Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Biden Administration's Admission They're Flagging Content to Facebook

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by OklahomaGator, Jul 16, 2021.

  1. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,257
    386
    1,358
    Apr 16, 2007
    How do you know these activities are all “perfectly legal”? From my understanding, they are taking issue with organized misinformation campaigns. Those are, at least potentially, illegal.

    It probably isn’t productive for the govt to waste time with the volume of posts. But going after the organized criminals behind some of it, could be both productive and useful. The problem is this is a major source of revenue for Facebook and Twitter, which is why they sort of dance around it a bit, their incentive isn’t really lined up with cleaning up the platform (obviously the criminal behavior from the inorganic “Stop the Steal” movement and 1/6 was a short term impetus for them to boot some of these bad actors from their platforms).
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  2. GatorBen

    GatorBen GC Hall of Fame

    4,880
    587
    1,083
    Apr 9, 2007
    What I’m saying is naive is the idea that this isn’t the government actually doing anything and that Facebook would treat a .gov report the same way they would a report from your Great-Aunt Bertha.

    But in any event, Frum’s analogy is a bad one - what he cites stands for the proposition that the government doesn’t allow drug manufacturers to make false and misleading claims to try to sell a product. It’s not illegal for Joe Q. Public to voice an opinion, even a grossly incorrect one, about a medical product - that’s why we haven’t seen some coordinated government push to, for example, silence Jenny McCarthy when she says childhood vaccines gave her child autism.

    But it’s also a bad analogy for another reason - that’s the government taking actual regulatory action. If the government thinks the speech is illegal, they should do something official about it, not this nonsensical “we’re only reporting content, it’s up to Facebook to decide what to do with it *wink wink*” charade where they try to walk the line of coercing private companies to silence the statements but simultaneously do it without putting the imprimatur of official government action on it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  3. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,257
    386
    1,358
    Apr 16, 2007

    Is the govt going after every single John Q Public with 20 followers, or would it be looking at the guy with 1 million followers (who is no doubt monetizing that following)?

    If it’s the former, I agree with you. Govt should’t waste their time. If it’s the latter, how is that different from the snake oil salesman or the pharma co spreading false information? Answer: it really isn’t.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  4. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    21,167
    9,366
    1,958
    Aug 26, 2008
    Ask me when Zuckerberg is reporting posts.

    Did the Trump administration attack facebook, amazon, twitter, and many other companies over their opinion on Trump. Did those companies kowtow to Trump? Did those upset with Biden admin express the same feelings when Trump was on the attack against those who dared to disagree with him?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. mutz87

    mutz87 p=.06 VIP Member

    37,229
    32,266
    2,696
    Aug 30, 2014
    Disagree. I think the bottom line of Frum's argument--that govt has long tried to influence private entities is what matters. Sometimes, govt creates laws wrt to e.g. public health and national security etc., but often times, it's an informal influence. Not to mention, so much more goes on behind the scenes, kind of the way things have been (again, Frum's point). If there is a threat of punishment, it would be different.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. GatorFanCF

    GatorFanCF Premium Member

    3,877
    505
    373
    Apr 14, 2007
    Caveat emptor. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20200902_050580000/1-question-no-1-prime-minister

    N
    ew Zealand’s Prime Minister says (paraphrased) “take what you hear about COVID-19 from anyone but the government with a grain of salt. Trust what the government is telling you.”

    She is 1/2 right. Take info from all sources with a grain of salt:
    Big business
    Unions
    The “church”
    Government
    Gossiping neighbor

    it’s amusing to see how one side is so comfortable with government involvement once “their team” is in charge. What happens when their team is no longer in charge?
     
  7. luvtruthg8r

    luvtruthg8r Premium Member

    452
    66
    213
    Apr 3, 2007
    Kudos for writing a funny and clever post! However, everything I wrote is true.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  8. 108

