Should high-profile social media posts be deleted?

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

I get the argument, that celebrities and political figures should not be allowed to continue to spread misinformation or give platform to toxic ideas. I agree. That can be really damaging, especially for that type of user base who will see high profile people espousing those ideas, it gives them validation. It's not just about what some silly public figure thinks but the power of their influence and platform.

However.... And I'll openly admit, this is about Trump being released from the hospital and posting on Facebook about how harmless Covid-19 is, I think he compared it to the flu. And the post was removed. It was stupid for him to say that, because even if younger people can survive it, that's not the problem. We know who's at risk for this thing. The problem is younger people getting it and accidentally spreading it to older people or immuno-compromised people.

Anyway, aside from the Covid thing or how you feel about the President, it occurred to me that any other politician or public figure might be embarrassed and attempt to cover up when they have said something so foolish or when they blatantly lie. They have and likely would attempt to delete their own posts to hide the misstep. They could get away with it and pretend it never happened. Yet here we have Facebook doing that work for him.

This topic is about whether or not we should censor public figures on social media. Like, should we push for Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. to delete false information or toxic, hateful posts of high-ranking officials?

I'm conflicted. Because I do believe that people can and will die/get seriously hurt by following the words of their leaders and idols. Just look at Jenny McCarthy and how many people she was able to convince to not vaccinate their children. But I also think that people should know who they're voting for and who they're supporting. When they reveal themselves so brazenly, it is evidence against them. I can't be the only one who's smacked his head against a brick wall trying to convince my friends and family of different politicians being liars and stirring up hate. The times I've found the best success in this is when I am able to show them by that politician's own words what they truly believe.

 

[Staine]

As somebody at high risk (thankfully not in America so it doesn't affect me so much, what he did,) I'm more than aware of how dangerously irresponsible the message set out by the President was. In his case, I think deleting it was for the best regardless of whether it 'hides' his true thoughts. With that particular person, it doesn't matter if you can google search it in 5 seconds to refute what he says or not, he says it anyway and with the conviction a normal human would tell the absolute truth with and he will pretend he never said it even if you were holding it up to him at the time.

In general...I think we should censor it if it's harmful to others, as this one clearly is. Let's be quite honest here, nothing is gone from the internet forever now, if somebody says something stupid and they are a public figure you can guarantee it's been screenshotted, meme'd and is available to see whether they delete it or not so finding the proof of it isn't ever going to be the issue. Trump's message is still easy to find right now. I googled 'Trump facebook message deleted' just to confirm for myself and read an article on the entire thing, with a picture of the message in it. The real benefit of what facebook does by taking it down is by limiting the misinformation and the spread of the message. Millions have no doubt already heard of or seen it but honestly, if even just 5 people who might see it and do something stupid like believe it now don't ever know it existed, it may just save a life. I think that's worth it.

 

[Trussed Maiden]

I follow the above sort of, but the stipulation is, dumb is as dumb do. I think life is too complicated in most cases for a comment like Trump's to have done significant damage either way. The trouble is that just as you might save a life, you might change events in a way that dooms another, and too many stay the same (usually? Just slight positive/negative tweaks when they do change). I wouldn't feel responsible for the outlier as I've seen too much of well meant things lead to unexpected bad as well. There's a line where the benefit is obvious of course - I just don't think it's drawn for censorship here.

 

[Cassandraks]

There are so many people who are not high profile who are spreading information about dangerous things, and with the way it is anymore the places things can be said it is impossible to just make any of it go away. It will always be there, and we have to hope people are smart enough (which unfortunately some are not) to look at all sides and do the research and make sure they know what is going on. Censoring people even high profile I don't think we should be doing, if it is truly truly dangerous which with our President...God help us... We are never going to sway the people who believe him whole heartedly anyways so there isn't much of a point. All we can really do is fight the disinformation with the truth, making sure the true information is out there and easy to find. People have to make their own decisions, if it is the wrong one especially about Covid they will find out soon enough.

 

[Father Figure]

Once you begin and accept censorship in society in any fashion then you begin to establish the foundation for censorship in all forms. The current belief is that these tools are in the hands of the "good" and are being used to stop the "bad". However, whomever you may pay lip service to in the form of prayer or politician may not be the one who is in power a decade from now, two decades, a century. The bulwark against tyranny is Freedom of Speech and once that degrades, once that is taken, then you doom not just your enemies...but yourself.

