Posted on 05/21/2020 7:25:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
A surge in topics being moderated and censored by social media companies is causing alarm among some experts who say we’re moving rapidly toward losing our online freedoms.
Most recently, platforms have started moderating CCP virus-related content they deem to be misinformation. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said the platform would be “removing information that is problematic” including “anything that goes against World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations.”
Mark Grabowski, an associate professor specializing in cyber law and digital ethics at Adelphi University, said there’s a double standard when it comes to online speech, in particular with virus-related topics, as of late.
“In some cases, the [virus] content was produced by authoritative sources like physicians, professors, and epidemiologists,” he told The Epoch Times. “Meanwhile, these same platforms are promoting highly speculative opinions by people who are completely unqualified to speak on the topic.”
Twitter recently highlighted a news story about Melinda Gates stating governors were opening states too early. “She’s not an expert on this matter; she has an MBA,” Grabowski said.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
This qualifies for a NSS award.
(no shit Sherlock)
Threatened??? Censorship??? I was kicked off Facebook permanently because they didn’t like what I was saying.
hey need “experts” to tell them that?
According to some FReepers, when a site gets too big its property rights disappear.
Some cannot think critically.
No, their private property rights were curtailed when they got started with government cash, and got a special government protection from litigation in exchange for them being a neutral channel rather than a content editor.
Was that an agreement they signed in exchange for the cash? Or does every business owner who got started with e.g. SBA assistance have curtailed property rights?
and got a special government protection from litigation in exchange for them being a neutral channel rather than a content editor.
If that's section 230 of the CDA you're referring to, it explicitly permits a provider to restrict any material they consider to be objectionable.
I certainly agree. For example, Facebook has become a major communications system, like a telephone company. It should have no more authority to censor communication than a telephone company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.