[petilon]

I think "government pressure" needs to be defined. If vaccination misinformation is spreading like wildfire on social media, and measles and other deadly diseases are getting out of control, and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal?

Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit information, and that's certainly a valid argument.

But that idealistic approach quickly runs into a wall. As Bill Gates said on Oprah's show, "We were a bit naive: we thought the internet, with the availability of information, would make us all a lot more factual. The fact that people would seek out—kind of a niche of misinformation—we were a bit naive."

So yes, people seek out misinformation, because of some inherent belief that there is a vast conspiracy going on that they aren't aware of, and the more conspiratorial some news sounds, the more likely they are to believe it. So you can't necessarily fight misinformation with legit information, unfortunately. As a result, a public health crisis is likely if social media companies do nothing to control the spread of misinformation.

[tencentshill]

>the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation

There's always an implied or else. Stop harming the public, because the government is obligated to stop harms to the public and if they have to step in, it won't be favorable to your company.

[amanaplanacanal]

Honestly I never thought there was an implied or else, until the FCC started threatening pulling TV licenses. My understanding of the last administration was they were contacting platforms to say "hey, we found some postings that appear to be against your terms of service". I will agree that was a bad look, though.

[JumpCrisscross]

> and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal?

Honestly, yeah. The government can counterprogram. But it shouldn’t be allowed to pressure anyone to take that content down (or limit its visibility).

Half the reason this anti-vax nonsense gained staying power is as a backlash to such government interventions.

The proper solution to misinformation is standard liability. If you say measles vaccines are useless and cause autism, neither of which is true, and someone’s kid dies of measles after listening to you, you cut them a cheque. (But don’t go to jail.)

[petilon]

There is an important difference between government persuasion and government coercion. The government should not be allowed to threaten platforms with punishment unless they remove lawful speech. But public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach."

Just like you and I have a right to free speech, so does the government. The government can urge, warn, criticize, request, and share public-health information.

[JumpCrisscross]

> public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach."

I think the line between that and Brendan Carr calling ABC and saying “Jimmy Kimmel is lying, he is contributing to real-world harm, and I urge you to reduce his reach” while e.g. a merger is under review or licenses up for renewal is impossible to delineate.

And again, in any case, it didn’t work. It probably threw fuel on the fire. Government shouldn’t be saying what political speech is and isn’t said. That’s what the First Amendment ensconces.

[petilon]

Agree, it is hard to delineate, especially when the government is run by people that are thin-skinned and retaliatory. That's what makes this issue so challenging.

But is it fair to curtail speech because someone might perceive it as a threat? That question applies to the government as well as to individuals. I think it has to be resolved on a case-by-cases basis by courts.

[JumpCrisscross]

> is it fair to curtail speech because someone might perceive it as a threat?

Plenty of speech is criminally curtailed. Credible threats of imminent violence. Fraud. Perjury. They’re just tightly defined ex ante.

[petilon]

Threat of imminent violence clearly falls on one side of the line. There are other cases that are on the border and you can't judge so easily.