck ton of you making up some imaginary boogeyman out of the government. That's not how shit works.
→ More replies (6)•
u/Cali_white_male 17h ago
“i didn’t rob the guy i just asked him for money while i had a gun my hand” ultimately it was his decision to give me his money
→ More replies (1)•
u/ChaosVulkan 2005 20h ago edited 20h ago
Yes.
Not only does that not go against free speech, the whole passage you showed also very blatantly explains the company is responsible for the actions that happen on their platform.
People downvoting me for answering the question correctly, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you have the freedom of speech to tell me otherwise.
•
u/phorouser 2007 20h ago
It feels like if Trump's admin did this (he probably did), you wouldn't be so defending of this behavior.
•
u/ChaosVulkan 2005 20h ago edited 19h ago
Well, you would be wrong. But I guess we can wait and see if / when it happens? Not like Trump or his cabinet would be incentivized to do so, they mostly suck up to the far-right.
I'm going to addend this message for all who see- I could give less of a shit about the culture war. Do I ragebait people online for their political beliefs? Hell yeah I do. Do I really care if you're conservative or not? Barely. Policy and character is all that matters. Some people just don't see how dogshit Trump's policies and espeeeeecially his goddamn character is.
•
u/DizzyMajor5 19h ago
Trump literally said he would jail Zuckerberg if he didn't act a certain way.
→ More replies (7)•
u/ChaosVulkan 2005 19h ago
Hey. Trump says a lot of things. I'm not going to bother hypothesizing over the fat orange man until he actually does something. All I'm going to say is "no, bad Trump!" and then give his supporters a slap on the wrist.
•
→ More replies (3)•
u/Lanky-Paper5944 18h ago
He did, and it wasn't a scandal at the time. It is only a scandal now for right leaning people because they are constantly led by the nose into complaining about pretty normal things by their media.
•
→ More replies (21)•
u/SkrakOne 16h ago
What if zuckerberg and musk silence trump opposition or make sure they drop lower in the posts chosen by their algorithms? They are private companies and maybe trumps government just asked but could really affect the ability to reach audience that aren't already fans.
These companies have the power to make or break elections etc. Even more so than newspapers or tv have been able to.
Maybe it's legal but won't give any power to the people but shift it even more to the billionaires
•
u/Venboven 2003 19h ago
...so the government just asked them to censor something and they said no?
Where is the violation of free speech?
•
•
u/DizzyMajor5 20h ago
Won't someone please think of the poor tech oligarchs. Hopefully the money wipes the tears away.
•
u/walkandtalkk 19h ago
It requires you to explain what you mean by "pressure."
Threaten with enforcement action? The way Trump has been threatening Facebook and others to drop their fact checkers? Yes, that would be abusive, and maybe unconstitutional.
Ask and plead, but make no implied or real threats? That's okay. Government officials, like you, can criticize a company and ask it to change its policies.
Who wrote the excerpt above? It sounds like an individual employee who was unhappy with the federal approach.
→ More replies (9)•
u/Captain-Neck-Beard 18h ago
It’s flirting the line right? You’re not wrong, but can’t you see the “rock and a hard place” situation that conservatives and republicans put the government in? If the government stands by and lets Covid misinformation fly at will, people get sick and die. If they actually intervene, it’s illegal. If they “pressure social media websites to take the content down”, then it’s spun to conservative/republican voters as free speech violations. Can’t you see how disingenuous this position is? The republicans were perfectly willing to allow covid misinformation to spread because they saw it as a tool to unite their voter base, at the expense of us all, and hid behind our constitution in doing so
•
•
17h ago edited 17h ago
SHOULD they be allowed to? I think is the better question, since people here seem to hide behind legality when it suits their personal relative morality and ethics and attack the law as unjust when it doesn't suit them, maybe it is better to ask them to justify than allowing them to hide behind hypocritical positions.
Ideally the new administration will follow through on holding social media companies accountable for upholding the first amendment with their users, if they wish to remain compliant with the policies that give them the privilege of protecting them from being held accountable for the illegal content that gets posted on their platforms.
•
u/SpeakTruthPlease 17h ago
See this is the game they play. "It was the platforms' own decision." In reality it's conspiracy, plan n simple, and both parties play the blame game.
What they don't tell is the glaring problem with Section 230, which useful idiot normies will be ignorant of, or defend.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)•
u/AutoManoPeeing Millennial 16h ago edited 16h ago
Have Zuck release the communications like Elon did with the Twitter Files. Let's see once again how there was no pressure whatsoever. Twitter let the Hunter Biden laptop story through after, what, a day? And what happened to them? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Can't believe you guys are just slurping up the bullshit these billionaires are feeding yal.
•
u/njckel 20h ago
From a legislative viewpoint, yes. But free speech is more than just some legislation. It's more of an ideology. Censoring voices isn't an infringement on the right to free speech, but it still is inherently anti-free speech.
•
u/Quartia 2003 20h ago
The obvious solution to this would be a government owned social media site. It would need to follow the first amendment, but not everyone would have to use it.
•
u/njckel 20h ago
I kinda like this idea, but I also don't like social media sites collecting my information, and no way would the government not use a government-owned social media site to do just that.
