Discussion»Questions»Current Events and News» White House itself is now flagging social media posts for censorship. Facism? Where are our Constitutional rights protectors?
Then I take it you believe anything - true, false or otherwise - should be allowed on any social media platform. I interpreted her comments to mean they are flagging posts containing misinformation. Do you believe that if I posted that ingesting bleach and/or the use of hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid-19 should be allowed to stand? If you do, then you don't believe in educating people, and you don't really care whether people learn the truth or live in their ignorant, dark little world.
I do not believe it is the government's right or authority to censor their citizens who disagree with them. THAT is Fascism. They can hide behind "disinformation" as long as they can. But remember we have had politicians and scientists and news organizations who have been censored by claiming "disinformation." And NO it should not be allowed to happen.
Yes I believe it should be allowed to stand. People have the right to learn and use all information available to them at the time. Even if the government does not like or agree with it.
When it comes to the health and welfare of all of the residents of this country, the government has the responsibility to make sure that the proper scientific information is made available to everyone. Can you imagine how many more deaths there would have been if Trump's bleach and hydroxy statements were not removed? This virus is a world-wide threat to humans and governments have an absolute responsibility to insure that the truth is disseminated - not some crackpot's idea of how to overcome a pandemic. That is not fascism - it's taking responsibility. If you think that my posting that bleach and hydroxy are the solutions to the virus, then I really feel sorry for you.
They do not claim it is just flagging. Psaki said the WH is direct contact with FB to change their rules. ie. Banned on one site = banned on all sites. Change their algorithms etc.
The SG put out a statement:
The GOVERNMENT has no right to call on censorship. Or to decide what is "misinformation." Even if it were just flagging....how do you think think a private business reacts when the gov (the boss) flaggs something?
Also remember it was stated that the Lab and if it was funded by our tax dollars. They also called that "misinformation" as well. Numerous posts censored. It is a fact. Same with Hunter's labtop. It was all fake and censored the posts. (Even banned a established new paper) Until siddenly Hunter admitted it was likely his laptop.
The GOV nor any social media (with or without the gov help) should not be censoring information. Social media is either a publisher or an editor....they do not get to be both legally.
This post was edited by my2cents at July 19, 2021 4:34 AM MDT
The government is making a request. It is not mandating these sites to do anything. Do you understand the difference between a request and a mandate? Social media sites, like this one, are within their rights to censor whatever doesn't comport with their terms of use. You have censored some of my comments and those of others as well when you thought it violated the rules. So, how can you say that other sites don't have the same right? You can't. You just don't like that the government is asking sites not to put out misinformation about the vaccines which you don't want to take. Well, that's all well and good, but you are not the only person in the universe and the government is acting in what it believes are the best interests of all of us - not just you.
No one is censored for their opinion here. No one is censored for "misinformation" here. People are censored for being disrespectful to users here or it was something that should have been posted in Adultmug.
FB, Twitter etc are censoring based on opinions and claimed disinformation....this should not be legal and I believe will be ruled in court soon that it is not....if the sites want the protections from Sec 230. As I said they cannot ne both a publisher and an editor. There are serveral cases pending now.
She did not say requesting....Psaki said they working with them directly. AG Garland has even commented that the WH is "treading on thin ice" on this.
"People have the right to learn and use all information available to them at the time".
All people (other than anarchists, perhaps) believe that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens to some extent (licensure of drivers, background checks, laws designed to ensure some levels of safety, etc.). Given that "people" is a very broad term, and people who can access the internet vary greatly with their abilities to filter, process and learn; (i.e., a 12-year old child, your aging parent with dementia, a person with an intellectual impairment, someone who survived traumatic brain injury, a person with a debilitating mental illness that affects their thinking, etc.), do you think it's appropriate and correct that the government regulate some of the information, that presents itself as fact?
No, absolutely not at all what I was saying in any way, shape or form. That being said, I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote, because it's not applicable. I'm not going to defend a position a don't hold.
My question to you was about government protections of its citizens.
"do you think it's appropriate and correct that the government regulate some of the information, that presents itself as fact?"
No....they government has no right to censor a persons freedom of speech. The government should put out the information they believe to be correct. But they Constitutionally do NOT have the authority to censor anyone who has a different view than they do on any subject.
No gov should have that power to decide what it misinformation and censor or have it censored by another private entity.
The gov literally withheld treatment from black men in the who were diagnosed with syphilis....to study the effects of untreated syphilis. If FB etc had been around then the gov would have been claiming it was misinformation. And asking/flagging/working in direct contact with FB to remove it.
They had FB remove posts about the SARS-2 virus coming out of the lab and not the wet market. (As disinformation) They censored alls storiies about Hunter's labtop as Russian disinformation. (Until Hunter said it likely was his) Even an established news paper was banned from their account until they agree to remove the article. (Which they had blocked)
NO government shoild have this power.
No private entity should have the power to silence someone based on their opinions. But that is a different topic.
This is about censoring opinions. And an internet platform cannot censor based on opinions. It they do then they are not a publisher (who gets protections in court under Sec 230) they are in fact an editor and are not entitled to those protections.
And the Government should never have to power to censor anyone's opinion.
Psaki is ten times smarter than you and I will ever be. Unfortunate that you believe otherwise.
This post was edited by SpunkySenior at July 16, 2021 2:50 PM MDT
Read again (or circle back) ....I did not call her anything. The post I responded to said it came from the "brainless right" Well, the quote is directly out of Psaki's mouth.
SpunkySenior 