Active Now

my2cents
Nanoose
bevo
boku wa sekkusu daisuki
excon
Slartibartfast
Don Barzini
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » Should the gov be allowed to pressure social media sites to remove users post if the gov does not like the content?

Should the gov be allowed to pressure social media sites to remove users post if the gov does not like the content?

Congressman Schiff sent Facebook a letter about anti-vaxxing information being promoted FB. FB has already begun deleting users posts. 

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2019/02/21/pinterest-blocks-vaccination-searches-halt-anti-vaxx-misinformation-spread/2938629002/

 https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/facebook-working-on-additional-changes-to-beat-down-anti-vaxxers/ 

https://healthscamsexposed.com/2019/02/facebook-set-to-ban-all-posts-questioning-vaccines/

This is not about the topic being deleted but about should the gov control social media.

Posted - March 1

Responses


  • 583
    If it presents a threat to society at large I believe Government should step in.  The anti vac crowd bothers me and I believe presents a great threat to society as whole. 

    As a parent of young kids I know how precious they are.  I have seen young ones die in the refugee camps in the Middle East and Africa.  I have seen epidemics and the death.  When a parent loses a child it is devasting. these anti vac folks are promoting death IMO
      March 1, 2019 6:55 PM MST
    4

  • 10410
    It's not a matter what you think.  It's a constitutional issue.  In this instance, Facebook is acting on behalf of the government therefore not allowed to control the content of political speech.  If they were acting on their own it would be different.  Not right, but not unconstitutional. This post was edited by Thriftymaid at March 2, 2019 8:08 AM MST
      March 2, 2019 3:13 AM MST
    1

  • 12948
    I disagree. The gov is infringing on free speech. 
    What happens when they decide we can not criticize the a candidate or a new law? 

      March 2, 2019 7:18 AM MST
    1

  • 2861
    On the whole, no; social media forums are civilian-owned and operated companies, not agencies subject to the whim of government and it should absolutely stay that way

    That said, it is difficult to argue that sane advice identifying potentially destructive or socially irresponsible activity isn’t worthy of acting upon, in the interest of the common good (in this case, the site AND its members), regardless of where it comes from.  
      March 1, 2019 8:38 PM MST
    3

  • 7123
    Dangerous precedent. It's all very well for a government to express concern, but it's a horse of an entirely different colour to demand removal of disapproved content unless it contravenes the law (soliciting the sale of illegal goods, for example). First Amendment.
      March 1, 2019 10:44 PM MST
    3

  • 5422
    This might be one of the few things we agree on :P I don't think people should be prevented from expressing opinions. EVER..  Criminal activity, that's another matter, child abuse, terrorism.. that's criminal so can be removed, and preferably used to prosecute..  
      March 2, 2019 9:43 AM MST
    2

  • 12948
    I may to rethink my position. Lol. No, there are somethings we should all agree on. 
      March 2, 2019 10:14 AM MST
    0

  • 31471

    He told of the dangers.  So what? 
      March 2, 2019 10:25 AM MST
    1

  • 2957
    This is fake news. No one has told either Facebook or Google to do anything, but they are asking questions.  Have you even read the letters that Schiff wrote to Pichai and Zuckerberg? Why not do a bit of research before posting such things?

    Why doesn't this article mention that Republican senator Lamar Alexander sent a letter to the CDC and Dept of Health and Human Services asking what they're doing to address vaccine hesitancy? The World Health Organization has identified it (vaccine hesitancy) as a top health threat in 2019, so it is appropriate and expected that our government is taking steps to address this very serious threat to public health. 

    Did you know that the owner of the website you're getting your information from sells health and medical products and runs 'get rich by working  at home' schemes? It is not accredited with the BBB and receives an "F" grade from them? The articles that are posted are geared to appeal to people who are gullible enough to sign up for their "free" newsletter and then charges them $29/month for useless information on how to get rich by duping others. 

    https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-sends-letter-to-google-facebook-regarding-anti-vaccine-misinformation

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/facebook-working-on-additional-changes-to-beat-down-anti-vaxxers/

    https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/2526c6c6-1837-4e27-ba49-4f6aa5db96d0/february-8.pdf

    https://www.bbb.org/us/nv/reno/profile/health-and-medical-products/lop-solutions-llc-1166-90006322










      March 2, 2019 11:13 AM MST
    1

  • 12948
    He did send the letters. And they are listening to him. Sounds true to me. But I did edit my question to change "tell" to "pressure" and added some more links. 

    (Oh and liking a post is never against the TOS here) 

      March 2, 2019 7:10 PM MST
    0

  • 1194
    In general, no, because it would contravene freedom of speech.

    But there are limits.

    It should be illegal to post anything that promotes:
    sedition or treason,
    anything that undermines the democratic process,
    terrorism,
    hate or hate crimes,
    false information or disproven facts which could cause significant harm if believed,
    False advertising or advertising which directly leads to scams.

    It should also be illegal to publish in visual or auditory, or written modes: 
    someone's private information without their written or recorded consent,
    and anything trollish, rude, sarcastic or abusive.

    We already have plenty of evidence of the serious harm that can come from misuse of the internet.

      March 2, 2019 5:46 PM MST
    1