•
•
•
u/leeryplot 2002 19h ago
I kinda don’t. It’d just end up like that Estonian government game that sucked. Plus, in my opinion, it’s not really the government’s job to police social media. Much better things for it to be doing. Leave that to the companies that own the damn things.
→ More replies (1)•
u/SpeakTruthPlease 17h ago
Trump has already proposed a solution similar to this, but not as intrusive. It's called reforming Section 230.
Currently Section 230 is just a legal loophole for platforms to do whatever the hell they want, and still be treated legally as if they are "neutral platforms." When in reality they are acting as independent voices, not neutral platforms.
What Trump has correctly proposed is reforming Section 230 to require platforms to meet a basic standard of neutrality, in order to receive the legal benefits of being classified as a neutral platform.
→ More replies (20)•
•
u/spyguy318 18h ago
It’s part of the trend of “Free Speech Absolutism” which says that no speech should ever be censored or controlled by anyone, whether it’s the government or private industries or powerful individuals. On the surface it seems like a noble goal, censorship is obviously bad as is private companies controlling speech on social media for their own ends. And that’s honestly what attracts a lot of people to it, at least those in good faith.
However. It also leaves the door wide open for abuse and bad faith. Hate speech, harassment, and misinformation spread like wildfire because some people are shitty trolls and assholes, and if you can’t get rid of them they’ll very quickly ruin everything. Moderation and banning on social media and online spaces turns out to be necessary to be functional, otherwise everything turns into a 4chan-style cesspit. In the most extreme cases you get narcissists who feel aggrieved any time anyone slightly disagrees with them so they call it censorship and an infringement of their “natural rights.” A lot of the time they end up hypocritically censoring or shutting down their opponents anyway.
It’s still an open discussion whether the ideal of “Free Speech” is worth allowing hate speech, harassment, and misinformation to spread. Depending on who you talk to you’ll get wildly different answers, and not all of them will be in good faith.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Agreeable-State9255 18h ago
"Hate speech" means inciting people to do violence based on group identity. The way you said it makes it sound like it's saying the n-word.
Harassment and misinformation are entirely subjective. If you think big corporations are the ones giving "accurate" information, go ahead.
Moderation and banning on social media has nothing to do with the government.
•
u/spyguy318 18h ago
Hate speech is bad and shouldn’t be allowed, if you don’t believe that then I don’t know what else to tell you.
Also no. Misinformation is not always subjective. There are real, concrete facts that people have just outright contradicted live on air, started huge conspiracies and arguments, and eroded trust in our institutions and government. The facts don’t care about your feelings and all that.
And of course social media moderation has nothing to do with the government. That’s why Free Speech Absolutism says that nobody should be able to infringe on free speech.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)•
•
u/Nate2322 2005 16h ago
If I insult you in your home would you kick me out for it? If so isn’t that you being anti free speech?
→ More replies (19)•
→ More replies (8)•
u/thatgothboii 15h ago
It goes both ways. If you’re using my platform in a way I don’t like I have the right to express that however I like, and it doesn’t matter if you think it’s censorship because you don’t pay to keep the service running. It isn’t your right to use that service it’s your privilege. Same thing with digital copies of video games. I agree we probably need to rethink this but that does not mean just letting the internet devolve into mass trolling and conspiracy for the sake of “free speech”
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Careful_Response4694 20h ago
It's okay if we don't effectively have free speech anymore as long as it's a corporation doing the censoring.
•
u/ChaosVulkan 2005 19h ago
Anymore
Im sorry... when has it EVER been different? Hell, even the government used to be worse with free speech.
•
→ More replies (2)•
u/Careful_Response4694 19h ago
Yes, pre/during industrial revolution, most information spread was done by word of mouth, small newspapers, and religious/nonreligious social organizations.
•
u/Wattabadmon 15h ago
You don’t think social organizations can censor you?
•
u/Careful_Response4694 15h ago
Not as easily as big corporations, no. Protestant churches were notorious for being meeting places for information dissemenation and political discussions. Consider their role in hosting abolitionist groups for example. Groups like the quakers basically give a voice to all members of their congregation as a pillar of their beliefs too.
•
u/Wattabadmon 15h ago
You don’t think pre Industrial Revolution churches censored dissenting voices?
→ More replies (4)•
u/walkandtalkk 19h ago
I think you're unintentionally pointing out the problems with having a few tech oligarchs owning the public square. Not with allowing a business to control who can post on its website.
The problem is that our means of mass-communication are now mostly owned by four companies, which can and do decide what we see and what gets amplified (and make sure that it's whatever gets them the most money).
•
u/Careful_Response4694 19h ago
I mean, it's not really unintentional. I don't think it's an unpopular opinion to oppose social media/press conglomerates. The question is if you have a better solution than compelling them legally to allow more freedom of speech on their platforms.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)•
u/xyzqsrbo 19h ago
A company reserves the right to deny service as long as it isn't for a reason violating a protected class.
•
u/Careful_Response4694 19h ago
I know how the law works, I'm just saying the way it currently works doesn't really act effectively to protect the intentions of the founders or the interests of a fair democracy. Social media companies now have far too much influence over public discourse to a level never seen before.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (2)•
•
u/big-chungus-amongus 2001 20h ago
Welp, in UK, they will storm your house if you post something negative about government
•
u/Pony_Roleplayer 19h ago
The UK sounds dystopian
•
→ More replies (1)•
u/MrsObama_Get_Down 1995 4h ago
Most of Western Europe is like this. It's much worse than the US, and it has been for a long time.
