I am surprised this made it to SCOTUS. When the government is demanding it, it becomes a 1st amendment issue. Meta is acting as an agent of the government. This should have never happened.

  • Mathazzar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.