Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Booting Alex Jones from Social Media Wasn’t a Bad Idea. But Is There a Better One?
The social media banning of loopy provocateur Alex Jones is likely to result in calls from conservatives to regulate or dismantle Big Tech. (The left is more worried about the market power of the tech titans.) Actually it is already happening, at least on Twitter. But even before Jones and his Infowars content got the boot from Apple, YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify, Republicans were calling for action against “censorship of conservatives.”
Their evidence, however, appears to be a smattering of weird one-offs rather than a systemic problem. But politicians and pundits continue to connect the dots. As Sen. Ted Cruz said on a Breitbart podcast last spring: “These tech companies are hard left. . . . They are suppressing the views of conservatives. They are blocking conservatives. . . . That is invidious. It is invisible, and it is profoundly dangerous.”
Maybe this is good tribalist politics, but the policy aftermath could be extraordinarily harmful, as I write in my new The Week column, if Congress further scales back or even repeals the regulatory shield that for more than 20 years has provided websites with immunity from liability for what their users post. And some Republicans have suggested doing just that. And it is my concern that the Jones expulsion, though hardly unfair, will further energize the effort.
Drawing bright lines is tricky enough when the questionable content involves hateful speech. So-called fake news is an even thornier problem. But the widespread dissemination of misinformation isn’t good for our democracy. Yet there thankfully remains a right to do so. So how should the private sector respond? Ars Technica’s Timothy Lee offers a valuable suggestion: Avoid banning users or purging content, just downrank it. Lee:
This makes sense because the Newsfeed is fundamentally an editorial product. Facebook has an algorithm that decides which content people see first, using a wide variety of criteria. There’s no reason why journalistic quality, as judged by Facebook, shouldn’t be one of those criteria. Under Facebook’s approach, publications with a long record of producing high-quality content can get bumped up toward the top of the news feed. Publications with a history of producing fake news can get bumped to the back of the line, where most Newsfeed users will never see it.
So, yeah, good news for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, not so much for USAPatriotRealNewz. Algorithms can’t do it all. Human judgement will need to be made, particularly about viral content. But does the idea of Team Zuck making even those decisions still bother you? Here’s a DIY alternative from Mike Masnick of Tech Crunch:
Facebook should open itself up so that end users can decide what content they can see for themselves, rather than making all the decisions in Menlo Park. Ideally, Facebook (and others) should open up so that third party tools can provide their own experiences — and then each person could choose the service or filtering setup that they want. People who want to suck in the firehose, including all the garbage, could do so. Others could choose other filters or other experiences. Move the power down to the ends of the network, which is what the internet was supposed to be good at in the first place. If the giant platforms won’t do that, then people should build more open competitors that will (hell, those should be built anyway). . . .
I expect that many users would quickly discover that the full firehose is unusable, and would seek alternatives that fit with how they wanted to use the platform. And, yes, that might mean some awful people create filter bubbles of nonsense and hatred, but average people could avoid those cesspools while at the same time those tasked with monitoring those kinds of idiots and their behavior could still do so.
Of course if conservatives still find the current social media environment to be massively oppressive, there is yet another option. As I write in The Week: “If [the right] really thinks social media is oppressively hostile to Trumpian America, then there must be a huge market opportunity for Red America-friendly competitors.” I mean, there is a precedent called Fox News. So quit kvetching and build. Indeed, there’s plenty of talk among blockchain enthusiasts about how that technology could disrupt the social media giants.
One more thing: And while it may seem trite, education in media literacy would also seem to be part of the answer here — although I am wondering if we have the educational resources to pull that off.
Published in Journalism, Technology
Doubling down, I see.
Yes, James, the social media and tech giants are indeed acting in active opposition to conservative (or even just anti-Left) voices. This article is no different from apologetics for the mainstream media or academia 15 years ago.
Also, giving positive press to the likes of New York Times and Ars Technica while lamenting the ‘widespread dissemination of misinformation’ is quite ironic.
This is exactly the sort of insight that gets you published in The Week.
Is invidious as used here more correct than insidious?
Their evidence, however, appears to be a smattering of weird one-offs rather than a systemic problem
Really? Good grief.
I suspect that conservative options have been started many times over only to be smash by the Left while still in the womb.
We live in a world of the Left’s making. To announce a conservative, Republican, or Trump affiliations means a lost jobs, contracts, services, customers, venders, etc. It is just the the way of things.
