Following surge in reports of violent content ahead of Capitol attack, Facebook executives took their most aggressive steps yet to rein in the president and his supporters.
The WSJ reports Facebook Turned on Trump After Warnings That ‘Business as Usual Isn’t Working’
Timeline
- As footage of a pro-Trump mob ransacking the U.S. Capitol streamed from Washington, D.C., last Wednesday, Facebook Inc.’s data scientists and executives saw warning signs of further trouble.
- User reports of violent content jumped more than 10-fold from the morning, A tracker for user reports of false news surged to nearly 40,000 reports an hour, about four times recent daily peaks.
- Two of Mr. Trump’s posts came down and Facebook privately classified the U.S. as a “temporary high-risk location” for political violence.
- Facebook banned Trump for 24 hours.
- Thursday, Mr. Zuckerberg said Facebook would extend its ban of Mr. Trump through at least the inauguration. Later that morning it deleted one of the most active pro-Trump political groups on Facebook, the #WalkAway Campaign, which was cited repeatedly for breaking Facebook’s rules last year but never taken down.
- Monday, Facebook said it would prohibit all content containing the phrase “stop the steal”.
Mark Zuckerberg Statement
Here is a Statement by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO.
Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violate our policies. We did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.
We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.
Where’s the Line?
Ah yes, freedom of speech.
Can you yell “fire” in a movie theater?
Should you be able to?Should you be able to promote violence and seriously issue a call to hang Pelosi?
We can debate where the line should be, but organizing seditious riots crossed it. https://t.co/Mqtvh3gGyT
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) January 13, 2021
That’s the question of the day. Implicit in the question is whether there should be a line at all.
Freedom of Speech
It is 100% clear Parler either needed to moderate content or be shut down. Parler did not moderate content so it was shut down.
Amazon and Apple did the right thing.
Inciting and organizing riots is not protected by the first or any amendment.https://t.co/eW6x9yGoMT
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) January 14, 2021
Some aspects of the discussion are not really about freedom of speech or censorship in the first place. Companies have the right to decide their own practices and own lines.
What’s the remedy?
Allow people to propose violence, ignore the threats, then prosecute after many people are killed.
Mish
Nope. You just seem to want to pick a fight. Americans have way more in common with one another than differences. We would be better off celebrating our common goals while learning and trying to make ourselves better.
Err, no, that is not the point of my post and it is hardly a rant. Read my prior post where answered your question. Were there others? Section 230 of the Communications Act in the U.S. is the section that safeguards social media companies from being held liable for the user’s posts. It says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”.
So you are a big government type wanting government to protect you from what you see as wrong doings by the private property owner on their private property which you agree to their terms of service before you are allowed on their playground.
To answer your question, no. But it seems to me that social media acts much like a utility or telephone company with special rights and protections and, therefore, should not be censuring one over another. I appreciate the respectful dialogue.
Why aren’t you answering my questions. Social media doesn’t act like a telephone company or utility, but nice try. The fact you need big government to tell a private company what to do as long as it fits your political agenda is the reality of your rant.
Not sure how this relates to the assertion that Trump incited insurrection last week and deserved to be removed from social media.
Do you think bakeries should be forced to bake cakes that don’t correspond with the religious and moreal beliefs of the bakery? Why is social media any different?
Your response reveals the polarization that occurs when it supports a narrative. I can clearly see the Presidents verbal effort to rally a crowd and encourage them to make their voices heard, a far cry from riot and break into the Capitol.
The poor fella Donald Trump. If only his cult really heard what he was saying…
But they are weak and claim fake news to support a narrative that rejects actual things Donald Trump has said and done like call for red flag gun confiscation laws, banned bump stocks, signed FIX NICS, and most recently allowed his ATF to ban the honey badger.
The notion that citizens were somehow called to arms (or called to riot) by the President is ridiculous and serves only to promote a “made up” narrative.
Clearly they are victims of the liberal media and shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions and the actions of the president prior to their march to the Capitol… LOL
If you can’t see the actions of the president set forth in motion this attack on the Capitol, well, then you choose to be blind to it.
I heard that Twitter is now going to ban ‘anti jab’ news….This is getting better by the day…or by the hour rather…..Once upon a time we had something called Free Speech, the ruling establishment NEVER liked it though… The Fraudulent elections and ‘The Virus’ turned out to be the ideal excuse to finally deal with similar, crazy, democratic, prerogatives !