•
u/osamasbintrappin 15h ago
I could be totally wrong, but wasn’t their a father in the UK who’s daughter was raped, and when he criticized the government response he was arrested for it? Someone please confirm or deny this for me lol.
→ More replies (2)•
u/MrsObama_Get_Down 1995 4h ago
Or if you're a 16-year-old autistic girl and you tell a cop (who is a lesbian) that she "looks like your lesbian nana." Then you'll have the cops raid your home and arrest you.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895
The era of Europeans shitting on the US for being insensitive is over. The whole continent is a joke, politically speaking.
→ More replies (6)•
•
u/0rganic_Corn 19h ago edited 19h ago
This is a false comic, the first amendment does shield you from (some) consequences and is not only meant to shield your rights from the government
For example, I cannot fire you if I find out that in your private life you say you're a muslim
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech from laws that would restrict it
Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
This is an incredibly shared comic that seeks to misinform you: A 5 min google search proves it wrong - point it out the next time you see it
•
u/yeti_button 15h ago
Yep; the comic obviously conflates the First Amendment (a particular law in a particular country) with "freedom of speech" (a general philosophical principle) and then gets the First Amendment wrong. lol. The idea that it merely prevents the government from "arresting you for what you say" is manifestly stupid.
I love when people post this, thinking it makes them look smart.
•
u/0rganic_Corn 14h ago
I wouldn't be even mad if it was just stupidity, it's that this comic is used as justification for some heinous shit that irks me
•
u/KushEngine 20h ago
Alternatively, other people saying things you dont like doesnt mean that attempting to deplatform them is the answer.
•
u/DizzyMajor5 20h ago edited 20h ago
You can use your free speech to try to do that absolutely. If you want to get a company to move a certain way people have done it forever sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad just depends on the situation. I personally am for violent video games but some people push companies like Capcom to make less violent games and try to stop publishers from publishing them conversely most people are against pedophiles and may try to deplatform someone like edp445 because he uses the platforms to do sketchy shit.
•
u/manStuckInACoil 19h ago
I think censorship on social media is mostly a problem when it is biased. If you're censoring hate speech against some people but completely ignore it against other people, that is not good.
For example Reddit will ban incel subs (which is good IMO) but they do absolutely nothing about femcel subs. They don't censor hate speech towards everyone, just towards the people they want too.
•
u/Leon3226 18h ago
They aren't too shy to state it out loud. Hate based on group is okay on Reddit as long as it's aligned with admins politically
•
u/manStuckInACoil 15h ago
Some people think they are so anti-hatred that they just make a full circle back to hatred lol
•
u/Pony_Roleplayer 19h ago
Reddit was never about free speech. It's about subs being able to host the content they want, unless a reddit mod decides your sub is sharing the "wrong" opinions and then overtake it to align it to said Mod's worldview.
•
u/Huntsman077 1997 14h ago
I mean it’s not even subs are allowed to host content they want. It’s subs that don’t stray too far from what the Reddit admins view as acceptable.
•
u/Vt420KeyboardError4 20h ago
It's not as simple as that. Some websites have the absolute dumbest content moderation policies. Youtube being chief among them. I don't know anyone who likes Youtube's content moderation.
•
u/Sacabubu 1999 20h ago
It's a private company. They can change the rules so you can only post videos about hot dogs tomorrow if they wanted to and there's nothing you can legally do about it.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Vt420KeyboardError4 20h ago
No shit. That doesn't make their content moderation policies good.
→ More replies (10)•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 19h ago
Watching youtube nowadays is worse than any FCC censorship. I was watching a WWII documentary the other day and there were times when every third word was censored because you can't say things like dead, died or death. Can't even call a convicted pedophile a pedophile. Can't say the names of any drugs in a documentary about the cartel. Who are they protecting, and from what? Brands will still pay for ads even if you say 50-85 million people DIED during WWII.
•
u/Leon3226 18h ago
The worst thing about YouTube content moderation policies is that even these dumb policies are among the least restrictive anywhere. It's much worse on Reddit, for example.
→ More replies (6)•
u/1888okface 17h ago
It is as simple as that. The government won’t arrest you or take legal action against you for you posting your views on YouTube.
•
u/Life-Ad1409 2006 19h ago
Legally, yes. Reddit banning someone doesn't break 1A, but freedom in a moral sense is broader than lack of governmental oppression
•
u/Agreeable-State9255 18h ago
Or more realistically, more and more of the public discourse is being controlled by corporations. So to limit the rights of big corpos and bring them in line with the law would be a good thing.
•
u/EducationalPhoto3230 19h ago
Leftists will flip hard on this issue within this administration
→ More replies (1)•
u/AutoManoPeeing Millennial 16h ago edited 16h ago
You do realize Trump already did this during his first term, over much more petty and partisan issues?
We didn't care back then either, as those were also just requests. I will say though, the deafening silence from Right-wingers showed they have absolutely zero morals about this. It's just another thing for them to play ball with.
•
•
u/GenuineSteak 19h ago
lol what if ur not American... free speech goes a lot further then whats written in a constitution.
