It comes on the heels of Jeff Bezos’ $40 million bribe in the form of payment to Melania for an Amazon documentary, because who isn’t desperately desirous of watching a documentary about the fascinating nude model from Slovenia made good? Mark Zuckerberg, the third richest man on the planet, issued what, under any other circumstances, might be considered a principled stand for the free speech.
Misinformation is rampant, whether on Facebook, twitter or other social media platforms. Some of it is spread by partisans who believe and spread lies. Some of it is by malevolent actors, whether foreign or domestic, trying to mislead, confuse and weaken the unduly credulous for their own purposes. Neither is good, but then, who is to judge?
Then, on Tuesday, while wearing a $900,000 watch, Zuckerberg issued a mea culpa over video—as well as a full-throated defense of free speech. He announced that Meta was ending its controversial and politically biased fact-checking regime. He promised to reduce censorship on Instagram and Facebook, implement “community notes,” and allow the promotion of political content. He vowed to work with President Donald Trump to “push back against governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.” As if all that wasn’t enough, he also said that the company is moving their “trust and safety” and content moderation teams from California to Texas.
For the most part, the points Zuck makes aren’t wrong. Fact-checking has become as embroiled in misinformation as substance. The fact-checkers are as susceptible to their own bias as are the spreaders, viewers and readers of lies. While filling the ranks of fact-checkers in California provides good cause to believe they are deeply prejudiced to the left, will moving moderation to Texas end bias or merely shift it to the right?
But the video didn’t come unattached, but with the sticky fingers of Trump all over it.
The hard-hearted in our newsroom say: Too little, too late. But I say: Better late than never. The cynic in me says people change their minds, often at very politically convenient times, but a good decision is a good decision, whether it’s made from the heart or the pocketbook.
And the salesman in me says: WE WARNED YOU!
At Reason, Robby Soave agrees.
These changes are wildly positive. It’s also heartening that Zuckerberg seems to understand precisely what had gone wrong, and why: The company made attempts to satisfy both mainstream media institutions and even government agencies, particularly when it came to controversial political topics like COVID-19. What moderators soon discovered is that this is impossible; there is no end to the amount of speech suppression that is desired by censorship-inclined entities.
On the other hand, the New York Times does not agree.
In a New York Times article about the news—with a characteristically snarky headline “Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False.”—the Poynter Institute, one of Facebook’s official fact-checking organs, protests that Meta and Meta alone had the power to take down content. This is technically true, but the fact-checkers knew exactly what the deal was; Facebook gave them official status as approved verifiers of information and explicitly stated that moderators would remove content consistent with the verifiers’ recommendations.
What seems to be missing from this analysis of what Zuck declares is why now and why under these circumstances. I would never be one to argue for censorship and against free speech, but is that really going to be the outcome here or is it mere rhetoric to cover up a shift from left to right, with misinformation just as rampant as before but going in the opposite direction? Is this acquiescence to Trump, less expensive than buying Melania for 40 mil, but just as blatant a pay off?
There is, on the third hand, the possibility that social media platforms that have been compelled to live under the constraints of European (not to mention some states) micro-management of their content moderation policies are pushing back, and Zuck finally has a president willing to back up free speech on social media against content control by Europe and elsewhere.
“Europe has an ever-increasing number of laws, institutionalizing censorship, and making it difficult to build anything innovative there,” he said. “Latin American countries have secret courts that can order companies to quietly take things down. China has censored our apps from even working in the country. The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government, and that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years when even the US government has pushed for censorship.”
It’s not that Zuckerberg is wrong about this, or about the fact that misinformation moderation at scale is an impossibility without wreaking havoc with “innocent” posters who get caught in heavy-handed algo moderation. Of course misinformation generated by Russian boiler rooms is bad and dangerous, but it’s one of the trade-offs we’re forced to suffer if there is to be free speech for others. No one said free speech wouldn’t be messy and hard, with the hope that good speech will prevail over bad and truth will overcome lies. History suggests that the marketplace of ideas too often sells Big Macs as delicious health food.
