Should Social Media shut down Conspiracy Theories?

[Emergent]

I understand that private entities can control what speech is put on their media. But is that a wise idea not to air alternative points of view on huge powerhouses such as Youtube, facebook, Twitter Etc?

I'm thinking specifically of this Plandemic lady. I, personally, have not viewed her video. I'm not interested in her particular point of view. I have never felt the need to investigate every conspiracy theory out there.

I do think there is a lot of paranoia in sothat might be well earned. Social media such as facebook and Youtube wield enormous power and influence over public opinion.

The government has pulled a lot of sneaky tricks on the public over the years. I don't trust them. I also don't trust the Chinese government.

I don't trust large pharmaceutical companies or the mega-corporations. Their lust for money, power and influence is insatiable.

Should we give social media giants, who practically hold monopolies on the public form, the abilities to shut down conspiracy theories? I'll bet there are some true ones out there.

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Emergent said:

You've chosen to ignore content by toomuchbaloney.

That's a form of acceptable behavior on social media, to ignore the content rather than engage.

[toomuchbaloney]

9 hours ago, GamerNurseRN said:

Okay, you win. Let's just keep printing money out of thin air to the point where it's as valuable as monopoly money as we stay quarantined forever. These blue state governors are bastardizing what Fauci is saying and everyone knows it. ...people in Michigan can't go outside in their yards even if they live out in the country....yeah...that's some mitigation right there. Maybe a few more nanny state drones in NJ as well to spy on people who want to play catch in their own yards. THAT is what I'm talking about.

How did Florida do so well? Heavily populated with seniors, yet has the lowest senior death rate.

Hyperbole is a terrible defense of an argument.

[Tenebrae, BSN, RN]

On 5/12/2020 at 7:42 AM, guest1068029 said:

Already started earlier this Spring. Thanks for bringing it up anyways. I have majored in Microbiology briefly, so I know what I am talking about and seems your colleague doesn't. Don't need to throw in CDC in here. CDC is influenced by corporate and political interests, so they will be bias against a different view unfortunately.

'Majored in Microbiology briefly' Thats somewhat of a contradiction just saying

When I majored in social policy prior to my nursing degree it was alot more involved. To speak with any authority on the subject of Microbiology IMO people need more than a college major, they also need significant post graduate study and research

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

18 hours ago, hherrn said:

What you laid out is pretty much how the First Amendment is interpreted, and applies to government restriction of free speech.

I support the right of the Klan and Nazis to demonstrate. I would also support anybody who threw human feces on them while doing so. And, I fully support the right of a private entity to refuse to give them a platform.

The videos in question were in no way censored by the government. Private entities chose to take them down because of the harm they might do.

Obviously they have a line. The videos in question crossed that line.

Yes, what happened is called censorship. Private entities do it more frequently in this country than public entities. It is a problem and does hinder free speech.

Examples: book burning, censorship by the library, bookstores, etc.

The internet is the new library. It's where we read. Where we gather ideas and develop them.

In a free society, ideas are allowed to exist and be expressed freely.

Human rights are not granted to us by the government (or any other entity) but something we have intrinsically.

And while I understand why you would support someone throwing feces at a nazi, throwing feces is not speech.

[toomuchbaloney]

4 minutes ago, FolksBtrippin said:

Yes, what happened is called censorship. Private entities do it more frequently in this country than public entities. It is a problem and does hinder free speech.

A local school board, here in Alaska, just decided to abruptly remove some books from their local school library, the required reading list and and the educational plan. That is censorship. The larger community objected when it became widely known.

The local comedy club restricting profanity or hate speech during their open mic events is not censorship. The local bakery refusing to put profanity or hate speech on a cake is not censorship. Can you think of other examples where verbal behavior of residents, customers, or visitors might be regulated by non-governmental or private entities?

[toomuchbaloney]

Those private companies or venues are not required to allow all speech on their platform or product. Those companies are saying that they are not participating in spreading that speech by allowing it on their platform or product. Those people can continue to say or write or spread their thoughts or beliefs or ideas...elsewhere.

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

A local school board, here in Alaska, just decided to abruptly remove some books from their local school library, the required reading list and and the educational plan. That is censorship. The larger community objected when it became widely known.

The local comedy club restricting profanity or hate speech during their open mic events is not censorship. The local bakery refusing to put profanity or hate speech on a cake is not censorship. Can you think of other examples where verbal behavior of residents, customers, or visitors might be regulated by non-governmental or private entities?

