Freedom of speech and freedom from lies – Opinion – Cape Cod Times

Twitter, which has consistently offered a mixed diet of pithy insights and utter poppycock, recently took the unusual step of banning political advertisements ahead of the 2020 election cycle. The social media platform made the announcement after claiming misleading and outright fictional ads had begun to appear in various tweets. Some, particularly some right-wing commentators, quickly called foul, claiming that the limitations were tantamount to stripping away their right to free speech. Those with common sense, however, were a bit more balanced in terms of their response, acknowledging less the disappointment of the move, and more so the reason behind it.

In making the announcement, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey argued that although political ads can provide a steady source of income, that benefit is overshadowed by the danger of disinformation to the political process.

The move drew disapproval from both sides of the political aisle. The presidents campaign manager claimed Dorseys decision represented yet another attempt to silence conservatives, while former Vice President Joe Bidens campaign characterized the decision to ban ads as unfortunate.

Not surprisingly, the rest of the social media landscape has not immediately followed Twitters lead. In fact, at Facebook, founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg doubled down on the companys current policy as regards political advertisements; namely, that his company is not in the business of fact checking such ads because, in his opinion, it would amount to an abridgement of free speech. In fact, Zuckerberg sounded downright noble when he proclaimed last week that, In a democracy, I dont think its right for private companies to censor politicians, or the news.

What Zuckerberg fails to acknowledge is that his platform has been the conduit for a massive amount of misinformation during the past several years, whether it involved the 2016 presidential elections or the run up to the Brexit vote in England. Despite his platitudes, his pontificating on the right to free speech likely has more to do with revenue streams than rights. The fact is that any attempt to limit political ads would undermine a revenue source for the company, as it plays host to thousands, if not millions, of such advertisements over the course of any given year. In fact, the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump spent more than $70 million on Facebook ads prior to the 2016 election.

Such pronouncements also represent the height of hypocrisy, coming as they do from a man who has routinely allowed some governments including those of Turkey and Pakistan to censor information that appears on Facebook in return for the ability to exist in those countrys internet ether.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia, points out that the idea of censoring or even fact checking political ads may be a fools errand, noting that distinguishing between what is political and what is nonpolitical can be squarely in the eye of the beholder. Such is also the case with the truth, which today seems subject to parsing in ways that were unimaginable even a few years ago.

In the end, neither Twitter nor Facebooks approach represents the best way forward. By throwing up its hands and declaring itself beat, Twitter has in some ways declared itself a less viable format for information. It has essentially admitted that it is not able to handle the onslaught of data; not the sort of thing you want to acquiesce to when you are a social medial platform.

Facebook, in contrast, has also thrown up its hands, but has hidden its purposeful ineptitude behind the false gauze of protecting First Amendment rights. The company certainly could do far more to rout out the lies and inaccuracies shoveled into personal news feeds on a daily basis, but to do so would require more effort on its part and a willingness to part company with some of its more lucrative contracts. Despite what Zuckerberg would have us believe, protecting free speech does not necessarily mean protecting those who would purposely corrupt the truth in a blatant effort to undermine democracy.

Establishing a fair balance between these two extremes will require that the public flexes its economic model, demanding that it not be subject to divisive efforts to mislead and misinform. In a classic case of chicken and the egg, however, it is difficult to say whether or not the public is or can become sufficiently informed to make such a judgment.

Read more from the original source:
Freedom of speech and freedom from lies - Opinion - Cape Cod Times