 

[Tanakalian]

After Facebook removed, and Twitter hid said particular post, Trump signed yet another order to revoke section 230. The section that states that social media firms are not responsible for what their users post (unless misleading, toxic etcetera).
What strikes me is that if the article is revoked, in my personal thought process it would mean that those social media firms WILL be responsible for the content of their users. And that can only mean that more posts will be deleted and/or hidden. And wouldn't Trump be shooting in his own foot that way?

In my personal view, but I am Dutch, European, so I have different views to an American, freedom of speech should not be limitless. Denying the Holocaust for instance, should never be allowed to fall under freedom of speech. And so I also think that spreading proven misinformation, outright lies, should be blocked by all means possible. Of course, the crux of things with the latter is that how do you prove something is a lie? But that's another debate.

 

[Shiver]

Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or any other platform are perfectly free to moderate the content they display. These platforms are so big that we tend to think of them as parts of the public sector - they're not. Their responsibility is to behave in accordance with whatever corporate principles they've chosen. If it were me, I'd use a very free hand in banning content I found to be nasty, toxic, and harmful to society. If Twitter wanted, they could ban Trump for violating its Terms of Service and they'd have every right.

And that wouldn't be censorship. You can't censor the government, because you don't owe the government the right to freedom of speech -- the government owes that to you. A citizen or corporation deciding that it doesn't want to be party to government propaganda is 100% acceptable.

 

[PraiseTheSlut]

I agree with Shiver, in that a private company can do what they want so long as it is still within the bounds of the law. The issue tends to be when the companies try to argue that they classify as one thing, then another depending on what court and procedures are used against them. These big companies have in various rulings argued that they are one thing, then the next, when they are exclusive. However they have never been fully brought to bear to the courts, forcing a clearcut ruling on what they are considered.

Beyond that and in regards to whether those in high positions should have their stuff monitored for misinformation or lies, atleast in regards to the USA, we have the freedom of speech. And when said freedom is limited, it then becomes an issue of. Who decides what is right and wrong? Who decides whether a person is influential enough to warrant their right to speak their minds and opinions be restrained? Speech is subjective, context is important. There are numerous videos and stories that are born out of single sentences taken out of context to make them look bad, of changing the meaning behind words after the fact, of adding one small phrase so that a person can claim the entire statement is false in an article.

The best way to fight against misinformation and lies of those in high places is not just through relying on a big media companies but installing the future generations with the mindset of testing and discussion. As a whole media companies no longer have the interest of truth at heart, or have closed their minds to the potential truth for what they believe to be. This affects networks across the political spectrum, some far more than others. There are rather good people individially within them, but on a whole the pursuit for truth is more about backing their political views.

If we raise our children to look research things, question, and have open discussions then they won't just blindly follow one or two source's words. Since, as it is, there are people who believe people are just marching through streets dancing happily to show their discontent. And others who believe it is filled with people who yell out the horrible things they will do to female officers with their batons, while trying to burn them alive in buildings.

Both situations are occuring during these times, but depending on which source you go to thats the view you will have. In short, this is life. Human's aren't perfect, no matter how hard we try or how good our intentions are. There will never be a simple solution without mass genocide and mindcontrol forcing people to all obey. Best way forward is to look at the mistakes everyone is making and try to teach our children to always question and hear others out, no matter the other's viewpoint.

 

[Shiver]

Beyond that and in regards to whether those in high positions should have their stuff monitored for misinformation or lies, atleast in regards to the USA, we have the freedom of speech. And when said freedom is limited, it then becomes an issue of. Who decides what is right and wrong? Who decides whether a person is influential enough to warrant their right to speak their minds and opinions be restrained?

This is what I was trying to get at. The government does not have freedom of speech. YOU have the freedom to speak your mind without fear of government reprisal. Freedom of speech does not require you or anyone else to provide a platform for the government to spread its messaging.

Government statements should be scrutinized vigorously. Demonstrable, objective lies (which exist a-plenty, not everything is subjective) or destructive, poisonous propaganda should be called out, corrected, removed from platforms whenever the owners of those platforms feel that it's appropriate.

If the white house wants to release a claim, it can do so through a press release. If Twitter thinks the claim is bullshit, it doesn't have to give it a platform.

 

[P DeRudio]

I get the argument, that celebrities and political figures should not be allowed to continue to spread misinformation or give platform to toxic ideas. I agree. ...