    108 Premium Member

    16,727
    778
    703
    Apr 3, 2007
    NYC
    Sounds like fake outrage to gin up supporters, based on their grievance with social media taking down Trump and other bad actors ability to misinform.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. luvtruthg8r

    luvtruthg8r Premium Member

    452
    66
    213
    Apr 3, 2007
    Almost everything in the Steele report has been shown to have been true. Almost none of it has been proven false. I guess you, like your hero Trump, think that repeating a false statement over and over will cause the rest of us to forget reality. The truth is, as often stated by the late John McLaughlin: you are WRONG!!!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  10. domgator

    domgator Premium Member

    1,564
    80
    188
    Apr 3, 2007
    The current VP and Pres are both on the record stating they would never get a vaccine under a Trump administration. Both of them also are on the record in support of the woman who claimed Kavanaugh led rape trains This woman is telling the truth they told the American people. They are not media are they? And now are they not part of the government? Biden, Pelosi, Harris, Schumer etc are on the record calling Trump a racist for covid travel bans. Are they media? Pelosi was front and center numerous times demanding Trump be impeached for ordering the gassing of protestors in front of White House. Was she part of the media? There are numerous lib politicians on film and in print demanding the defunding of the police. Did you miss that? Were they all part of the media then?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. PacificBlueGator

    PacificBlueGator Senior

    244
    65
    358
    Apr 3, 2007
    I thought of this in reading through the posts. I work in the biopharma industry, and we are very cognizant not to make any claims about a medication that isn't explicitly approved for the indication for which it was studied and presented in the New Drug Application. The reason is to prevent companies from advocating for non-approved indications once the drug is on the market. You could call that censoring or a 1A issue, but it has helped to transform the whole industry to prove any claim made and to protect the public. I see flagging misinformation on the vaccine as the same sort of issue, which has the public health in mind and is literally becoming a life and death issue. The main difference is that a govt health agency is alerting a third party conveyor, FB, on misinformation instead of the individuals/groups perpetrating the misinformation.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. BigCypressGator1981

    BigCypressGator1981 Premium Member

    1,645
    404
    658
    Oct 11, 2011
    Link for any of this?
     
  13. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    11,419
    1,267
    608
    Apr 3, 2007
    It looks like a lot of people think that if there's going to be a governmental message spread through social media intending to influence the American public, it should be from the Russian government.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. BigCypressGator1981

    BigCypressGator1981 Premium Member

    1,645
    404
    658
    Oct 11, 2011
    let’s start with just this bit of bullshit you posted. This is what Harris said:


    In September, Harris, then the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential candidate, hesitated when asked if she would take a vaccine that was approved before the election.

    “I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump,” Harris said, “and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about. I will not take his word for it.”

    Not even close to being the same as saying they would “never get a vaccine under the Trump admin”

    You need to at least make an effort to be honest or I will not engage you further.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  15. BigCypressGator1981

    BigCypressGator1981 Premium Member

    1,645
    404
    658
    Oct 11, 2011
    Next point - supporting Ford during her ordeal @ Kav’s confirmation and giving her “the benefit of the doubt” is not even close to the same thing as coming out and saying Kav led “rape trains”

    Again, please make an effort to be honest.
     
  16. BigCypressGator1981

    BigCypressGator1981 Premium Member

    1,645
    404
    658
    Oct 11, 2011
    Link to Harris or Biden ever mentioning that dipshit kid Nick Sandmann? You’re just lying. Very poorly at that.
     
  17. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    11,419
    1,267
    608
    Apr 3, 2007
    If happens, would be a first
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,562
    412
    468
    Jun 14, 2014
    If Facebook thinks it is being coerced, that would be a problem. Absent that, it's hard to see how the federal government just flagging posts as potentially violating Facebook's terms of service violates the first amendment. It's pretty well settled that the government may speak as it chooses, including expressing opinions about the speech of others. Heck, Trump regularly demanded that pundits he didn't like be fired, which goes way beyond just suggesting someone is breaking the rules.

    Whether the government should bother with this sort of thing is another question. I tend to lean towards no, just from an optics perspective, but it's not a big deal either way IMO.
     
  19. WarDamnGator

    WarDamnGator GC Hall of Fame

    6,948
    611
    1,468
    Apr 8, 2007
    Why? Politicians trying to influence the media has been going on for as long as media and politicians have existed. Does the format of the media really mater that much, that its not okay for a government employee to report a TOS violation, but it is OK for a government employee to call into Fox and Friends and be given carte blanche air time whenever he feels like it?
     
  20. WarDamnGator

    WarDamnGator GC Hall of Fame

    6,948
    611
    1,468
    Apr 8, 2007
    I'm sure they could simplify this with a bot, so that little employee time is wasted.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1