Former Missouri Gov. Eric Gretens was criticized this week for his propaganda in which he, a former navy, raids homes in search of “RINOs” (or Republicans by name only). In my opinion, this propaganda was provocative and irresponsible. In times of politically motivated violence, this type of propaganda, even if it is a joke, is reckless. However, Greitens is now blocked in ads by Facebook and tagged by Twitter, which is a continuation of strong censorship and “content correction” policies in these companies. This is news and there is a decent debate about the use of such images. However, we have seen how such censorship leads to ridiculous results like YouTube censored the January 6 committee Because he had video clips of former US President Donald Trump. It has gratins Attacked companies.
“Today, we’re hunting for RINO,” the ad reads. RINO feeds on corruption and is characterized by cowardice. Join the MAGA crew, get a RINO hunting license. “There are no restrictions on packaging, there are no restrictions on labeling, and it will not expire until we save our country.”
Facebook has blacklisted this ad “Policies to Prevent Violence and Incitement.”
On Twitter, people can not share or reply to a tweet, even if criticized. Twitter added a warning for offensive images.
Whether the ad is humorous or scary, it is news at various levels. There is a fundamental political divide in the Republican Party. Violent images are also used at a time when some Republicans are facing threats because of their support for gun control or the Jan. 6 election committee. These social media sites should be neutral forums for such discussions.
In this controversy, Twitter at least still allowed access to the video. The question is, the practical purpose of the warning goes beyond expressing the company’s contempt for “abusive” content. There was a time when these companies did not believe in actively participating in exchanges on their sites.
I Have described As an Internet expert:
It replaces “Internet originality” – uncensored. If social media companies return to their core role, there will be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism. They will be in a similar situation to telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not verified speech.
People would be outraged if Pelosi asked Verizon or Sprint to cut off calls to prevent them from saying something wrong or misleading. Twitter performs the same communication function between agreeing parties. This simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. These people do not just sign up to exchange ideas so that Dorsey or another internet owner can monitor their conversations and protect them from wrong or harmful thoughts.
Social media companies seem to have eliminated conservatives and others who have different views. They have also readily accepted censorship as an honorable duty. In fact, after Jack Dorsey, the former CEO of Twitter, was criticized for his widespread censorship efforts, Twitter replaced him with CEO of Parag Agrawal, who has expressed anti-freedom sentiment. In an interview with Technology review He was the editor of Gideon Litchfield Asked How Twitter balances its efforts to combat misinformation with “protecting freedom of expression as a core value” and respecting the First Amendment. Agrawal replied:
“Our role is not to require the First Amendment, but to serve a healthy public dialogue, and our actions reflect what we believe will lead to a healthier public dialogue. The kinds of things we do about it. What we give is to think less about freedom of expression, but to think about how time has changed.
One of the changes we are witnessing today is easy speech on the Internet. Most people can talk. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who is heard. Rare commodity is the focus today. There is a lot of content there. “There are many tweets, not all of them are noticed, some of its sub-categories are noticed.”
He added that Twitter “is moving towards how we recommend content and … how we direct people’s attention leads to a healthier, more engaging public dialogue.”