This topic is about whether or not we should censor public figures on social media. Like, should we push for Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. to delete false information or toxic, hateful posts of high-ranking officials?
...

And this the problem whose supposed cure is far, far worse than the disease. Who is this "we" who decides what is and what isn't misinformation and toxic ideas? I'm guessing it's someone with exactly the same point of view as the reader. In the world outside the easily triggered, libel, slander, false advertising, false medical claims, blue sky promises are already regulated, and if someone's been slandered or got taken by investment fraud, that's what the courts are for.

In America, "toxic" (where "toxic" = "whatever the reader doesn't like") ideas are protected against government interference. Nazis and Communists have a right to speak, however repugnant their ideas. Before you even get to the question of whether itis a good idea for social media platforms to engage in interfering with speech and ideas in the way the government cannot, you should figure out who the censor is going to be, because sure as shi'ite, the opinions you want to hear on social media will be targeted by someone, sometime.

 

[Shiver]

In America, "toxic" (where "toxic" = "whatever the reader doesn't like") ideas are protected against government interference.

Yes but Facebook, twitter and all aren't government entities. They're private and are perfectly free to take down whatever they deem to be contrary to their own principles.

Private speech is protected from government interference. Government speech is not protected from private interference. None of us are obligated to give public officials a platform.

 

[PraiseTheSlut]

Here is the primary issue, they already are targeting and deleting things on a purely political reasoning, they are deleting posts that they feel is harmful to their positions while allowing others to run rampant despite being posted by people with the same, or greater, number of viewers. If they are given the green light, saying that they are encouraged to do it to those in office. Then the only information we get, is what they want us to get.

Freedom of speech within these areas ensures that we can stay updated on what is happening, or atleast try to. So that if an official is doing things we think are wrong we can vote them out. If another says things we agree on , we can support them. Otherwise, it is all a matter of what the companies decide should reach us.

 

[Ahlanna]

The thing is they (the social media companies) try to have it both ways.

Argument #1 - Facebook/Twitter etc is in no way legally responsible for the content posted. This seems like a logical default position. They argue this in court every time someone sues for slander.

Argument #2 - Facebook/Twitter own everything on their website and can do as they wish with it. They argue this position in court, too, every time someone complains about getting banned/taken down/demonetized/censored/whatever. But this position implies responsibility. If you own it, promote it, allow it to stay around on your site ... and it's slanderous (or some other legal violation) ... why wouldn't you be responsible for the content you promoted and own?

Both can't be true. #1 or #2.

 

[Trussed Maiden]

Otherwise, it is all a matter of what the companies decide should reach us.

Unfortunately, it is. We give business to companies with the right to do it, and we don't really make noise of disapproval when they engage in the behavior. Is it a flaw in society (through legal nuance and their position), I think so, but the only remedy is people deciding more collectively and firmly that a more liberal approach to speech however dumb should be taken.

Both can't be true. #1 or #2.

They can.

1. is a basic disclaimer for legal purposes and so people cannot tell them 'this guy posted cp, now YOU are responsible'. Pretty usual.
2. is them exerting their right to host what they want. Just because they are not legally responsible doesn't mean it's content they want to have. And even with the legal disclaimer, they must account for social response that could tank them regardless if their (target) audience doesn't like it.

It's a little skewed, but both apply in way more platforms than those sites.

 

[Ahlanna]

I disagree. While responsibility isn't incurred instantly when someone posts something, there is a duty to remove it in a reasonable timeframe. If someone posted audio of a major pop singer's next album before it releases, surely Facebook can be expected to do something about that or face legal action.

 

[Trussed Maiden]

I disagree. While responsibility isn't incurred instantly when someone posts something, there is a duty to remove it in a reasonable timeframe. If someone posted audio of a major pop singer's next album before it releases, surely Facebook can be expected to do something about that or face legal action.

1 and/or 2 apply on context, more than any single example. In this case 1 is invoked directly because album leaks can and will be actively pursued with no ambiguity on the company's fault for having condoned it staying up.

2 follows the other extreme, if the company is targeted for just having something that wouldn't be aggressively pursued by big entities in court due to being a grey area or not even that. People will over-exert their rights for cases that would get messy, and so it is easier for the company to say 'you're giving this to us and we can mess with it however we like'. More of an extreme right to handle the content so people can't complain rather than its complete ownership and creation. At least, that's how I'd see it argued if addressed legally.