Joseph Goebbels was also displeased.
🌊🌎✌!
Having global conversation & Being a Nation of Laws works!.. Trumpism does not!
I made the mistake of thinking most people aren’t gullible enough to believe everything they read on the internet. Over time the internet has turned into a haven for conspiracy theorists.
MAGA ISIS is now recruiting terrorists and advocating the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government. They should ALL be arrested to face long prison terms and the death penalty. The Nazis in Germany should have squashed like bugs and this is what needs to be done here. No tolerance for treason or traitors!
Everyone is so focused on finding the Nazis that they’ll let the Bolsheviks walk right into power with barely a whimper in opposition.
Nothing democrat about it. Communist Obama is now running things.
”In an interview on Saturday, former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said the President did not commit any impeachable offenses and the House violated six points of the Constitution.
Dershowitz asked “how can you impeach a President for a speech that is constitutionally protected?” ”
Won’t matter to us Felix we are dumping Facebook this week, just can’t support a piece of trash liberal globalist oligarch. Two twitter accounts dumped last week. We won’t support liberals sites if we can help it.
LMAO @ the corrupt democratic party. Ya the republican party is corrupt too. The liberals have about 5 factions to their party should be fun watching them fracture. Dani, mish makes things up, he hates Trump. lol link to zerohedge.com
Some questions for Mish.
Where (specifically) did Trump incite violence?
Should anyone who endorsed the BLM riots also be removed, given this also seems to violate the ToS?
Do you also think Ron Paul is guilty of inciting violence and hate speech?
Do you consider it justifiable for utilities (natural monopolies) to refuse service to people who’s view they disagree with? Such that such a person cannot access electricity, gas, water etc.
Your post ignores the hard questions, so I am keen to hear your answers to these.
With all the gay wedding cakes you need to bake, how on Earth do you find time to comment?
“Do you consider it justifiable for utilities (natural monopolies) to refuse service to people who’s view they disagree with? Such that such a person cannot access electricity, gas, water etc.”
Good point, IP’s truly need to be categorized as utilities.
That said, a social media site is not a utility, I don’t have a membership to Facebook or Twitter, never have, I’m somehow alive.
Facebook also banned Ron Paul. I suppose you also think he’s guilty of hate speech and incitement?
You ought know, Facebook reversed that, apologized to Paul for the mistake.
I remember when this blog was mostly about economics. The last twenty posts are all politics.
We can’t let this belief you have total free speech wherever you roam trump private property rights. Private property rights are the most important part of this argument and they are rarely mentioned in the Trump cult’s need to play the victim card.
Much has been said about the idea that rights are not limitless on this comments board when that concept applies to criticise those who are pro-Trump (i.e. free speech) – if that is the case then doesn’t it also stand to reason that “private property” rights are also not limitless? Especially when private property in this case is really the co-opting of the private property (the personal information) of those that use the site? If there really was a level playing field then i wouldn’t be so concerned but the tech giants have proven (IMO) to actively collaborate and create closed markets to attempt to crush any real competition.
No one is forcing you to go to Facebook and create an account which in turns is well understood makes you a “PRODUCT” of their service. If you think Facebook is a product that is supposed to serve your need to speak your mind, you clearly don’t understand why they are in business.
The problem is that social media has been weaponized. It clearly brings out the absolute worst in people, can be used to foment lies and threats to the political order (what seemed so good when the “Arab Spring” happened in another part of the world doesn’t seem so great when the mob is ransacking your own capitol building) and is generally terrible for people’s emotional and mental wellbeing. I don’t know what the solution is, I’m guessing most people here would be against the idea of government regulation, but something clearly has gone wrong.
I’m normally not keen on government regulation. Ideally, people would be disciplined enough to divest themselves of the big tech social media – i have done it myself, I have no apps on my phone nor do i use any of those social media sites. Alternatives exist in some form but then again the big players are actively colluding to destroy viable alternatives.
So…as I keep harping on….
The real elephant in the room here is how social media platforms with their ad-based revenue model and their out-of-control AI algorithms act as potent filters to steer people toward the very content that causes all these problems.
