Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Asclepias]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​

In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?

Beyond inciting crimes, no.

Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn. No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.

 

[JohnDB]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
That is a fact.
On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
That, to me, is worse than the internet.

Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..

People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.

Not if you can't identify them. Why do you think the people that make all the computer viruses almost never get caught?

So? Same goes for the media. Whatever. Not looking to debate the matter. It's the Truth™ - you can be sued for spreading false information on the internet. You were suggesting the opposite. Which isn't true.

You can sue a ham sandwich for having mustard and mayo on it... maybe even using the slice of cheese on it as corroboration. But collecting a judgement for damages is another subject altogether.

Can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

[Flopper]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.

At the begin of the information age in the mid 20th century, there was a sharp divide between news and opinion. When newspapers crossed the line and began inserting opinion into news articles, both the public and advertisers were quick to react. Every graduate of a school of journalism had the principal of keeping opinion and intentional slants out of their writing.

At that time the FCC had rules that required TV and radio stations to show disclaimers such as "the following views and opinions expressed do not necessary represent the views of this station and those ...." And in goverment and other institutions publications where opinion was expressed, "The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of".

By the 1960's, the public demand for more news and more analysis and the TV networks desire to make news and information programs more entertaining and thus more profitable lead to a collapse of the wall between news and opinion. TV programs such as "60 Minutes" began to appear first with warnings of the content containing opinion but that soon disappeared. With the growth of cable news networks and then the Internet, any pretense of separating news and news analysis began disappearing. Then we saw news networks taking a position on just about ever controversial issue.

As a result, fact and opinion has merged together so well that we can not agree on facts. And without agreement on facts it is impossible to reach agreements on a proper course of action.

As a starter, the media needs to label news as news and opinion as such. Of course, a lot more needs to be done, exactly what that is, I have no idea but we have to begin somewhere, because this nation cannot stand if we don't fix this.

 

[Ringtone]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​

In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?

Beyond inciting crimes, no.

Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn. No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.

I'm well aware of the differences between the public and private sectors relative to the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

It's the OP that's nonsensical! Some limit on freedom of speech?! Oxymoron. The OP suggests that we find a way to control speech on the Internet . . . because if we don't, the government will step in. Huh?

We already have a regulatory mechanism for speech, i.e., the free exchange of ideas in the public and private sectors in accordance with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

Inciting criminality goes to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate speech relative to the absolute, natural and constitutional right. In the public square, that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality, it's not a crime for me to say whatever I please on another's site either; notwithstanding, my right does not override another's property rights. Of course, the owner is free to censor me, set rules. . . .

The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists. Classical liberals (conservatives/libertarians) mostly grasp the pertinent dynamics and boundaries of natural and constitutional law.

 

[Asclepias]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​

In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?

Beyond inciting crimes, no.

Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn. No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.

I'm well aware of the differences between the public and private sectors relative to the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

It's the OP that's nonsensical! Some limit on freedom of speech?! Oxymoron. The OP suggests that we find a way to control speech on the Internet . . . because if we don't, the government will step in. Huh? We already have a regulatory mechanism for speech, i.e., the free exchange of ideas in the public and private sectors in accordance with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

Inciting criminality goes to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate speech relative to the absolute, natural and constitutional right. In the public square, that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality, it's not a crime for me to say whatever I please on another's site either; notwithstanding, my right does not override another's property rights. Of course, the owner is free to censor me, set rules. . . .

The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists. Classical liberals (conservatives/libertarians) mostly grasp the pertinent dynamics and boundaries of natural and constitutional law.

"that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality"

There are no rights. There are only privileges and privileges are tenuous at best. I can prove that to you with 2 examples.

1. All someone has to do is make what you are saying a crime and what you believed was a right is clearly revealed as....not a right.

2. In regard to a natural right? That too is a pipe dream. Nature does not recognize rights. If something more lethal takes your "rights" away there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

There needs to be a proper understanding of liberty-responsibility.

Given a proper understanding of the relevance in referencing the two indivisibly and in the historic manner deserved, the question is moot. Patently.

I've yet to see this very critical discussion had here, however. Ever.

For every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty. For every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility. So that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility.

I often mention that the gradual erosion of virtue in society is probably the most unrecognized threat to Individual liberty in America today.

The reason I mention that fact is because there actually is a primary foundation for moral code from which our form of government was established.

I say form of government as opposed to saying popular type of government so as to specify the difference between our Republic and the recently popularized use of intellectually dishonest language which strategically trains people to think of our Republic as "A Democracy. Or "Our Democracy' as they've flirted around with. There's a difference between "A Democracy and democracy. And that's the difference in reconizing and clearly understanding that ''our Republic'' is antithetical to the whole "Our Democracy" language.