Since not all cases are black and white and their bias in perspective always applies, how this is enforced will not always be balanced.

They can still get in trouble if a court doesn't buy ^ and I'm not saying this is perfect. It works far more than not, and that is why it is done. If a big case strikes at the issue, it's possible the dynamic would change. Some companies reach far on #2 and can't try to balance it. Blizzard Entertainment uses some pretty shifty 'well yes, you made this, but you used our resources to do it' to argue. It ultimately depends on what a court will decide is reasonable and if it was taken down in good time when it's not. It's a decision all companies hosting stuff need to make to avoid losing their own rights (or be aggressive on owning them), yet not infringe on individual rights or take too much ownership over user decisions. I'm aware this is far easier to argue in gaming than a social media host. I haven't seen a good balance explained in detail, so forgive me for being unclear. I was a little off on my first post for #2, having slightly misread what you wrote.

 

[obieblu]

Yes, yes. "Slippery slope" is just as much pearl-clutching as whatever regulation it's arguing against. There are a myriad of legal boundaries that are not moved often or haphazardly. There are defined ages at which you can intake specific toxic substances. Those haven't change often. The legal drinking age doesn't go up every year because the authoritarians really want to prevent you from drinking.

We already have limits and qualifications for free and protected speech. Free speech does not cover threats of violence or inducing others to commit a crime. For anyone arguing that "not allowing some speech means all speech is threatened"... just No. We already have limits. They don't change often.

I think it's intelligent and prudent to prosecute official government agencies that intentionally put out untrue information. When the US President tweets, it's legally considered an official communication from the President. That was already determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when they ruled Trump can't block anyone from his Twitter while he's president. Unfortunately, we have a Congress who wouldn't punish him if there was a mechanism to do so, but we haven't had a case of this degree, length, and frequency of lying from that office before. I absolutely think there should be some form of official censure, now that we've had it happen. Senators can get censured for things they say. No other position should be above it.

"Slippery slope" here is just muddying the water for no good or practical purpose. There are already established limits on speech in every country that claims 'free speech', there are already ways to punish gov't officials for saying horrible things, and there is objective evidence of the harm that misinformation from the government causes. Anyone with a conscience should support stopping lies.

Just to entertain myself, and I miss the debate forum I used to be a moderator of, I'm gonna play with some regulations Slippery Slopes don't get assigned to:

Age of Consent Laws - Without them... we all know why they were created in the first place. Consent Laws will never be used to prevent 30yos from having sex. No one cries "slippery slope" about these because putting an age qualification on that activity makes sense.
Drinking/Smoking Laws - I think spending lots of money on ingesting poison is one of the dumbest lifestyles a human can adopt. But, no one cries "slippery slope" at smoking laws. I do think that drinking/smoking ages should probably be the same (along with joining the military) as to set one standard for legal adulthood. Once you reach that age, have at. The smoking age will never get up to 30. It wouldn't make sense. Age laws wouldn't be what's used to make a substance illegal, anyways.
Joining the Military - As the human brain doesn't stop developing until around 25, I don't think that 18 is even the right line to draw in regards to being forced to go kill brown people for oil companies. Though, that age hasn't changed in a while.

So, right off the top of my head, there are 3 commonly accepted legal limitations on our activities and rights that are not nudged around all that much, if at all. It's intellectually dishonest to say that these sorts of lines can't be drawn and maintained. Or that there isn't some sort of established procedure for changing them. Also, just because you wouldn't like it being changed doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm not going to like it if my right to get married gets ripped away by a new Supreme Court, but I won't be able to say that there wasn't a legal procedure that was followed when it does. In this case, MORE regulation (more conditions for when and how to nominate and approve) would certainly protect my liberties. Funny how lack of regulation more often helps the empowered and hurts the marginalized... makes you think about why someone is against regulation in principle.

So, when someone in a (theoretically) trusted position that comes with authority and a very large platform is saying things that 99% of experts disagree with, I absolutely think there should be some sort of review system. Saying "but what if 10% agrees" is a moral cop-out for the situation we're facing where someone told millions of people to endanger the live of others (praising people not wearing masks) and people have literally died because of it.