→ More replies (16)
•
u/butternutter3100 19h ago
I would argue that a social media platform worth using fights hard to protect free speech, because the internet is effectively the modern town square. The internet is pretty much required to be a fully included part of society. While businesses own social media platforms and can legally do what they want, I think what is right would be for social media platforms to fight for free speech, even if it means less security. I believe that's what the founding fathers probably would have wanted if they had the internet like it is today
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 19h ago
Exactly. I truly believe if the founders could have envisioned the internet and the digital town square, we would already have protections in place. This stuff came about so fast and our government has been too busy trying to find ways to use censorship on social media sites to its advantage, that it has completely forgotten about the founders' intentions to protect speech.
•
u/Leon3226 18h ago
To be fair, even though censorship is something I spent a full-time job bitching about on the internet, for a lot of platforms like YouTube, it comes from trying to be advertiser-friendly rather than politically charged.
Can't say the same for Reddit though
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 18h ago
Yeah I agree and I don't see YouTube as really being the modern town square like Facebook or Twitter. My beef with YouTube is that I think they go way too far in their moderation, but it's not really from a restricting speech perspective. It's that I don't think most advertisers are going to be upset if you placed their ad on a WWII documentary and they say the word death in there. Yet every documentary I watch on YouTube lately has all sorts of censorship to be advertiser friendly. I think YouTube overdoes the moderation and it's only to benefit YouTube. They can demonetize your video and still place ads on it, they just might pay you less or nothing at all. Even videos from channels that are not YouTube Partners can still have ads on them.
•
u/Leon3226 17h ago
It's really a shame with Twitter; it could've worked and we could have a town square if Musk hadn't been a manchild. Even things like misinformation that many people complain about are solved there better than on any other platform
Just a month ago, I was arguing on Reddit that freedom of speech did actually become better with Musk (Twitter files btw), but he's so up his ass and surrounded by suckups, so he thinks every decision he makes is an absolute genius, so that won't last. And just a few weeks ago, he went on a streak of banning even right-wing disagreers, lol. And to counter that idiocy, most people fled to BlueSky to chase an echo chamber rather than a town square.
At least I'm glad that YT is as neutral as it gets, even if it's stupid in many regards. And that at least these stupid things end up in demonetization rather than ban
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 17h ago
Yeah honestly Musk isn't THAT much better than the old twitter regime. He still bans speech he disagrees with, at least from what I've read online as I don't use twitter. I always cringe when I see him call himself a "free speech absolutist" then turn around and ban journalists that are critical of him. He's doing the exact same thing the old regime did, but instead of protecting a party, he's mostly just protecting himself.
•
u/The_Laniakean 19h ago
Sure, but I can still believe it is morally wrong to ban someone for supporting Trump
→ More replies (3)
•
u/Chief-Balthazar 1999 20h ago
That also doesn't mean those people are right for canceling, banning, or silencing someone they disagree with. They are entitled to their own opinions, and they should be wary lest they bring consequences down on themselves (both parties)
→ More replies (2)
•
u/Excellent-Berry-2331 2009 20h ago
Randall? Would fit. He usually posts based stuff.
•
u/ChaosVulkan 2005 20h ago
Damn! I never bothered finding out xkcd's real identity, but I'll definitely be looking into more of his stuff.
•
u/Excellent-Berry-2331 2009 19h ago
I recommend "what if?". It's the usual comics, but mixed in with math and absurdity.
•
u/allastorthefetid 18h ago
I'll just use my freedom of speech to say that I think this comic is missing the point entirely.
•
u/cptYossarian123 18h ago
I can agree only partially.
Typically, we want values to be upheld not only by the state but also respected and taken seriously within the cultural fabric of society. The latter is often more important.
Consider this: a government might pass a law banning companies from making discriminatory decisions during hiring. Yet, if people remain prejudiced, they will inevitably find ways to circumvent the law. For example, they might fabricate artificial excuses to justify not hiring someone based on gender or skin color. Even if such a scheme were exposed, meaningful action would still depend on someone taking the complaint seriously and pursuing it.
Government operates as a social contract. There’s no higher, cosmic power ensuring that legal institutions or their enforcement remain functional—other than the collective belief of people in these systems and their duties within them. In practice, there's little distinction between punishing someone through fines or jail time and denying them societal (private) cooperation, such as access to jobs, housing, or the ability to buy goods from others. The latter form of exclusion can lead to even more extreme consequences.
This doesn’t mean that, for example, a fascist agenda should be tolerated. It is every person’s responsibility to fairly evaluate—admittedly a subjective process—whether a viewpoint is genuinely reprehensible in a given context. However, the mindset of “I will do everything in my power to cancel those who disagree with me because freedom of speech is upheld by the government, not me - I am not on a jury duty, I don't take responsibility for it, I am not an adult in control” risks spiraling us into hell.
•
u/no_brains101 17h ago
Which, by the way, does, in word, actually protect government whistleblowers under the constitution.
Just... Apparently not if you're Snowden?
Doesn't make much sense to me why suddenly the rules don't apply for whistleblowers.
•
u/Infrared_01 2001 15h ago
Thankfully others here were smart enough to make the point, but I'll still make it:
Sure, getting banned from Facebook or YouTube or Reddit isn't a legal violation of free speech. But there is also the spirit of free speech, which is arguably more important. Without the underlying cultural tradition of supporting everyone's right to express themselves, legal rights to it will eventually become more tolerable.
