[Guardian] Liberals want to blame rightwing 'misinformation' for our problems. Get real

Don't bother. The OP hasn't even stated whether he agrees or not with the op-ed and when pressed on it he will just post another op-ed rather than articulate his own opinion.

Leaving that aside this is still an important issue and one that definitely needs more debate. Consider the fact that we're discussing this on a moderated forum. This is an issue with real world consequences and too often these type of arguments ignore the implications of such rhetoric. We know for a fact from many of those arrested at the Jan. 6th assault were motivated by misinformation they saw on social media. We know for a fact from many who oppose vaccination and other steps to fight a global pandemic that their reasons are based on misinformation that they saw social media. If you want to take an example from the other side of the political spectrum last July there was a spate of destruction and looting in Minnesota over false stories regarding LEO shootings. Tony Frank is aware of this as he writes:
"Six years later and liberals can’t wait for that extraordinary new world to end. Today we know that social media is what gives you things like Donald Trump’s lying tweets, the QAnon conspiracy theory and the Capitol riot of 6 January. Social media, we now know, is a volcano of misinformation, a non-stop wallow in hatred and lies, generated for fun and profit, and these days liberal politicians are openly pleading with social media’s corporate masters to pleez clamp a ceiling on it, to stop people from sharing their false and dangerous stories."

While being aware of it he downplays it and instead paints the larger threat as Liberals engaging in an "information disorder" as elites deciding what the people should be able to hear. To him this threat isn't primarily an argument of free speech as a principal but as something the GOP will exploit for political advantage. As he writes:
"But, folks, it is happening. And the folly of it all is beyond belief. To say that this will give the right an issue to campaign on is almost too obvious. "

I agree with Frank that the Republicans will exploit this and as we've seen it already with all the cries of "CE0NSORSHIP" and "FREE SPEECH" from the Right they are using it. The problem with this argument though is that whether they use it or not as a wedge issue ignores that there are real world consequences beyond the ballot box on the spread of misinformation.

Lives literally are being lost because of it.

My own view is that Facebook, Twitter, and etc.. are in a no win situation. While many are criticizing them that so much misinformation is being circulated on their platforms others are demanding they allow that under the banner of free speech. There is never going to be a perfect solution and they will never please everyone. As stated though there are real consequences and they are acutely aware of that risk coming back to them.

What make this situation even stranger and why I will say again many on the Right don't even know what they are arguing for anymore, is the idea that an ideological movement that has long defended the rights of private business regarding how they conduct their business are now demanding more interference in how they run their businesses. This is where the argument get's truly bizarre. The argument goes that businesses should have a right to make decisions for profit reasons but for reasons that aren't then they shouldn't be able to be allowed to. For example a publishing company should be able to stop publishing a book title because it isn't selling well but not if many people find it offensive. The inherent problem with this is that for a for profit company nearly every decision comes down to the bottom line. Material that many find offensive isn't likely going to be a good seller and most likely will end up dragging the overall brand.

So you have those who frequently decry Marxism essentially adopting Marxist rhetoric that decisions of private businesses should be subsumed to what they see as a greater public good.

When it comes to social media companies the situation is even more complicated. The nature of Internet 2.0 as being about allowing everyone and anyone to provide content is inherently problematic when private companies are responsible for building and maintaining the platforms. They are being held responsible for content that they didn't generate and they don't agree with. It would be like saying Clutch is responsible for all of the crazy trade talk on GARM or the poo we fling on D&D. Clearly Clutch doesn't agree with most of what is posted but chances are if a riot occurred outside Toyota Center because of a misleading trade rumor spread on GARM a lot of people would be holding Clutch and Clutchfans.net responsible.

With things like Facebook this isn't just about their responsibility for the content but again comes down to the bottomline. Facebook isn't moderating content out of the goodness of Mark Zuckerberg's heart but is very clearly a response towards threats of greater regulation and advertiser boycotts. Facebook is smart enough to realize that not moderating will eventually lead to less revenue. Now the argument put forward by the Right is that Facebook shouldn't be able to do that, that they are actually now the commons and as such the principal of the First Amendment should take precedence over what happens on their private cyber property. There is an open debate about whether social media represents the commons and platforms like Facebook are so large that they basically are the town square. That is undercut by that there are other platforms and again is a strange argument for the Right to make. Accepting that argument would mean that the market doesn't actually work so it's not enough that Parler exists as a counter to Facebook.

Again bizarre when considering many of these are the same people who previously argued that bakeries could "censor" content by not doing wedding cakes for gay marriages and for reasons that weren't stated as financial.

To sum up yes there is an issue with allowing content on large social media platforms but can't ignore the real world implications of social media.

 

I dont have a facebook but I dont think Zuckerburg would hate groups gather across it's platform and spread it's violence.

 

"Nobody loves ‘cancel culture’ more than Republicans do"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...oves-cancel-culture-more-than-republicans-do/

excerpt:

America, conservatives will tell you, is under siege by “cancel culture.” What they won’t tell you is that they couldn’t be happier about it, since it gives them a handy comeback to any criticism, and helps feed their supporters’ sense of victimization.

