[enumjorge]

The problem is that bad actors can abuse these platforms from multiple sides. In this case the issue is censorship, but there’s also the spreading of misinformation and propaganda that can also pose serious threats to democracy. I don’t know why the anti-censorship crowd doesn’t acknowledge this.

In the US, Trump used social media to spread lies about the results of the elections. He tried to pull all the stops to stay in power. This is the same President who attacked journalism, rescinded access to White House press events for news sources that were critical of Jim, and used the Justice department to seize records of journalists. Trump was a bigger threat to journalism while he was in office than any content moderation rules Twitter could ever enforce.

[rscoots]

>Trump was a bigger threat to journalism while he was in office than any content moderation rules Twitter could ever enforce.

Besides idle threats to "open up the libel laws" and temporarily blocking random journos from white house events, I don't see how this could possibly be true.

Two things can be bad at once. In measurable terms I'd say opaque, coordinated social media bans are the greater and more permanent of the evils here. We can't deflect to Trump forever.

[AnimalMuppet]

I think I agree with you. But I also agree with enumjorge when he says that we need to acknowledge that the unchecked spread of disinformation is a real problem. Worse, it can be driven by malice in a coordinated campaign. And it's a real problem that, when someone gets to define and censor disinformation, then they define disinformation, and they may be biased (or worse, part of a coordinated campaign).

I don't have an answer. But we can't find a workable answer without recognizing both sides of the problem.

[enumjorge]

Secretly subpoenaing journalists’ phone records is not an idle threat. Trump tried to change the results of a democratic election. Because of his lies armed protestors broke into the Capitol building while congress people were in it in order to disrupt ratifying Biden as president. Neither one of those were idle threats. They were direct attacks on our form of government. They happen to fail but those attacks were real.

I’m not saying social media censorship isn’t bad. Of course having a few tech companies control the information that most people see is problematic. What I’m saying is that allowing those platforms to act as a megaphone for misinformation is also a huge issue. Censorship and propaganda are both tools of abusive governments.

[koolba]

> The problem is that bad actors can abuse these platforms from multiple sides. In this case the issue is censorship, but there’s also the spreading of misinformation and propaganda that can also pose serious threats to democracy. I don’t know why the anti-censorship crowd doesn’t acknowledge this.

Because nobody trusts you or anyone else to classify "misinformation".

> In the US, Trump used social media to spread lies about the results of the elections.

> He tried to pull all the stops to stay in power.

He gave a lot of speeches and told his supporters to make their voices heard. Peacefully.

If you assume that he genuinely believes the election was marred with fraud, then none of what he said are lies.

> This is the same President who attacked journalism,

The same "journalists" that spent years spreading fake news that he was a Russian spy?

The same "journalists" that spent years falsely claiming he was referring to neo-Nazis as "fine people" when in fact he was saying the complete opposite? https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/26/joe-biden-...

The same "journalists" that claimed that Trump instructed Georgia Secretary of State to "find the fraud" but then completely retracted that he ever said that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/16/washingto...

> rescinded access to White House press events for news sources that were critical of Jim,

The only one I'm aware of that was revoked was Jim Acosta who refused to follow the rules of the press room and hand over the mic to the moderator: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/cnn-jim-acos...

That's not being a "brave reporter". It's just being a showboating dick to everyone else that's following the rules of the press room.

> and used the Justice department to seize records of journalists.

The only instance of this I could find was this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/02/us/trump-administration-p...

Though that does not go into too much specifics as to what or why.

> Trump was a bigger threat to journalism while he was in office than any content moderation rules Twitter could ever enforce.

Trump was the most open and accessible President that we've ever had. He would literally spend hours standing in front of hostile reporters answering any questions that they have.

If you want to see the reverse of that, check out how Biden only calls on a preselected list of reporters that ask prescreened questions. They even include a wallet sized photo in case he can't read the reporters name: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/photos-biden-cheat-sheets-f...

Or how about snapping at reporters that ask questions about current events like the pull out from Afghanistan instead of "happy things" on July 4th? https://nypost.com/2021/07/02/joe-biden-cuts-off-questions-a...

That's what content moderation looks like.

[pjc50]

> I don’t know why the anti-censorship crowd doesn’t acknowledge this.

> In the US, Trump used social media to spread lies about the results of the elections. He tried to pull all the stops to stay in power. This is the same President who attacked journalism, rescinded access to White House press events for news sources that were critical of Jim, and used the Justice department to seize records of journalists

A very significant fraction of the anti-censorship crowd are pro-Trump, or at least right-wing, and of course a characteristic of that is ignoring all these things that he actually did.

(edit: the irony of being downvoted into the grey by the angry "anti-censorship" faction)

[reedjosh]

I'm anti-censorship. I didn't downvote you, but you are conflating two arguments.

Anti-government-censorship and anti-private-censorship. Myself and I'm guessing many don't actually care what Twitter does so long as the government isn't coercing it to do so.