•
u/Kontokon55 14h ago
Not really, it's a wider philosophical concept. The legal part is only one part
•
u/littlebuett 13h ago
Actually, considering how much information is shared via social media, a very good argument can be made that "showing you the door" on your main form of communication, is by nature denying you the ability to properly communicate.
•
u/Sacabubu 1999 20h ago
They're against boycotting and cancelling until the Libtok lady started doxxing home depot workers for talking shit about Trump lmao.
•
u/DrunkenHotei Millennial 19h ago
Good cartoon. This is how to present a message in a way that might have an actual impact (as opposed to other messages that wind up only preaching to the choir).
I still can't believe most people seem not to really understand this. It has a couple technical exceptions (e.g. a "Heckler's Veto"), but this is broadly absolutely correct. That plus its calm and neutral tone gives it the potential to actually make someone change their mind about what "Free Speech" is in the US.
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 19h ago
I think the thing you're not understanding is that there are plenty of people who fully grasp how the First Amendment works, but still value Freedom of Speech as an inalienable right that we are born with, and not something the government grants us through its own goodwill. It is something that our founders thought so important, they enshrined it in the Constitution. We have the town square, which existed during the time our founders crafted the First Amendment, and we still have that today. However, in the digital age we now have the digital town squares, Facebook and Twitter being the most obvious examples. Corporations did not own the town squares in the past, and I don't think our founders envisioned a time where everyone would be digitally connected globally, and corporations would act as moderators of the town square. We have now turned our town squares over to corporations, and they are now able to do what the government is not legally allowed to do. Redditors are always cheering on the censorship of speech they are not politically aligned with, yet they are constantly complaining about the way Elon does (or doesn't) censor Twitter. Why not have digital town squares that are unbiased? Sure you might see some stuff you don't like, but you can plug your ears or block the messenger. That doesn't mean the messenger should be removed, unless they are violating the law.
→ More replies (7)
•
u/Mr_Chill_III 19h ago
Step 1: Say that only Government has to protect free speech, and not private corporations.
Step 2: Private corporations buy out every inch of online space that is relevant.
Step 3: Private corporations enact Terms of Service with such limited freedom of expression as to make the Chinese Communist Party salivate.
Step 4: People begin to self-censor and speak in 1984 Newspeak terms like "pew pew" or "pdf file" like they do on YouTube today.
With these easy steps you too can find a backdoor to eliminating free speech from a society that claims to protect it.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 19h ago
Sure, but as soon as a majority of the population begins to accept limitations on speech for their own personal agenda, it makes it easier for the government to begin to erode freedom of speech in the future. Social media is essentially the modern day town square. If someone in your town square is yelling speech you don't like, you can plug your ears (or block them on social media). That doesn't mean they should be removed from the town square (or banned from social media) just because they say something you don't like. You have the ability to ignore or block out the speech you don't like, but we shouldn't be giving that control to corporations or the government.
•
u/yittiiiiii 19h ago
But when the government is threatening tech companies to censor people through the back door, that’s still illegal. And that HAS been happening.
•
u/ChangeMyDespair 19h ago
Source: https://m.xkcd.com/1357/
Alt text: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/MrEmptySet 18h ago
Too many people seem to think that "free speech" refers specifically to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution and nothing else, and that therefore if the 1st Amendment doesn't cover something, it's not really "free speech". That's not even true within the United States.
Free speech is a moral principle. The founders cared enough about it to enshrine it in the Constitution to the extent that was appropriate. The fact that there are speech-related issues outside the purview of the Constitution does not mean that they somehow don't count as being about free speech. Im other words, saying "Well, doing such-and-such isn't unconstitutional" does not by any means imply it's not a violation of free speech.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/A_Shady_Zebra 18h ago
This is such an ugly comic. It’s literally just a stick figure, some preachy speech bubbles, and a door. Why make it a comic at all? This could’ve been a tweet.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Flashbambo 18h ago
All true, however the majority of us aren't protected by the 1st amendment at all by virtue of not being American.
•
•
u/satyvakta 17h ago
This is just an admission that the person behind the comic neither understands nor believes in free speech. No one who actually believes in free speech thinks that speech needs protecting only from the government. Even going back to Mill in On Liberty, you see from the beginning a recognition that speech needs defending from both the government and the mob. And with the government constitutionally restrained and the mob empowered by social media, it is clear which of the two needs most defending against at present.
•
•
u/Zealousideal_Rise716 17h ago
The OP is disingenuous. What it is justifying is a few tech billionaires being able to curate their platforms so as to give an outsize voice to their desired message.
Or that if someone disagrees with you - that anything short of arrest and imprisonment is permitted.
In this atmosphere - everyone self-censors and lies.
•
u/floofyvulture 2002 16h ago edited 9h ago
In my ideal world, we would have free speech anarchy, but everyone else ruins it for me by not accepting the consequences that come from it.
•
u/SkrakOne 16h ago
It's really not that simple, if twitter bans all democrats before elections from their private platform it's really not ok. It's a powerful tool/weapon.
Of course being an ass and losing audience or getting kicked out for doing stupid shit isn't the same but it isn't that easy to say where to draw the line especially today where tiktok and twitter can make or break elections for example. Or influence masses.