Former Anti-Mask Pundit​

Though, one specific slippery slope is a darling of Conservatives. Abortion regulation is one of the slipperiest legal slopes that I've seen in my lifetime. For a Constitutionally-protected right that has been upheld numerous times, there's a powerful faction that just loves regulating into being unusable. Hint, it's the same group that clings to the 1st and 2nd amendments in the ways that hurt and kill people.

Regulation is abhorrent if you like the thing. Regulation is necessary if you don't like the thing. There's no real principle about the concept of regulation. It's just about whether you want a fence in between you and the thing you want or between someone else and something you don't want them to have. Everyone wants a regulation against them being murdered. It's intellectually dishonest to say that your principle is about Regulation instead of the specific activity that's being regulated. In this thread, it's about lying. Is lying good or bad? There's your moral question.

I think it's also a moral cop-out to criticize review/punishment systems that don't exist. I think people against this just think that lying is ok. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, so I don't know what that system should look like. There's gotta be something. In the mean time, I'll proudly say I think government officials that objectively lie should receive negative and public consequences. Our legal system holds that lying is unacceptable. We already have libel and slander laws. Use those as a guide? I get in trouble for lying to Congress. Why doesn't Congress get in trouble for lying to me?

In lieu of legal oversight of our officials lying... it falls to social media. Which is just ugh. I don't understand how people who don't trust the government trust people who make much more direct profit off of widely-sweeping actions like... CEOs and boards of directors. I don't like or trust most politicians, but at the least we're supposed to be able to vote them out (except for gerrymandering, but whatever), and they have to be theoretically contactable to their voter base. I don't get to vote on what companies do and don't do. So, I'll take the authority of an entity that I have at least a imaginary degree of control over rather than one I have objectively no control over whatsoever.

I used to be a cool kid and think it was cool to be against censorship in any form. When I was a teenager. But kids kill themselves over cyberbullying. Racist kids murder because their heroes say protesters are bad. There are lies that hurt and kill. We stop ordinary citizens from doing it. Why not the most powerful citizen?. Being against it because of "slippery slope" is being complicit. Like not calling the police or going over yourself when you hear your neighbor beating their spouse or children because it's their home and their business. Principles don't protect you from responsibility when you could have done something. All of us in democratic nations have responsibility to at least try to demand moral and ethical standards from our governments.

 

[Tinkerer Nadia]

View: https://youtu.be/UgNWKIXvHp8


Speaks for itself

 

[Jericho Z. Barrons]

"Slippery slope" here is just muddying the water for no good or practical purpose. There are already established limits on speech in every country that claims 'free speech', there are already ways to punish gov't officials for saying horrible things, and there is objective evidence of the harm that misinformation from the government causes. Anyone with a conscience should support stopping lies.

I think it's also a moral cop-out to criticize review/punishment systems that don't exist. I think people against this just think that lying is ok. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, so I don't know what that system should look like. There's gotta be something. In the mean time, I'll proudly say I think government officials that objectively lie should receive negative and public consequences. Our legal system holds that lying is unacceptable. We already have libel and slander laws. Use those as a guide? I get in trouble for lying to Congress. Why doesn't Congress get in trouble for lying to me?

[/thread] Great post and exactly the point.

I'm also on board with those who've made the point that Twitter or Facebook aren't official public services. I think Trump has been the first President to really use social media as a way to have some sort of press conference or reach the people informally. But truthfully, it's not for that and not about that. Twitter isn't a community hall just because politicians use it. I don't have Twitter. Am I just SOL to hear political messages from my elected officials?

 

[Tanakalian]

After posting earlier here, and reading the replies later on, this has really turned into a solely US thread. I totally don't recognize anything being said here as something I have to deal with in Europe in general and The Netherlands in particular. Just wanted to add that.

But, @obieblu, fabulous post. Great to read a clear view on things.

 

[PraiseTheSlut]

Twitter has just started censoring the Biden leaks. Targeting the New York Times, the white house press secretary, and the president's election campaign. Because they claim anything that is obtained without authorization should be removed. However back when there were years of talking about russia's connection to trump, they never cared about ensuring things were neat and orderly. When the president's tax returns were leaked they never cared.

Youtube is announcing that there will no longer be any warning system in place, that they will give the axe in regards to certain things that they don't like. So if you are the type of person that believes the government and news should be censored by these media companies, you got half of what you wanted. Out of the two parties, half is, the other half isn't. Which is the issue with the idea behind censoring stuff. Ultimately it is used as a tool to advance a goal, not to protect.

