[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.