> Biden administration ‘flagging problematic posts for Facebook,’ Psaki says
If you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians, then you're mistaken. How could it be? Imagine being a CEO and getting dragged in front of Congress every 6 months to explain yourself. Or politicians calling your platform a threat to democracy and threatening to break you up. You think that would have no impact on your speech policies?
What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies?
> if you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians
Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources.
You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation.
> What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies?
Flippantly: Russia.
Less flippantly: freedoms exist in balance. Taking an absolutist stance on individual speech curtails freedom of association. In practice, I suspect it will make most social media unusable in its current form. (Which may be for the worst.)
> Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources.
You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation.
You saw the parent's linked article about the White House flagging posts for Facebook, right? Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts? I think it's a distinction without difference. The usual scenario I give people in this situation is, how would your view on this change if Trump "suggested" how Facebook could flag certain posts and then Facebook followed through with it. No demands, just "suggestions." Still OK with this relationship between the government and a private company?
> Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts?
No. Nobody was. That’s why it was moving the goalpost [1].
If you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians, then you're mistaken. How could it be? Imagine being a CEO and getting dragged in front of Congress every 6 months to explain yourself. Or politicians calling your platform a threat to democracy and threatening to break you up. You think that would have no impact on your speech policies?
What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies?
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-flagging-problem...