Facebook and YouTube in particular….and to a lesser degree the other platforms that use AI to help them sell things to consumers….are primary inciters of the divisive politics of our time. This needs to be recognized.
Nothing can be fixed by anybody without addressing this….and it’s probably a lost cause.
It is a lost cause. When on the one hand you have everyone ready to censor those that oppose their views (though Lefitsts IMO are far more eager to censor than those on the Right) and on the other hand you have people with blinders on that keep repeating the same old “it’s their platform they can do what they want” mantra without really acknowledging the fact that tech has evolved into a new kind of threat to the public discourse that you can’t reasonably reign in with the (supposedly) “free market”
I suspect simple transparency coupled with fact-checking would go a long way.
I’d like to know who Qanon is, where he’s from (Russia?) and if he claims democrats are cannibalistic pedophiles, I’d like to see his fact-checked proof.
Granted, the fact that so many would buy the “cannibal-pedophile” thing on it’s face might prove me wrong, it’d at least slow down the stupid by imposing transparency..
Seems to be working for those in power, why would anything change?
Every ounce of me is anxious over a private entity deciding what defines free speech.
But then, after watching a relatively young woman die attempting to gain direct access to members of Congress with an angry mob, it occurs to me why any Constitutional right comes with limits.
(the 2nd amendment doesn’t allow private ownership of Nukes, for example)
At the end of this, I see legislature requiring FAR more transparency being required from internet sources.
For example-
Where “Qanon” has so much influence, Qanon should be required to disclose who they are, where they live, disclose it’s finances and sources.
This way we don’t have private entities stepping in to decide what’s “Free Speech”, consumers of these sources are able to see who they are, what motivates them financially or politically and what country/entity they represent.
Maybe. But then why aren’t you suggesting the same rules for Antifa and BLM?
Did Antifa and BLM just ransack the capitol building and attempt to kill members of congress? These Q anon nutters are a clear and present danger and the possibility of more violence between now and Wednesday is quite high.
“Maybe. But then why aren’t you suggesting the same rules for Antifa and BLM?”
Reread my post, I did, only cited Qanon as an example, I’d like to know who he is, where he’s from and what finances him….at the very least, is he at least American?
I’d like to know the same of Antifa and BLM, though BLM lists it’s leadership..link to blacklivesmatter.com
link to blacklivesmatter.com
“Maybe. But then why aren’t you suggesting the same rules for Antifa and BLM?”
Absolutely.
Everyone.
However, there are opinions that must be expressed anonymously, unless you are willing to face violence, loss of career, etc. I can already think of several groups happy to harm those not agreeing with them. So what’s your idea here – nobody being able to say something bad about BLM or The Prophet or Israel? And then there is the abortion discussion in which each and every opinion can get yourself harmed.
What did we did before the internet?
You showed your face at a demonstration, that’s it, no address.
If a person throws an object, the police at least had a description, but counter-protestors have no clue where you live.
In other words, online id’s could be anonymous but traceable be law enforcement.
You might argue “big brother” and “privacy”, but then, drivers licenses work the same way.
Facebook and Twitter are publishers. They should be held to that standard. Media outfits like FOX & OAN are dangerous echo chambers. especially OAN. I’d look at bringing back the fairness doctrine
While I agree, alt right or far right individuals will respond that Fox is “real” news and your sources are “fake news”….
I think it’s become imperative that any journalistic source MUST define what’s “opinion”, what’s “news” and what their financial sources are.
If, say, a network receives 75% of it’s advertising from a pharmaceutical and they frequently present pharmaceutical deregulation views under the guise of “news”, we should be able to see this in plain view.
You can tell that their is a huge amount of ad revenue from Big Pharma by all the commercials urging you “to ask your doctor if XYZ is right for you.”
I have another idea. Give media companies a choice of one of 2 things:
If you’re paying for a subscription, then they don’t really need ads. Of course, they would lose about half their revenue, but then they can be 12 hour news outlets instead of 24 hours news outlets. Or they can find some other way to cut costs.
Ads inevitably corrupt all news coverage, including the newspapers, radio, NPR, PBS, cable news, etc.
The whole idea is to allow the end consumer to see.
An ad/subscriber model still doesn’t allow me to see if the business’ revenues.
For example, another well known blogger under an anonymous name persistently attacks any anti-Putin sentiment, goes after U.S. politicians who oppose Putin.