 

[P DeRudio]

Yes but Facebook, twitter and all aren't government entities. They're private and are perfectly free to take down whatever they deem to be contrary to their own principles.

Private speech is protected from government interference. Government speech is not protected from private interference. None of us are obligated to give public officials a platform.

I made that distinction. My point is, anyone who thinks censorship of any kind by social media is a good idea better hope that it's not your ideas that are censored next. Because this will happen. At least when the government censors speech content and how and when speech is permitted, there are guidelines and presumptions against regulation.

It is very shortsighted and dangerous to think that the editors of any social media won't censor in destructive ways.

 

[P DeRudio]

I think it's intelligent and prudent to prosecute official government agencies that intentionally put out untrue information. When the US President tweets

the president has a first amendment right to campaign. political speech in American has always included ridicule and hyperbole and character assassination short of actionable defamation and is given the greatest first amendment protection. For everything else: "intentionally untrue information" will always be in the eye of the beholder in this context, and such a vague definition for criminal prosecution is beyond unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, we have a Congress who wouldn't punish him if there was a mechanism to do so, but we haven't had a case of this degree, length, and frequency of lying from that office before. I absolutely think there should be some form of official censure, now that we've had it happen. Senators can get censured for things they say. No other position should be above it.

please, point out the criminal laws that you think he's violated in speech, chapter and verse. I'll start you out: 18 U.S.C. sections _______.

For the record, I'm not particular pro-any party, I an a firm believer in free speech in the widest senese possible. It's a free country, and private businesses are permitted to restrict speech, but people who think this is a good thing aren't thinking beyond the next election.

 

[Distendedaura]

My opinion on the matter actually alines with Trump believe it or not. Trump despite all his flaws, I applaud for expressing the rights his decenter's have to voice their opinions and spread their articles. He just asks for that fair trade where Republicans also get to share their opinions and articles without having their voices silenced. Not the violent or hateful ones, which he actually has condemned totally, as he would put it lol. I am a liberal person, and I stand by the notion that social media conglomerates are indeed lobbying with the democrats and are allowing a more or less one sided spread of news and information. They are not by any means impartial, which as a third party they should be. Both morally and legally. These companies include Facebook, Twitter, and to a lesser extent Google/YouTube. They are not acting impartially, whilst pretending/telling the public they are and act impartial. It is a gross assumption of the public's lack of intelligence that they continue this sham. Big tech can not, to quote Ayn Rand I believe, eat their cake and have it to. Their self proclaimed impartial stance conflicts with the reality, that they are not acting impartially.

 

[Shiver]

My opinion on the matter actually alines with Trump believe it or not. Trump despite all his flaws, I applaud for expressing the rights his decenter's have to voice their opinions and spread their articles. He just asks for that fair trade where Republicans also get to share their opinions and articles without having their voices silenced. Not the violent or hateful ones, which he actually has condemned totally, as he would put it lol. I am a liberal person, and I stand by the notion that social media conglomerates are indeed lobbying with the democrats and are allowing a more or less one sided spread of news and information. They are not by any means impartial, which as a third party they should be. Both morally and legally. These companies include Facebook, Twitter, and to a lesser extent Google/YouTube. They are not acting impartially, whilst pretending/telling the public they are and act impartial. It is a gross assumption of the public's lack of intelligence that they continue this sham. Big tech can not, to quote Ayn Rand I believe, eat their cake and have it to. Their self proclaimed impartial stance conflicts with the reality, that they are not acting impartially.

A few quick thoughts:

1) You're making the assumption that all viewpoints are equally valid and that preferring one or the other is just a matter of one's personal bias. This isn't true. Just because there are two sides to something doesn't mean that the truth is always directly in the middle of those two points. For example, the claims: "wearing masks significantly reduces the spread of COVID-19" and "COVID-19 is a hoax, masks are a conspiracy" are not equally valid. One is complete disinformation. Therefore, it's NOT the responsibility of media outlets to present both equally. Responsible media endeavours to tell the truth, not grant "balance" between objective truth and objective bullshit, even if mainstream politicians have started supporting the bullshit.

2) You may be interested to know that Facebook has actually been shown to be privileging right-wing information, not left wing. The accusation that social media is somehow silencing conservative voices is, like many others, completely made up.

3) No private company is required to act impartially when deciding what content to host. They have every right to do as they see fit and reflect their own values.