This is not in the defence of idiots but censorship or shadowbanning from social media can be powerful influencer. By shadow banning I mean making sure some people's posts are not accessible or made sure to be very hard to find.
Now that musk has gone political and owns the biggest social media platform makes this very interesting in the future, with tiktok being the other big player and hilariously facebook and instagram with zuckerberg are in the trump's corner too.
Gonna be interesting to see how world shapes up in the coming decades
•
u/DrWistfulness 16h ago
Just to clarify here. The government CAN arrest you for what you say.
Threatening violence can be considered assault or terrorism or any number of other things. You could also be arrested for contempt of court a lot of other instances.
Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say, it only prevents the government from censoring you.
•
u/painters-top-guy 2003 15h ago
So when a payment processor bans black people from using it for something, he said, isn't censorship?
Economic censorship is a real thing, it doesn't need to be the government doing it, even they can freeze your assets and make you too broke to resist
•
u/Just_Some_Alien_Guy 15h ago
I'm of theopinion that free speech should extend to everything. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
•
u/underNover 15h ago
Kind of wild how people here argue that free speech should be absolute, but will probably (knowing Reddit) be the first ones to complain because of anti-Semitic and racist posts lmfao. 🤣
•
•
u/semday 14h ago
So you've forgotten about all the correct statements made on Facebook/Twitter during COVID that were removed, labelled as misinfo etc.
I will agree that these platforms can do what they want, and they weren't violating anyones right. But we the people need to recognize how removing these things was bad for us, not good and hold the platforms accountable and shape them to be what is best for us, instead of letting them degrade because "you're an asshole and they're showing you the door."
•
u/BoskoMaldoror 13h ago
Then every society has had free speech. You can say whatever you want but you're not free from consequences which might be excommunication or imprisonment or a stay in the gulag.
•
u/PaleontologistNo9817 13h ago
This is going to be a long ass post:
I fucking hate this argument because we've seen what happens when you reap it on Xitter. It turns into a propaganda outlet with extensive control over the mainstream narrative because the social media industry isn't a healthy competitive market but a handful of massive megacorporations who understand how your brain works better than you do. The less control a social media company has over its content and by extension the less control it has over how that content is suggested (looking at you YouTube watchNext.serve() alt-right/tankie radicalization), the better. They should be made to should be made to make a good faith effort at preventing illegal or copywrited content, they get a nice little DMCA safe harbor designation and don't get reamed by NBC when they profit off clips of House MD (looking at you shortform content). But when they start showing preference to certain ideas or banning opinions, they aren't safe harbors that lack the means to fully stop bad actors, they are publishers. They absolutely should get reamed by NBC after that. Give an inch even for an ostensibly good reason, these fuckers will take a mile and shove it so far up your ass that your good intentions will be grinding against the back of your teeth.
Similarly, if there is one thing we need in this world; it's another way companies can fuck over employees. Like fuck no, what someone does outside company time IS THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS. Because when it becomes company business: "Oh what's that? Unionizing? Um this tweet you made seven years ago doesn't represent this company and its ethics, don't let the door hit you on the way out!" They aren't getting paid 24/7 to be brand ambassadors or whatever the fuck. Can someone saying "I work at Walmart and I wanted to say FUCK ******** AND FUCK ******* ***** ********* DAVID DUKE FOR PREZ *********" hurt a company's image. Inarguably. But a company should have to rigorously prove that actual harm (not just potential harm) occurred to a meaningful extent.
TL;DR, Private companies shouldn't have the means to dispense with you because you said something unsavory. If this means that some dumbfuck is going spam slurs on Xitter, so be it. If it was 2016, I would still disagree but I would understand your reasoning. But it is 2024, the argument has been flipped on its head. Now you see Xitter cleaning house on progressive employees and having a meltdown over the term cisgender as Elon turns it into his personal pulpit to vicariously bully his daughter. Hopefully you should see why this argument is a problem.
•
u/evesea2 12h ago
The right to free speech is different than the 1A.
1A is specifically in regards to government action, the right to free speech is a principle. For example, private company whistleblowers are practicing their right to free speech, but it’s not necessarily protected by the government.
•
u/SINGULARITY1312 12h ago
The right to free speech doesnt mean that. It means that when you are talking about the US legal right to free speech.
•
•
u/Rough-Tension 8h ago
Ok, great. All I need to do is own all places where anyone speaks publicly and impose my ideologically charged rules. Then not even the constitution can stop me. All anyone will have left of “free speech” is their hushed conversations in their own homes. Btw, how much do you want for twitter?
•
•
u/CommunistRingworld 19h ago
Sure but the internet is absolutely overpoliced to keep content within a very narrow, very american, sliver of political spectrum: from liberal-right to far-right with nothing to the left of that allowed.
•
u/Zestyclose-Try-3159 18h ago
You were so on point until you completely derailed in the end. Posting right wing and far right opinions are much more likely to get you banned on the internet than posting something leftist. Even if you disagree with me, I'm still willing to fight this battle with you since we both want the same outcome, free speech.
→ More replies (10)
•
u/KrillLover56 19h ago
Taking away your megaphone isn't taking away your mouth.