Years back Journalists dug up his info, Turns out, the owner is a disgraced/banned stock broker of Soviet heritage, his father was former KGB, the blog itself operates from a country in that region.
That doesn’t make him a Russian spy, however, it allows me to know what might affect his views and consider the possibility that his blog may derive revenues outside of just ads that wouldn’t be public info in the U.S.
Political influence peddlers, lobbyists in the U.S. are required to register their info, foreign agents are as well, the internet blurs those lines, opens the door for influencing/propaganda without disclosure of the source.
I’m for free speech, just want to know who’s speaking.
.
But there are so many sources now, from conventional (TV, satellite radio, etc) to online (twitter, gab, blogs, etc).
Who’s going to compile all this source info and verify it is correct? Also, would it be illegal to be anonymous?
I like Scott Adam’s idea, which is that we help people cultivate a trusted network of experts that are good at objectively evaluating the daily deluge of info. E.g., Scott Adams mentions a guy name “Andreas Backhouse” (name spelling?) who is really good at evaluating data and whose analysis sometimes favors the left and sometimes the right.
Scott is still working on how to make this happen. But his twitter feed has been talking about it recently.
Just to review, here are some ideas to help get better news
I like the idea of #3. Schools and free college classes could be made available to teach people how to pick their list of people to follow.
“But there are so many sources now, from conventional (TV, satellite radio, etc) to online (twitter, gab, blogs, etc).
Who’s going to compile all this source info and verify it is correct? Also, would it be illegal to be anonymous?”
I’m talking internet, the anonymous nature of it vs old school traditional media or public forum.
At a minimum –
Think of it like the highway, I don’t know who you are as you pass me, but I see your face, car’s make/model, your plate.
You clip my car while passing me and speed off.
The police can find you and investigate, they cannot violate you or your property without a warrant, but they can knock on your door or call & ask questions.
Imagine if Qanon had to reveal his identity, or at least had to have a trackable id in order to post inside the U.S., similar to a license but without fees or testing.
I’d love to find old newspapers from the time driver licenses and auto registrations were first required, I wager an identical debate on this.
It’s just a car, or it’s a one ton projectile moving at 50+ MPH
It’s just free speech, or it’s a foreign adversary peddling influence lies to weaken us.
I don’t like it, but the alternative is worse, that became obvious on the 6th.
Do we even know that Qanon is from a foreign country? If it is, then I’m sure they could develop a very sophisticated strategy, which would circumvent any regulations that require the disclosure of their identity. I mean, they could even have someone within the USA do the posting.
My guess is that disclosure requirements would just reveal ordinary Americans who are just not sophisticated enough when they post something deemed “wrong” in some way. I read that in the UK sometimes people get a knock on the door by the police for saying something objectionable online.
Also, suppose Qanon is a foreign entity. Would we want our government to shut it down? What if our government is the one that’s lying?
There’s a website called “OpenSecrets” that’s supposed to help people discover who’s funding our politicians. But does it help people make better decisions in the voting booth?
We are not suffering from a lack of info. We have too much info and most of us are not analyzing it well. If we provide more info about the sources of info, I don’t think it will help people analyze the info better.
How is it that you and I know that Qanon is fake, without even knowing where the source is from? Maybe whatever it is that you and I have, we could give to others.
This is why I think we need to teach people to analyze info better. I like these 2 books: “Loser Think” by Scott Adams and “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling.
Was it free speech to go on social media like Twitter and Facebook, FOX Newsmax and OAN and claim Dominion and Smartmatic were altering votes when there was no evidence supporting this? Such talk helped incite violence
Yes, that’s well within the boundaries of what needs to be acceptable. Same as claiming the US is systemically racist or the police are hunting down black men. Neither lies nor unsupported opinions are incitement. Calling for imminent violence is incitement. That wasn’t it. Why are so-called liberals suddenly abandoning free speech?
No evidence? ARe you blind. Over 1000 witnesses that saw the corruption. Do the math. I can Trump win over 2400 counties and Biden 700 and still win. Sorry, the fraud was obvious and again no one does the math.
Yea about those witnesses and their signed affidavits. it was all crap. Not reputable, Lawyers couldn’t verify or ascertain anything and what they swore too proved nothing.
Also ask yourself why all these crooked state governments refuse real audits.