I agree with you that the local comedy club and bakery refusing to allow profanity or hate speech is not censorship.

So, I am not really sure what you are getting at.

My assertions are that:

1. Human rights including the right to free speech are something we intrinsically possess and are not granted to us by a government.

2. Social media is not private space and is actually public space and should be defined and treated as such.

3. When social media giants take down conspiracy theories and such due to their inaccuracy, that is patently censorship and as such represents a threat to free speech rights.

[toomuchbaloney]

30 minutes ago, FolksBtrippin said:

I agree with you that the local comedy club and bakery refusing to allow profanity or hate speech is not censorship.

So, I am not really sure what you are getting at.

My assertions are that:

1. Human rights including the right to free speech are something we intrinsically possess and are not granted to us by a government.

2. Social media is not private space and is actually public space and should be defined and treated as such.

3. When social media giants take down conspiracy theories and such due to their inaccuracy, that is patently censorship and as such represents a threat to free speech rights.

I believe that I understood what you were asserting. You are asserting that privately owned digital platforms should be forced to accommodate all speech, regardless of ownership's analysis and finding that the speech is fraudulent, hateful, inciting, propaganda, slander, or offensive to them or others, right? Will this require a government watchdog to insure that all submissions or uploads are published by the private entity?

How does this translate for newspapers and magazines, must they also publish obvious nonsense or propaganda?

People spreading nonsense don't have a right to publication or amplification of their speech. There are a million street corners, and chatrooms and digital forums for the wackos.

The tax payers did not build and do not own facebook or Twitter or Instagram or any other of the social media platforms. The tax payers and their elected officials regulate that digital business to require compliance with the law. No American is guaranteed access to any of those digital platforms. Access to those platforms for publication of individual speech is not guaranteed and is not a right. Governmental mandate that individual speech must be published on a media outlet, of any kind, has never been a consideration in this free republic.

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

I am very glad for the ALLNURSES.COM "Terms Of Service".

https://allnurses.com/terms-of-service/

[Guest219794]

7 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I agree except the counter protesters shouldn't be able to throw anything at anyone...freedom of speech doesn't include that behavior. They can, however, defend themselves when the easily triggered hate mongers lose their cool and get violent.

I didn't say that they should be able to throw feces on Nazis, just that I support it. I don't think there are good people on both sides, and I have no problem when bad things happen to bad people.

But- I expect our government to uphold the constitution. And, when we speak of free speech and censorship, that is about government control of speech. It is only the truly wacky who believe that facebook/Youtube are part of some deep state conspiracy to keep profiting from shutdown. Gonna go out on a limb here and guess that a bunch of them believed that maybe Obama was born in another country.

I think the OP brings up a good question when it comes to private entities.

[TheDudeWithTheBigDog, ADN, RN]

On 5/15/2020 at 5:02 PM, herring_RN said:

I bolded the untrue part of your opinion. When people make errors of fact their opinion is not likely to be taken seriously.

From Michigan Governor Whitmer's executive order

... All individuals who leave their home or place of residence must adhere to social distancing measures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), including remaining at least six feet from people from outside the individual’s household to the extent feasible under the circumstances... https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-528460--,00.html

Give you one guess what website he was getting that information about "not being allowed to go outside" from.

I remember one post I read somewhat recently on there that my state took away our second amendment rights and we have to stand up and fight it. I literally read that while I was waiting for the guy working the shop to go get my new gun for me.

[Guest219794]

4 hours ago, FolksBtrippin said:

I agree with you that the local comedy club and bakery refusing to allow profanity or hate speech is not censorship.

So, I am not really sure what you are getting at.

My assertions are that:

1. Human rights including the right to free speech are something we intrinsically possess and are not granted to us by a government.

2. Social media is not private space and is actually public space and should be defined and treated as such.

3. When social media giants take down conspiracy theories and such due to their inaccuracy, that is patently censorship and as such represents a threat to free speech rights.

Social media is not private space and is actually public space and should be defined and treated as such.

You just posted this on a social media site which you voluntarily agreed to TOS that restricts what you can and can not say.

As far as social media sites taking down conspiracy theories- You believe that should be allowed. Should there be any restrictions?

I have a doctorate in philosophy, and believe that the best course for parents is to deliberately expose their children to Covid, and to withhold all fluids, antipyretics or food in in febrile infants. When I post my convincing video explaining how this will confer immunity, is there any obligation to take it down, or should it be left up?

I am planning to wear my white coat, stethoscope over the shoulder- whole shebang.