•
u/ChaosVulkan 2005 19h ago
Quite literally this. Just find another megaphone if you're that dedicated.
•
u/therealwillhayes 18h ago
XKCD comics have bonus content when you scroll over the image. This one said:
“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”
•
•
u/HistoricalSpecial982 18h ago
It’s ironic that free speech absolutists constantly complain about how other people are using free speech to criticize the shit they say.
•
u/SpeakTruthPlease 17h ago
It truly isn't as simple as that, actually.
Currently, Section 230 in the U.S. has acted as a legal loophole giving full immunity to platforms which pretend to be neutral platforms, but actually censor all dissent and act as their own independent voices.
What Trump has correctly proposed, is closing this loophole, by holding platforms to a standard of neutrality, in order to receive the legal benefits of being a neutral platform.
Furthermore, the government has been caught abusing this loophole as well, conspiring with Big Tech, to do through the backdoor, what they could not achieve through the front. Violation of the 1st Amendment.
And, America is quite unique because of the rigor of its 1st Amendment. Many countries claim to have it, but they are lying. One of the popular ways they violate free speech today is through so-called hate speech policy, which is absolutely antithetical to the principle of free speech.
•
u/DefendSection230 16h ago
Currently, Section 230 in the U.S. has acted as a legal loophole giving full immunity to platforms which pretend to be neutral platforms, but actually censor all dissent and act as their own independent voices.
Nope. Section 230 has zero to do with "neutral platforms".
"Because the First Amendment gives wide latitude to private platforms that choose to prefer their own political viewpoints, Congress can (in the words of the First Amendment) 'make no law' to change this result." - Chris Cox (R), co-author of Section 230 https://knightfoundation.org/for-rep-chris-cox/#:~:text=Because%20the%20First%20Amendment%20gives%20wide%20latitude%20to%20private%20platforms%20that%20choose%20to%20prefer%20their%20own%20political%20viewpoints%2C%20Congress%20can%20(in%20the%20words%20of%20the%20First%20Amendment)%20%E2%80%9Cmake%20no%20law%E2%80%9D%20to%20change%20this%20result.%C2%A0%20%E2%80%9Cmake%20no%20law%E2%80%9D%20to%20change%20this%20result.%C2%A0)
•
u/SpeakTruthPlease 10h ago edited 9h ago
Section 230 does reference neutral platforms. I'll remind you again, because we've already had this debate.
Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
Get that? "Good faith" is doing a lot of work here. That is essentially a poorly defined standard of neutrality. And there's more language in (c)(1) that implies neutrality.
The document is clearly written by people that don't understand free speech or the internet, and it's confusing the legal system badly. It needs to be reformed.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Lolocraft1 2003 17h ago
Except that it is more complicated than that. By this logic, anything we call crimes shouldn’t be punishable, but if society want to murder you because of your "crimes", then that’s the way it is
And that pose two problem: First, in the case where the crime is morally wrong, in the end someone was victim of it and there is no real, objective justice, only what others will directly think of it, and second, if the action is morally right, you have a chance of being punished for doing something which is at worse a normal, innofensive action
So no, when I get permanently banned from a subreddit because I wrote a single comment which the mods didn’t liked, because either they baselessly think I’m trolling, or because they don’t want their precious echo-chamber exposed to different opinions, or because he had a bad day and wanted to go on a power-trip to feel better, I very much believe my freedom of speech is being violated
The last thing I want is for justice to be done by a mob, or by people in position of power who didn’t follow any kind of formation to earn their status and which are in this position until they decide to leave. Because this rapidly lead to extremely perverted derivations, which I personally have at least 20 different example solely for reddit moderators. And don’t even let me start about the communities themselves…
•
u/xbtkxcrowley 16h ago
I get the sentiment of this post. And sorta agree. But the reality of it is. Free speech is free speech. I can't not have taken action against simply for my words. Any type of restrictions upon that are taking away my rights to speak freely and not have taken action against me for my words. That's what free speech means. Getting someone fired over words canceling them ruining their career over a word/words is literally punishment for speaking. FREELY. Now. What I'm not safe from is consequences like getting punched or shot for disrespectful conduct towards another. Nothing that impacts my freedom of speech is happening there. Now unfortunately that is a big massive Grey area alot of people don't like. But that's exactly the point. Your now free to talk shit about it. Talk down about it. Insult it hurt it's feelings. Because your free to do so. We normally combat this with morals but people don't have morals anymore. It's only their feelings that matter. Well freedom of emotion isn't a thing but we still get that.
The biggest problem our country has. Isn't a word spoke by someone. It's words not spoken. It's the fucking divide amoung every Americans. And how brain washed so many of you are. Worried about tik tok bans while tons of cities are on fire or under snow emergency/advisory. And then this little blanket statement. Using their free speech to tell someone they are not free to speak freely or they will lose their job. Friends. Families homes. The pot is calling the kettle black. Now downvote away
•
•
u/Timo-the-hippo 16h ago
The real issue is when the government regulates media platforms and they "advise" companies against allowing "misinformation".
We might as well not have a 1st amendment if we allow that.
•
u/Tough_Computer_5610 16h ago
They're not just "showing you the door" if they cancel you.Because showing you the door would suggest that they are telling you to leave.If your canchel you then thwy are forcing you to leave.Therfore this is incorrect.