Consider the defense Donald Trump Jr. offered of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s jaunt to Cancun while millions of his Texas constituents froze without power.

“The optics of that right now isn’t ideal,” Trump Jr. admitted in a video posted to social media, but “I’m not going to jump on this bandwagon of trying to cancel the guy.” Because Cruz is the real victim here.

Or consider this new effort by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 2 in the Senate GOP leadership, to apply the term “cancel culture” to allies of former president Donald Trump. Thune called on them to stop attacking Republicans who condemned Trump’s incitement of the insurrection at the Capitol, in hopes of tamping down the intra-GOP war.

“If we’re going to criticize the media and the left for cancel culture, we can’t be doing that ourselves,” Thune gamely suggested. This time the victims were Republicans suffering backlash for criticizing Trump.

In short, any time you’re being criticized in a way you don’t like, you can just say you’re being “canceled.” This will always find a ready audience with Republicans, because they agree with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)’s claim that cancel culture “is the most dangerous thing happening in our country today.”

Thune is right in one sense: Republicans who stood up against Trump have indeed received fierce attacks from within their party, everything from letters of condemnation to formal censure to death threats.

But that doesn’t mean they’ve been canceled. After all, they still have their jobs (as does Cruz). They can do TV interviews and write op-eds. And if they lose primary challenges because of the decision they made, well, that’s politics. Whether you think a failure to support Trump is a good reason to vote against a candidate, nobody has an inherent right to win their next election.

There’s no question that we’re in a time when people — both the famous and the obscure — are more likely than ever to incur consequences for things they’ve said or done. There’s also no question that in some cases it’s long overdue, and in other cases it can be excessive or unfair, with someone losing their job over a misinterpreted joke on Twitter.

But the truth is that both sides are happy to cancel people all the time. They just want the grounds for cancellation to be different. For some a history of bigotry is a reason for you to be canceled; for others it’s criticizing Trump.

The right, however, routinely makes, “Don’t cancel me!” an all-purpose defense to excuse any misdeed. And this has been many years in the making. Long before the phrase “cancel culture” existed, conservatives were complaining that they were constantly being scolded by censorious liberals wielding false accusations, especially accusations of racism.

Trump understood this. A big part of his appeal was that he promised the GOP base liberation from “political correctness,” the term that has now been replaced by “cancel culture.” To conservatives, political correctness represented two things they didn’t want: a universalization of liberal values, and the imposition of those values on the daily behavior of everyone, even conservatives.

So Trump said, in so many words, To hell with that. He told them that not only is it okay to be racist and sexist and xenophobic, but that you should do so proudly and loudly, and he’d show you how. To voters who had never heard that from a politician, it was thrilling.

This was what the late Rush Limbaugh said for a couple of decades: You should be able to say whatever you want, no matter how offensive, and if the libs didn’t like it then you should revel in their dismay.

But now accountability is breaking out all over. And what really disturbs conservatives is when liberal standards start getting applied in realms where conservatives thought they had all or most of the power.
​

More at the link.

/s

 

I see a theme with Os threads about how the libs are unrepentantly shrill about their illiberal agendas except I can't pin it with the reality that the Democrats knew enough to elect Biden in the primaries as their leader instead of a Sanders or Warren, two of the most visible candidates for illiberally shrill social justice.

Please explain this concept to me like how Althouse and Associates would.

As for fingerpointing, it's not new news and it's been happening way longer than political parties. Maybe what's changed is that people are now emboldened to double down on their lies, proudly roll around in fake news, and not admit mistakes in order not to look bad for their team.

Yeah that part sucks.

 

Democrats, Progressives or Moderates, didn't campaign on "cancel culture". While there certainly are voices on the Left that have complained about things like the racist depictions in media, pushed for the removal of statues of Confederate figures, and renaming things that were named after figures that held attitudes we consider now backwards this wasn't a major part of any Democrat political campaign that I'm aware of. From politicians nearly all of the talk of "cancel culture" is from the Right. Also given how much of it is misleading (citing Cat in the Hat when talking about Dr. Suess) it seems pretty obvious that this issue is being whipped up by the Right to energize their base.

I will say again they don't even know what they are arguing for anymore. Many of these people are getting upset that Pepe LePew isn't in the next Space Jam yet simultaneously criticizing the Grammy's for WAP.

 

Just keep in mind that Os considers himself a "moderate Democrat."

 

"cLaSsIcAl LiBeRaL"

 

Perhaps if you engaged with others when they do make substantive posts, it might elicit more of them. Of course, it might not, but you won't know until you try. Might as well give it a shot.

 

[Meanwhile] Conservative Federal Appellate Judge blames liberal "misinformation" for our problems

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/03/laurence-silberman-media-bias-big-tech-rant.html

 

So basically a Federal judge admitting he's politically biased.