But the fact that Zuck’s free speech epiphany comes on the heels of bowing and scraping to Trump emits that unpleasant odor that taints an otherwise good idea. On the ex-twitters, Musk claims to be a free speech absolutist as he censors promiscuously. Will Zuck’s sudden discovery of free speech produce the same outcome, like Musk in Trump’s favor, cool story notwithstanding? It used to be that being a billionaire meant being able to say “fuck you” to anyone, and yet now the top three are blowing kisses at Trump even if they want to pretend they’re doing it for good reasons and could buy and sell Trump at will.
More about the watch, please. (Don’t censor this.)
[Ed Note: This is all I’ve got:
Further, your affiant sayeth naught.]
The dire wolf collects his due
While the boys sing ’round the fire
Don’t murder me
“Will Zuck’s sudden discovery of free speech produce the same outcome, like Musk”
Of course it will. The censorship will move its focus from left to right. Criticism of Israel will still be censored. You don’t get to be a billionaire by having principles.
Well, we gotta show the Russkies that our oligarchs are better than their oligarchs.
If meta actually had human “fact checkers” at all, they were incompetent. As far as I could tell, the “moderation” on FB has been performed by some kind of buggy AI that often made flatly inexplicable determinations. It also appeared to be incapable of recognizing basic literary devices such as sarcasm. For example, posts mocking “the great Hamas victory” were occasionally (but not consistently) determined to be supporting terrorists or other dangerous organizations. Sometimes posts not conceivably offensive to anyone were deemed “spam” or violative of “community standards.” On the whole, whatever system was in place was opaque and arbitrary.
Please stop referring to what private actors do when they moderate content as “censorship.” That term only applies to government actors who imposed penalties or direct restraints based on the content of speech. The term you are looking for is “editorial discretion.” No one has a right to post anything on Facebook or Xitter or, hey, here: “There are rules here. I reserve the right to delete or edit any/all comments. Links are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. If you don’t like the rules, comment elsewhere.” I trust the owner of this blog does not consider himself a Censor of Free Speech.
Two points you failed to consider. The first is that FB was pressured by the government to remove content. Acting at the government’s behest is government action, not private action. Second, anyone (including the owner of this blog) can censor if the basis for removal is disfavored political views. SHG doesn’t do that, obviously, but if he did, it would be no less censorship than any other.
The distinction I believe you’re trying to make is that when it’s done by a private actor, it doesn’t violate the 1st A (unless it’s at the govt’s behest). But that doesn’t mean it isn’t censorship.
So when The New York Times doesn’t print your letter to the editor or moderates your on-line comment by refusing to publish it, that’s censorship? I don’t think so. I agree that the government pressuring a private actor to publish/not publish is censorship by the government; for the private actor who submits to that pressure, it’s simply being craven.
You are confusing legal censorship of viewpoints by private actors with illegal censorship by state actors which violates the First Amendment. Censorship is the restriction of content based on the viewpoint expressed. The NYT censors viewpoints when it excludes viewpoints the editors disagree with. But the censorship by private actors is legal and does not violate the First Amendment unless, as Miles suggests, the private party is acting on behalf of the state or out of fear of state reprisals.
It’s unusual for me to agree with Miles, but this is an unusually oblivious case of doubling down on a wrong idea.
The dictionary says that censorship is “the institution, system, or practice of censoring”. Censor means “to suppress or delete as objectionable”. So yes, if the NYT doesn’t print your letter, that is technically censorship. The difference is that the NYT isn’t claiming to offer a platform for publishing and discussion by the general public. NYT is not the modern-day public square, so nobody objects to their censorship of the vast majority of the letters they receive. Likewise, if I post something that SHG doesn’t like, and he censors it, I have no complaint, because this blog isn’t offering an open forum. It’s a forum for SHG to write, and to post responses that he likes, as you noted. Like Miles said, you’re confusing the 1st Amendment with the general meaning of “censorship”.
Not all censorship is objectionable. I suspect that Facebook will continue to censor illegal content, and nobody will complain about that. The complaints were about the censorship of opinions on a platform advertised as an open forum for the public.
