Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[Daedalus X]

Is the question under consideration what I wrote above, or is it something different?

It is slightly different.

Just so I'm clear on the question under consideration, what you're asking is: Should the government force private companies to store and transmit (at significant expense) text, audio, or video that would otherwise violate those companies' terms of service?

Should the government force private and public companies to store and transmit (at reasonable expense) text, audio, or video (that is consistent with their business model) that would otherwise violate those companies' arbitrary terms of service? Yes, that is the question for debate.

In other words, the freedom of of speech was enshrined into the constitution to protect the people from a government tyranny, shall we now allow corporations, that have as much or more power over our lives, to become the tyrannies that our founding fathers feared?

[Daedalus X]

It was largely conservatives saying I was wrong, and I'm so vindicated now that I'm wallowing in it. Conservatives who said, it doesn't matter how big a business is, it doesn't matter if they have more actual power than the government, it doesn't matter if they own the world and all the land and food and can kick someone out of their own house and starve them for saying the wrong thing, it is everyone's absolute right to exercise control over their own property. I didn't predict that it would be conservatives being stomped on, bullied, fired, excluded. But I'm glad it is. This ought to go on until they learn their lesson about unstable equilibrium at very least.

I think that you are one of the rare people that can see that there is a problem in our land. I just don't think that we can blame it on the conservatives or liberals, but rather in my opinion the problem is in our form of government, a problem that the founders never anticipated. Inadvertently the founders of our nation created a two party dictatorship, that maintains its power by constant propaganda and gaslighting.

In America we have three elections to choose our president (and other offices as well) two of them we are all familiar with, the primary and general elections. But, before those two elections there is the money elections, where the people who are running must be approved by the big money people. If a candidate can be trusted to do the bidding of the money people then their campaign will be funded, but if they don't approve, then there will be no money for the campaign, other than small donations. If a candidate does well without the big money, then the big money will support the opposition, where political party affiliation makes no difference.

The virus needle is a good example of how wrong this system can be. The government, corporations and experts are just parroting "trust the science" even when there is no science to trust. Instead, they are just hoping that as time goes by the science will validate their own prejudice. Here is a clip of a doctor who recommended the needle even though there was no evidence to say it is safe and effective. His recommendation to take the needle was in large part based on the fact that there were antivax people making false arguments agains the needle. One does not need to spend much time on debate site to know that proposition X is not false just because people who attack X are using faulty reasoning.




If anyone has not yet seen the new documentary from Robert Kennedy, hurry up and click the link while it is still free to watch.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[historia]

Should the government force private and public companies to store and transmit (at reasonable expense) text, audio, or video (that is consistent with their business model) that would otherwise violate those companies' arbitrary terms of service?

No, because this is an overt violation of the First Amendment.

As I'm sure you know, in the United States, the right to free speech is codified in the First Amendment, which says that the government cannot restrict your free expression. That does not apply to private entities.

(Here, as elsewhere in the thread, by "private" entities I'm referring to individuals or corporations that operate in the private sector, and so are not operated by the government, which constitutes the "public" sector.)

So, for example, if osteng, the owner of this website, decided to delete this post, he would not be violating my right to free speech. This is his website. He owns and operates it at his own expense. He can decide what content remains on this website and what doesn't. I don't have a "right" to have content I've written hosted on someone else's website.

The government forcing him to host my content, on the other hand, is a violation of his free expression.

[Daedalus X]

No, because this is an overt violation of the First Amendment.

As I'm sure you know, in the United States, the right to free speech is codified in the First Amendment, which says that the government cannot restrict your free expression. That does not apply to private entities.

How do you go from the government can't restrict free expression, to the government can't restrict a companies ability to restrict free expression?

So, for example, if osteng, the owner of this website, decided to delete this post, he would not be violating my right to free speech. This is his website. He owns and operates it at his own expense. He can decide what content remains on this website and what doesn't. I don't have a "right" to have content I've written hosted on someone else's website.