Winner! Come on down and pick up your Complimentary Cruise Tickets!
Ahoy!
So this is basically a rerun of a column from a couple of days ago, complete with the “loopy provocateur” moniker. Recycling saves the environment, right?
I agree, it wasnt bad, It was terrible!
These companies are now in violation of section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996.
They have exerted editorial control over their users content – thus they’re now responsible for every slanderous, libelous statement made on their platforms. In a just world they’ll be sued out of existence!
Lets see if these suckers can send another $100 billion of shareholder value to money heaven.
That is what this is about. They want to break that law and choose AJ so the opposition is cast in the worse light if they go against them. This many tech companies doing the same thing at the same time was no an accident but a set legal, PR, political strategy to achieve their goal and force their will upon the public. Time will tell what their exact purpose is and if they achieve them.
The tech giants will of course never block those from neocon “think” tanks, so Peth has nothing to worry about.
These are interesting ideas and alternatives to outright banning. I’m surprised no one wants to discuss them instead of defending Jones yet again.
I ask the assembled: What is your solution? The OP has two.
Maybe that is because Neocon think tanks aren’t filled with sleazeball liars? The system works.
But these are the same publications! The NYT has a long record of (being considered to have been) producing high-quality content. The NYT also has a (long) history of producing fake news. I wonder what the Establishment Approved Algorithm will do?
Let them burn. No need for intervention. But calling them names and making their (business) lives miserable seems productive.
Sure, but the OP isn’t wrong that we’ve seen an increased call from the right for government regulators to step in. That’s dangerous IMO and should be resisted by those that are on the side of limited government.
Facebook Google and Twitter are functionally the internet equivalents of the old ATT and the TV networks. Since they won’t stop themselves from behaving in a monopolistic and slanted manner, the government is going to have to regulate them.
This straw man again.
Except, people are defending Jones:
So is Jones a “loopy provocateur”? Or was the comment here supposed to be supportive of such monikers?
That’s the model they want. They want to be a “Phone Company” not responsible for the actions of those who use their service. However, by exercising editorial control over user content they became a “Publisher” and are thus responsible for the slanderous and libelous publications of their users.
They should be in tsunami of lawsuits. Sued out of existence.
I suspect that is what this is what this is about. They want the freedom to act like a publisher without the down side of being considered a publisher. Given that they are very leftist organizations that can user their power to help the Dems they will get what they want.
How certain are you that Jones won’t be a precedent used for doing the same to more “respectable” people and groups? What has been done to him is a clear threat to free speech, even if Jones himself is (to put it mildly) personally unlikable.
Assuming good faith, those may be reasonable alternatives. The problem is that the tech companies have not demonstrated good faith and instead have acted with a bluntly left wing agenda. An example of this is YouTube’s use of the SPLC to police their content. This would be like a conservative using the LaRouchePAC to identify people to censor, hardly “good faith.”
Because not all slopes are slippery.
I agree that there is a troubling left-wing bias at the tech companies, what is the solution? To my mind, the ones presented here are very good options. No one wants to discuss them. The problem with the free speech argument is that everyone on the right already agrees that Facebook should have some editorial control: I doubt anyone here would want hardcore pornography served up to anyone’s feed day and night. So if we agree on that, then what we’re really doing here is haggling over price and not principle.
Okay, I’ll offer you some preferable alternatives
Bottom line I don’t see any reason to trust Facebook as the public Censor.
I believe they already do #2. #1 is an interesting suggestion but unworkable as it would destroy their revenue stream. I like #3 but on what grounds would they prosecute them?
The thing is that the social media platforms already self select. AJ and his ilk do not show upon your feed unless you seek them out. You don’t like them, then block / unfriend / etc them and they are gone. But that is not the issue is it. The issue is that people do not want the AJ’s of the world to have an audience. They do not approve and want to enforce their “truth” over AJ’s or others “truth” and they are willing to use any power and abuse of power necessary to silence the AJs.
This is why appointing lower court judges is so important. Trump has more than any president in history, at this point in his term. Not to make “good” rulings – but rather to uphold laws as they’re written – not how they ‘feel’ they should have been.
Not entirely, I received InfoWars stuff because I visit Drudge who links to him (Facebook tracks your web browsing) and because acquaintances I know post links to Jones and Paul Joseph Watson.
Unfortunately, there is a significant price to be paid if you are wrong on your assumption.