The dictionary says that a “censor” is an “official” (I’d link to Merriam-Webster, but links are editorially forbidden here). Censorship can certainly be legal, such as censoring soldiers’ communications to protect operational security. But your definition would mean that all editing was censorship: The Times not running your letter, an editor spiking a reporter’s story, even the copy desk changing words from a draft, all of that is censorship of the author. That’s an absurd conclusion.
Words have meaning, and different words have different meanings. By your definitions, “editing” and “censoring” would be the same thing. Instead, these different words, with two different etymologies (“censor” from ancient Rome, “editor” from England 1646) quite reasonably have different meanings: “Censorship” is imposed (legally or illegally, properly or improperly) on communication or conduct by or at the behest of government officials, as the dictionary so states. “Editing” is conducted by private actors deciding what they will or will not publish.
If only the government has the ability to censor, what does “censorship by the government” mean?
As a stand-alone phrase, it makes no sense. In a more specific context — censorship by the federal government, by local government, by the military, by an agency — it would specify which arm of government is doing the censoring.
That’s a better answer than the question deserved, because even as a stand-alone phrase it may just mean it’s redundant and not circular. The (late night, too tired) thinking was “what does the first noun mean when you pause the sentence before you get to the second one?”
Saying “only government can censor” is a way to avoid having to make distinctions and let the label do all the lifting – and ironically to defend censorship people like. Even those who claim “free speech is only a government issue” usually have no problem properly using “censorship” to describe actions that take place in non-governmental contexts. Network censors aren’t government agents. Nor are religious fundamentalists seeking to drive a theater to shut down a play. The Motion Picture Code wasn’t government legislation.
It’s normal (and ubiquitous) to call those entities and non-governmental institutions censors. Corporations that seek to suppress the public square (outside of their own contribution) are no more immune to this charge, especially when the corporations are given an outsized role in controlling society.
These companies should first stop their bullshit about being for free speech. Given that, it’s fine to call what they do censorship.
But that makes them liars, not censors. I despise Facebook, Xitter, etc., as much as the next sentient person. But that doesn’t mean we can or should use inaccurate epithets against them; it weakens the force of our arguments.
It’s not inaccurate and denying it’s a form of censorship weakens our argument and provides an excuse for their behavior.
Has anyone considered that Mark Zuckerberg simply saw Elon wolfing down Big Mac’s and Diet Coke’s with President Trump and RFK, Jr. on Trump Force One and saw himself getting one-upped by another tech billionaire? It could be simple jealously at being excluded from the cool kids table.
Yes. The 21st century may be remembered as “the Revenge of the Nerds.” The era when the kids who didn’t have dates for the prom retired to Dad’s garage, worked hard and took over the world.
Maybe Zuckerberg is just unhappy with the value he got from the $500 million he spent bribing election officials in 2020.
The entire idea of “fact checkers” is absurd, it assumes that there are people or AI knowing 100% truth while the rest of the world (including direct witnesses) can’t possibly know anything. Fact checking against WHAT? The sources are “fact checking” sites, mainstream media and statements by government officials; proclaiming them owners of the truth while silencing their critics effectively gives those entities a license to lie and propagandize. Fact checkers never check them. What happened to speaking truth to power?
Zuck isn’t comfortable with the upcoming court hearings about government censorship, and those would’ve happened regardless of who’s elected. Look, at FB we were just confused but we’ll do better… Social media could’ve called it what it is, removing content disagreeing with the government (whether directed by the government or just doing it voluntarily) but calling it “fact checking” is yet another lie.
You argue, in essence, that “facts” do not exist, that nothing is knowable. That’s an absurd conclusion. Of course there are facts. Today is Friday. The Earth revolves around the sun. Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 at Ford’s Theater. Ingesting bleach does not cure Covid (unless you die from it, thus killing the virus). Now, of course opinions cannot be demonstrated as true or false (e.g., Putin is a great leader vs. Putin is a war criminal), and anyone purporting to “fact-check” an opinion is, at best, on a fool’s errand, and at worst, pursuing a dishonest agenda. In an ideal world, social media companies would leave opinion alone but remove injurious false statements of fact, which are knowable and verifiable.