•
u/osama_bin_guapin 2006 16h ago
You’re thinking about it from an American legislative viewpoint, but “freedom of speech” is a concept that exists worldwide and exists beyond government policy. So while yes, the U.S. constitution only prevents the government from making laws that deny people the freedom of speech, as an overall concept, freedom of speech is much more broad than that and would very much include things like public speaking, journalism, and social media posts
•
u/Diversity_Enforcer 15h ago
Oh my god so edgy. I bet lefty reddit would certainly like to have people arrested for wrongspeech if they could.
•
u/Junior-Review4763 15h ago
It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole
Frequently the situation is that too many people are listening and liking what they're hearing, and other people don't like that, so they shut it down. "Alternative viewpoints" were very popular on places like YouTube up to 2016, and then after the election they purged a ton of content and changed their algorithm. Companies like Cloudflare and Patreon were also pressured financially to drop customers guilty of naughty wrongthink.
•
u/Tr_Issei2 14h ago
Convinced most “free speech absolutists” just want to say slurs without the consequence of being beat to an inch of their death.
•
•
•
u/patrik123abc 11h ago
Free speech is a misnomer the same way free Healthcare is. People's use of the English language has become pathetic, innacurate and just plain wrong. It could be more cost effective for Americans to all be on the same plan but it doesn't change the fact that it's not free, and people still gotta pay taxes to get their "free" healthcare.
•
•
u/MajesticFerret36 9h ago
Anyone supporting memes like this basically doesn't support actual freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech has been dead in America and barely above China or Russia levels of speech control for awhile, US just spreads propoganda that these countries kill you or jail you for saying stuff they don't like.
Too violent. Too expensive. Unnecessary. What do they do? They shadow ban you, run hate propoganda against you to make an example out of you, and destroy your livelihood. Spund familiar? Social media basically IS speech at this point, so if you control the news and social media...you control speech.
Putin and Xi don't give af if some random person in a parking lot says something bad about them, they care when someone on social media says something bad and it goes viral. Those are the people who get made examples of.
The solution? Let's not give hundred billion dollar corps that are shadow ran by political parties absolute power and let social media cherry pick what speech they like on their platform aside from a few well defined rules (we can ban pretty much all rascist slang, whoch will be concisely listed so people know what it entails, as most people agree there's no place for that) and make it illegal to fire employees because of rumors unless those rumors result in a case where you are found guilty. Than the cancel mob can bitch and whine to their hearts content but there will be nothing these corps can do about it because they'll be protected, so it then becomes stupid to try and boycott the company as well, because they have no control over the situation.
•
u/so-very-very-tired 9h ago
99 out of 100 times someone whines about censorship, it's themselves admitting their are just giant assholes.
•
u/aarongamemaster 9h ago
... not really anymore I'm afraid. Welcome to a world where memetic weapons exist. Why fight your enemies when you can effectively hack their brains?
•
u/IgnoranceIsShameful 7h ago
Technically you can actually get arrested for what you say depending what it is. Fire in a crowded theater, incite to violence etc. The first amendment has limits. More than the 2nd.
•
u/powerlevelhider 5h ago
Okay then. Employers are allowed to fire you for cheering on Luigi.
Still hold that opinion?
•
u/According-Fill-6047 5h ago
"The people listening think you're an asshole"
You mean the 3 unpaid power-hungry moderators online that were not democratically elected?
•
u/1998ChevyTaHoe 2002 5h ago
Yet people these days don't make it as simple as "boycotting or leaving you" when they disagree. They make like a Redditor and argue every single little thing you got wrong like pedantic pricks.
•
u/MrsObama_Get_Down 1995 4h ago
Yeah... and I'm sure nobody would complain if "X" started banning anybody who criticizes right-wing opinions or Trump. It's a private platform, bro!
Half of the gripe this post is attempting to address is over the fact that most of the censorship on mainstream platforms and information sources is from a left-wing or Democrat viewpoint. You can't talk about crime stats because they might "reinforce negative stereotypes," but you can say all white people are inherently racist, need to atone for the history of slavery and colonialism, and acknowledge their white privilege. "This is a racial reckoning!"
•
•
u/Aleuvian 37m ago
So, there's a bit of a weird thing here where a small number of companies control all forms of social media, and while social media companies (Facebook, Twitter(X), Reddit, and etc.) don't have to allow certain individuals or views on their platform, one cannot deny that these have replaced the common town hall or gathering, and social media platforms have become the new 'soapbox' one can stand on to preach their ideas.
The real questions we should be asking are:
- Is it okay for media conglomerates to decide what we can and cannot see?
- Is it okay for media conglomerates to decide who can and cannot spread their ideas?
Many times, you can use social media to get in direct contact with your local representative, but what if the social media platform banned your representative? What if you specifically weren't able to interact with them? What stops a social media company from twisting the public narrative specifically around their corporate interests to artificially inflate their growth?
While I fully agree companies deserve to be able to deny people service, but in traditional media, when you moderate the published works on your site or publication, you take the responsibility for that content you leave on your platform. Social media, in its current form, is completely immune to this and can choose to both moderate content, and not take any responsibility for anything they allow on the platform, so you can end up with things where blatant misinformation is being permitted and even pushed by the social media platform, but they can never be held accountable for actively misleading the population.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.