Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
I'll probably regret this but..
There is a difference between "please delist things telling people to drink bleach to cure covid" and "remove this negative story of the government or else"
This kind of harkens back to the idea of shouting fire in a crowded theater. Misinformation, specifically about pandemics, or alluding threats against officials, can lead to a much larger issue.
Even Kavanaugh states that it is not uncommon for these requests to be denied by social media companies.
This does not cross into first amendment issues because the government is protesting the spread of misinformation, threats, or government secrets, but can very rarely compel something.
In your post, you mentioned Meta. Meta choosing to accept the government concerns is acceptable as Meta is a corporation enacting its own will. In particular, Meta chose to help stop the spread of misinformation in order to benefit society. Which sounds really wierd to say about Meta. It's the bare minimum, but still.
If you told Meta they aren't allowed to stop the spread of misinformation, you'd be then restricting the ability of a corporation to stop the spread of things such as hate speech, calls for violence, etc. Which a corporation could then be found liable for.
Meta as a corporation, has chosen to moderate that information, and users have agreed to that moderation when they chose to use Meta's platform.
The difference is through the government or by choice.
That’s why it’s a 1st amendment issue. If it wasn’t coming with pressure from the White House. It wouldn’t be an issue.