The government forcing him to host my content, on the other hand, is a violation of his free expression.

This could get very complicated, but he can remove this post because he made us agree to that, in the ToS when we signed up to use the site. But this is new territory and has not yet been challenged in court.

For example, a lot of companies put into their employment contract the doctrine of employment at will. This means that employers and employees are allowed to terminate their relationship at any time and for any reason. But even if the employee agrees to this condition, the employer is not allowed to wrongfully terminate an employee.

Another example is a YouTube content creator that has been with YouTube since the beginning. At that time YouTube had a product to sell (advertising space) and needed something to draw people to the site so that advertisers would pay. So YouTube agreed with the content creators to share the ad revenue in exchange for interesting content. So our fictional creator has invested a lot of time, energy and money in developing a large following and revenue, in producing a wild comedy show. But, then a small fringe group who does not like the show starts to make a lot of trouble with YouTube and asks to have this person canceled. So if YouTube does cancel this person he would lose his followers, livelihood and all that he has invested over the years. This person may have a legitimate lawsuit against YouTube. You can think "louder with Crowder" and many others.

Given how much power and influence these companies have to brainwash Americans, even if current law (commerce clause) does not allow the government to regulate them, should we pass an amendment to give the government that power (i.e. expand "provide for the common defense")?

[historia]

As I'm sure you know, in the United States, the right to free speech is codified in the First Amendment, which says that the government cannot restrict your free expression. That does not apply to private entities.

How do you go from the government can't restrict free expression, to the government can't restrict a companies ability to restrict free expression?

That has been the express conclusion of the Supreme Court in several cases over the years.

Consider, for example, Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 737:

We recognize that the First Amendment, the terms of which apply to governmental action, ordinarily does not itself throw into constitutional doubt the decisions of private citizens to permit, or to restrict, speech -- and this is so ordinarily even where those decisions take place within the framework of a regulatory regime such as broadcasting.

Were that not so, courts might have to face the difficult, and potentially restrictive, practical task of deciding which, among any number of private parties involved in providing a program (for example, networks, station owners, program editors, and program producers), is the "speaker" whose rights may not be abridged, and who is the speech-restricting "censor."

Furthermore, as this Court has held, the editorial function itself is an aspect of "speech," see Turner, 512 U. S., at 636, and a court's decision that a private party, say, the station owner, is a "censor," could itself interfere with that private "censor's" freedom to speak as an editor.

In other words, the government cannot prohibit a private entity, such as a company, from restricting speech, since that would itself be the government restricting the company's free speech. That is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits!

For example, a lot of companies put into their employment contract the doctrine of employment at will. This means that employers and employees are allowed to terminate their relationship at any time and for any reason. But even if the employee agrees to this condition, the employer is not allowed to wrongfully terminate an employee.

I understand the general point you're trying to make here, and, from what I can tell, the Court does generally acknowledge that there are often conflicting rights and interests in cases concerning, say, employment or housing or providing a service like baking a cake.

But the Court takes the First Amendment very seriously. It is a bright red line. They have repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment constrains government action to a degree that doesn't apply to other areas of life, so a lot of these analogies just aren't compelling for that reason.

Given how much power and influence these companies have to brainwash Americans, even if current law (commerce clause) does not allow the government to regulate them, should we pass an amendment to give the government that power (i.e. expand "provide for the common defense")?

The government can regulate social media companies. But, as noted in the Supreme Court ruling above, even in regulated industries, like broadcasting, the government cannot prohibit a private entity from restricting speech. It's the First Amendment, not the Commerce Clause, that is the obstacle to your suggestion.

[Daedalus X]

It's the First Amendment, not the Commerce Clause, that is the obstacle to your suggestion.