And no matter what channel the idiot box is on they're all referencing our republic as our Democracy. All of em. Even their beloved Tucker.

In doing so all they're really doing is openly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of form versus type of government. Which renders all of them unqualified to even discuss such things. Much less lead that discussion.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Facts are just opinions

No. Where did you get a stupid idea like that?

Tell me a fact, I will wait

 

[Asclepias]

Facts are just opinions

No. Where did you get a stupid idea like that?

Tell me a fact, I will wait

If your head is severed you will die eventually.

 

[hjmick]

No.

 

[Ringtone]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​

In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?

Beyond inciting crimes, no.

Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn. No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.

I'm well aware of the differences between the public and private sectors relative to the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

It's the OP that's nonsensical! Some limit on freedom of speech?! Oxymoron. The OP suggests that we find a way to control speech on the Internet . . . because if we don't, the government will step in. Huh? We already have a regulatory mechanism for speech, i.e., the free exchange of ideas in the public and private sectors in accordance with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

Inciting criminality goes to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate speech relative to the absolute, natural and constitutional right. In the public square, that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality, it's not a crime for me to say whatever I please on another's site either; notwithstanding, my right does not override another's property rights. Of course, the owner is free to censor me, set rules. . . .

The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists. Classical liberals (conservatives/libertarians) mostly grasp the pertinent dynamics and boundaries of natural and constitutional law.

"that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality"

There are no rights. There are only privileges and privileges are tenuous at best. I can prove that to you with 2 examples.

1. All someone has to do is make what you are saying a crime and what you believed was a right is clearly revealed as....not a right.

2. In regard to a natural right? That too is a pipe dream. Nature does not recognize rights. If something more lethal takes your "rights" away there is nothing you can do about it.

Hogwash!

Mere privileges, he says.

First, you misinterpreted my original observation. You thought I was arguing against the property rights of privately owned platforms and/or servers. I wasn't, was I?

Now you’re making an absolute, philosophical claim regarding the nature of reality itself.

The rights of natural law are inherent. They are endowed by God, not by nature. That is what is meant by the term of art The Law of Nature and Nature’s God. They cannot be given to us or taken away from us by the state. They cannot be transferred. Period. They can only be illegitimately suppressed/violated by social renegades or by the state. The inherent rights of natural law do not cease to exist because they are suppressed/violated.

You're exhibit A as to why leftists in general and atheists in particular cannot be trusted to defend liberty.

 

[Asclepias]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​

In what sense do we have freedom of speech when it's limited?

Beyond inciting crimes, no.

Your free speech isn't limited. Basically what you are saying is that instead of using your own bullhorn you have the right to disobey my rules while using mine. You dont like my rules use your own bullhorn. No one is stopping you. If they are then that's a violation of free speech and only if the government is the one stopping you.

I'm well aware of the differences between the public and private sectors relative to the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

It's the OP that's nonsensical! Some limit on freedom of speech?! Oxymoron. The OP suggests that we find a way to control speech on the Internet . . . because if we don't, the government will step in. Huh? We already have a regulatory mechanism for speech, i.e., the free exchange of ideas in the public and private sectors in accordance with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law.

Inciting criminality goes to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate speech relative to the absolute, natural and constitutional right. In the public square, that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality, it's not a crime for me to say whatever I please on another's site either; notwithstanding, my right does not override another's property rights. Of course, the owner is free to censor me, set rules. . . .

The only nitwits who routinely suppress or compel speech in violation of the right are leftists. Classical liberals (conservatives/libertarians) mostly grasp the pertinent dynamics and boundaries of natural and constitutional law.

"that right is absolute, and as long as I'm not inciting criminality"

There are no rights. There are only privileges and privileges are tenuous at best. I can prove that to you with 2 examples.

1. All someone has to do is make what you are saying a crime and what you believed was a right is clearly revealed as....not a right.

2. In regard to a natural right? That too is a pipe dream. Nature does not recognize rights. If something more lethal takes your "rights" away there is nothing you can do about it.

Hogwash!

First, you misinterpreted my original observation. You thought I was arguing against the property rights of privately owned platforms and/or servers. I wasn't, was I?

Now you’re making an absolute, philosophical claim regarding the nature of reality itself.

The rights of natural law are inherent. They are endowed by God, not by nature. That is what is meant by the term of art The Law of Nature and Nature’s God. They cannot be given to us or taken away from us by the state. They cannot be transferred. Period. They can only be illegitimately suppressed/violated by social renegades or by the state. The inherent rights of natural law do not cease to exist because they are suppressed/violated.

