Is it bad for social media sites to police misinformation?

Of course I think it’s censorship. The two companies that funnel like 70% of news to Americans decided that a story in a major American newspaper can’t be linked to on their platform or would have “reduced distribution,” whatever that means. I do find it alarming that so many here either are applauding it or ignoring it but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

K. Well it isn’t, Glenn.

1 Like

Oh, thank goodness

So them stopping Q stories that are obviously false is fine, but blocking this obvious false story because it’s from a traditional source is bad?

This is the first problem.


Not all censorship is bad.


All Russian IRA propaganda deserves to be published! Otherwise censorship! First Amendment!

Get the actual fuck out of here with that garbage

You guys missed the Senor Troll giving the game away w/ this post, the rest of his non-sense follows from this. Loves watching Trump, Ingraham and his boy Tucker Carlson, but Biden… BOOOORRRRINNNGGGG.

He is a miserable Joker wannabe who wants to be entertained by the suffering and hatred of others, and watch the world burn while he shoves potatoes down his face. All of his “political beliefs” flow from this.



1 Like

I didn’t think that Alex Jones should have been banned because this is a case where the slippery slope argument actually holds water. And for the same reason I don’t like banning Q groups. Who makes that judgement? What is or isn’t a Q group?

And, yeah, it does seem more problematic to do this to an actual newspaper which has some level of editorial oversight and standards. Yes, I know it’s a tabloid but still. How do we know that the story is “obviously false”? Are the emails real? There’s no way for Twitter or Facebook to have known that, as quickly as they acted.

And I’m not saying that I think that the Hunter story is important. It seems quite dumb to be honest. But Facebook and Twitter aggressively curating what stories people are allowed to look at and link to is important.

1 Like

The vast majority of people here have complained for almost 4 years about the amount of ink spillef on Hillarys emails. At least like, 5% of the Hillary stuff was true. The stuff these days is pure fan fiction. It’s not news.

I think the Alex Jones stuff was mostly to avoid getting sued. It would not surprise me if he has a $100+ million judgment coming against him, and obviously twitter/fb/youtube don’t want similar ones against them.

I actually agree with everything in this paragraph if you just change this one word.

Can we get a breakdown of what criteria are necessary and sufficient for a message to have for a media company (traditional, new, tech, etc.) to then be obligated to broadcast it into the lives of billions of people?

1 Like

You’re the one who wants twitter to decide which newspaper articles its users are allowed to link to. What criteria do you want to use?

1 Like

I think Twitter can regulate their platform, yes. “Being in a newspaper” is a shoddy criterion, as anyone can have a newspaper.

Can? No one is disputing that they can, absent a law or court ruling declaring them a public square. You think they ought to do stuff like decide the story about hunter shouldn’t be allowed to be shared?

Is it not in violation of their rules?

1 Like

clicked thread thinking “this must be a keeeeed derail”, was not disappointed


I have no idea and it isn’t relevant to my question.