Where does that put us? We gave these big corporations a tool to censor whatever they want to censor, because we were afraid that children would see dirty images. So now they can legally take down important information, that parents need, to make informed decisions regarding their children's medical care. So when big tech, government and all the big news corporations are saying in unison "get the needle, it is safe, effective, free and necessary". How do you console a parent who ends up with a dead or maimed child, when they were NOT told that bad things can follow the needle, and if they had known that the risk from the needle is far worse than the CCP germ, they would have passed on the needle?

As long as the needle is FDA approved for children then Big Pharma can enjoy legal immunity from adverse liability from their product. That is why the First Amendment has been weaponized for Pharmaceutical profits.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed. And it is being fixed with alt media, but the vast majority of people have been so fully mind controlled, that when people tell them the truth, they get uncontrollably triggered. Talk about a zombie apocalypse.

Here is a clip of a young woman who claims that she has a free speech right to shut down the free speech of a whole auditorium of other people. (it is called the heckler's veto) We must protect the calm and rational speakers from this sort of bullying and intimidation especially by big corporations working with and for the government.



Here is another clip that just says it all. Do we really need to suppress information like this?

[Purple Knight]

I think that you are one of the rare people that can see that there is a problem in our land.

Not really, no. I see a nation where the People made their bed and I simply don't like sleeping in it, but I'm in the extreme minority.

In America we have three elections to choose our president (and other offices as well) two of them we are all familiar with, the primary and general elections. But, before those two elections there is the money elections, where the people who are running must be approved by the big money people. If a candidate can be trusted to do the bidding of the money people then their campaign will be funded, but if they don't approve, then there will be no money for the campaign, other than small donations. If a candidate does well without the big money, then the big money will support the opposition, where political party affiliation makes no difference.

The virus needle is a good example of how wrong this system can be.

I don't think a Libertarian would see anything wrong with this. Sometimes needles will be full of AIDS. It doesn't matter unless someone forced you to take it. And no, having an agreement with your employer to fire you if you don't take it, doesn't count as force. A Libertarian would say that the big businesses deserve the influence they wield because they have the money to buy it, which they earned without using force. Don't like it? Do as they did, make money, and buy some influence yourself.

I personally despise this way of thinking and I don't think it represents a fair world. But I think most people, even if they don't like the status quo, actually agree with the fundamental principles that lead inescapably to these conclusions. Those principles being that violence is out of bounds and everything else is in bounds. Don't hit, don't steal. Lying - well, that's a yes, because it's not violent. So this whole "trust the science" and everything that comes with it, is fine, because it is, at worst, a bunch of lies.

I dislike the world but I don't see a problem with people getting the laws they consider right and fair.

[oldbadger]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?

If you try to force or make private media companies to publish anybody's junk then that's hardly any kind of freedom for private companies.
They should certainly be allowed to control what their members put up.

[Daedalus X]

I don't think a Libertarian would see anything wrong with this.
...
I dislike the world but I don't see a problem with people getting the laws they consider right and fair.

It has been said that a society can vote their way into totalitarianism, but they can't vote their way out.

So, if a group of rich and or elite people can lie and manipulate society into giving them dictatorial power and then proceed to enslave the worlds population, could we then just say the masses got what they deserved for their stupidity?

Many people think that I am overreacting, but take the Hunter Biden laptop story for example, now a lot of news networks are saying they were wrong about it being Russian disinformation and it was legit, and there is a good chance that we can get Hunter charged with some serious crimes, if nothing else we can get him to serve time for tax violations, and then we can put this whole ugly business behind us.

And that would be missing the whole point of this story. The real story is about the collusion between our news networks, social media, government especially FBI and the Justice Department to hide this information from the voters in the 2020 election.

With this kind of power these organizations can do anything they want and the peoples of this nation can do nothing to stop them. I think that we are now past the point of no return because it would be too difficult to convince the people that something really nefarious is going on, and then remove these people from power.

[Daedalus X]

If you try to force or make private media companies to publish anybody's junk then that's hardly any kind of freedom for private companies.
They should certainly be allowed to control what their members put up.

Do you have any problem with these private media companies suppressing important medical information that could have saved millions of lives?