You're exhibit A as to why leftists in general and atheists in particular cannot be trusted to defend liberty.

"They are endowed by God, not by nature"

You are deluded. Prove there is a god. I'll wait.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home. If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.

View attachment 513663

Correct, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the doctrine of freedom of speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as social media and their subscribers.

As private entities, social media are at complete liberty to determine who will or will not participate

Social media cannot ‘violate’ freedom of speech; social media have neither the power nor authority to limit or preempt speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Which is why we have a Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Should the people err and enact legislation repugnant to the First Amendment, such as government control and regulation of social media, the courts will invalidate such legislation as being unconstitutional, and appropriately so.

In the context of private society, private citizens are at liberty to speak out against private speech they find inappropriate, offensive, or dangerous, absent interference by government or the courts.
.

 

[Desperado]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Absolutely NOT. If you set limits then you have to have a censor board to decides what can and cannot be said. Muc ike we have the White House censoring Covid conversatios That is wrong in somany ways.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Platforms that allow the spreading of dis-information should be sanctioned if they are not willing to limit the spread of disinformation themselves. The regulatory bodies have a role to play in this. They are not doing it.

Disagree - if by ‘regulatory bodies’ you mean government.

If social media are being reckless and irresponsible concerning facilitating the spread of misinformation and lies, then they should be sanctioned by private citizens - not government.

Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against social media, boycott social media, and refuse to participate by closing accounts.

But private citizens are not at liberty to use the government to sanction social media.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

There already are limits based on preventing fraud, deceptive or false advertising, misrepresentation or defamation, slander libel death threats, conspiracy to violate rights, etc.

The problem and solution are based on the Golden Rule of Reciprocity.

Parties that benefit from slandering each other lose authority and leverage to police against abuses they equally commit and promote.

That is why not more is getting done effectively, Flopper. If you play the same game, you lose credibility and cannot compel or correct others.

I, and others seeking to correct misperceptions without exploiting biases or problems to exclude or overrule others politically, tend to experience better reception and effective communication to resolve misunderstanding or miscommunication, since we are NOT motivated by onesided political bias, but we seek to INCLUDE and defend people equally (not just blame one side while excusing others).

We can all be more united and effective in correcting misinformation by being more consistent ourselves.

By using free speech correctly, freedom of the press and right to petition to redress grievances peaceably, the First Amendment checks itself against abuses.

Only if we abuse it, do we lose authority, credibility and leverage to prevent abuse. You cannot enforce laws as consistently unless you commit to respect them so you practice what you preach and compel others by your example.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home. If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.

View attachment 513663

ever hear of a monopoly?

Ever hear of MySpace? They WERE a big deal and now their gone. Nothing is permanent about anything. If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out? Reagan would be embarrassed.

A fascit fucktard like you invoking Reagan is as pathetic as you can get.


Fascitbook joining the feds to decide for everyone else what is "misinformation" or not is straight out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.....In Murica, it's known as "prior restraint" and ruled by USSC as defacto censorship.

This is a lie - as ignorant as it is idiotic.

Neither FB nor the government are engaging in ‘prior restraint.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.

And?

The problem is authoritarians who seek to violate the First Amendment by subjecting social media to unwarranted regulation and restriction.

Don’t like how a given platform conducts business, then don’t participate.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The problem is that Facebook first squelched posts about the virus having come from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Virology Lab and now everyone thinks that is where it came from.

And?

The problem is authoritarians who seek to violate the First Amendment by subjecting social media to unwarranted regulation and restriction.

Don’t like how a given platform conducts business, then don’t participate.

monopoly and the government is playing with fire

 

[candycorn]

Platforms that allow the spreading of dis-information should be sanctioned if they are not willing to limit the spread of disinformation themselves. The regulatory bodies have a role to play in this. They are not doing it.

Disagree - if by ‘regulatory bodies’ you mean government.

If social media are being reckless and irresponsible concerning facilitating the spread of misinformation and lies, then they should be sanctioned by private citizens - not government.

Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against social media, boycott social media, and refuse to participate by closing accounts.

But private citizens are not at liberty to use the government to sanction social media.

Usually I would agree with you.

I hate crunchy peanut butter. If Facebook was stating that creamy peanut butter will cause you to die... I'd just shrug. None of it is true but there is no viral pandemic where creamy peanut butter was being prescribed as a vaccine to prevent or at least mitigate the pandemic.

That isn't the case about the corona virus...people are dying as a result of the mis-information. Are we going to have to have a three (or four) digit body count to understand that the mis-information about election security is serious?