On Thursday, Psaki was asked a question regarding the Biden administration’s request for tech companies to be more "aggressive" when policing what they referred to as "misinformation." Psaki revealed that the White House is "in regular touch with social media platforms" to handle it.
"We are in regular touch with the social media platforms and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff and also members of our COVID-19 team—given as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue, of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic," Psaki explained.
So, first I am reminded of all the flip-flopping at just about everything COVID ... One day the science said this and then it said that. Actually, folks, this is not how science works.
Then I am concerned who the hell will be deciding what I say is disinformation?
"Within the Surgeon General's Office, we're flagging posts for Facebook that spread disinformation," Psaki said. "We're working with doctors and medical professionals to connect medical experts with people, who are popular with their audiences with accurate information and boost trusted content. So, we're helping get trusted content out there. We also created the COVID Community Corps to get factual information into the hands of local messengers."
Medical experts like Dr. Fauci? Really... Or the CDC that flip flops frequently. Then there was this --- "We're working with doctors and medical professionals to connect medical experts with people, who are popular with their audiences with accurate information and boost trusted content." In my view this statement is insulting, implying a media Doc celebrity of some sort is who I would trust in regard to medical information.
The White House is working with Facebook to flag comments content at this point on COVID --- what then? What will the White House's next pet peeve that they will define as misinformation?
This administration does not respect the Constitution, and for that matter even any of our laws they find to get in their way.
I am simply going to ask --- Do you fear that your right to free speech is being impinged
When that disinformation endangers Americans by working against solving the Covid pandemic and helping the Delta variant spread, or it brainwashes Americans into attacking their own Capitols, I have no problem with 'policing.'
If your freedom of speech is leading to people getting hurt or killed, I'm just fine with tech companies keeping that content off their platforms for the good of the country.
The concept is that censoring speech is off the table. Government has no right by law to interfere with free speech.
First Amendment: An Overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. ... The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights.
I for one do not in any respect need the government to handle my health or my decisions on my healthcare or do I need them to censor information. So far the government has put out a ton of misinformation on COVID. I have little to no trust in the information coming out of the Biden White House.
Some don't value freedom of speech or the Constitution. Too bad, this sort doesn't just pack up and find another country. Because this one is not up for sale or renovation. So sick of the liberal dribble.
There are plenty of examples of the government interfering with free speech, with two major examples being fraud (the Big Lie counts) and incitement (convincing people to attack their own Capitols or police).
The link below provides plenty of times where you seem unaware of the Supreme Court allowing a limitation of freedom of speech for the good of the country. I'm pretty sure they value the Constitution. That 'liberal dribble' as you call it helps protect you from fraud, libel, and child pornography, just to name a few.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/First- … expression
Let me remind you I am aware of the SC right to make amendments on cases that involve free speech I repeat -- First Amendment: An OverviewThe First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. ... The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights.
The White house monitoring Social media is clearly off-limits. They are breaking the law. It is not up to our Government to police social media. And this will end up in the SC due to Trump bringing his lawsuit against several social media outlets.
Hey, you know what, I cherish free speech I have no room for anyone that does not respect freedom of speech.
The White House informing social media companies of posts they believe to be spreading misinformation, still allows those companies to make the determination of whether to remove that post, being a private company. Anybody can monitor social media, there are no laws against looking at posts, despite your claim to the contrary.
And the government is already policing social media, while looking for child predators and other restricted speech in child pornography.
Hopefully it does go to the Supreme Court so we can see if Trump's posts fall under the category of incitement for January 6.
I've not ever been such an outcast in my life, also banned, over the discussion about covid.
Very difficult opening up and being honest with so many people now adays.
Can the US government censor social media?
With a few exceptions, the free speech provisions of the First Amendment bar federal, state, and local governments from directly censoring the Internet. The primary exception has to do with obscenity, including child pornography, which does not enjoy First Amendment protection.
source --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_ … ted_States
"What does the 1st Amendment not protect?
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial ..."
Is the Federal Government working alongside social media to censor our posts violate our right to free speech period?
A Government that seeks to control media and social media, is that not a fascist Government? fascism --- "that a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
Do we really need to give our Government control over our free speech?
Have we become a people that can't think and speak for ourselves or simply have become unable to be trusted to think and speak for ourselves. in my view, It would appear the Biden administration feels the latter.
Wackie Joe's words of wisdom for today... This man is so hyperbolic It's hard to imagine what he will say next. It's really not funny anymore.
"WASHINGTON, July 16 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden on Friday said social media platforms such as Facebook (FB.O) "are killing people" after the White House continued criticizing the company for allowing misinformation about coronavirus vaccines to be posted on its platform."
I myself like to be able to have the right to research any subject. When it comes to COVID I especially appreciate any and all information on the virus.
For instance, I read articles from other countries, just to compare other scientist's opinions. Many times I find their opinions do not consider with some here in America. I have shared information that would not coincide with Dr. Fauci's opinion. I have not been flagged as of yet.
IMO the White House has no place censoring social media. Social media platforms are private companies and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit. The Government has no place censoring what we can read.
In my province our leader wants all lockdown of any group
Kind of assembly. Not because of covid, it because people may have different opinions about the covid not in line of the government mandates.
Its criminal to totally dictate our lives
In my view, much of COVID has been political. In California, they will be returning to wearing masks tomorrow, inside and outside. One of the reasons I think is to pressure those that have made the choice not to take the vaccine by making everyone wear a mask. This turns one against the other, a very overused Dem ploy --- divide and concur. Make it uncomfortable for those that took the vaccine, and you got it soon you will have fighting with those that won't take the jab.
In Florida, the big Stanley Cup hockey games had full packed areas with people with out masks. They now have one of the lowest state covid death tolls. Same with Texas.
by Amanda Littlejohn 8 years ago
Which is more important, freedom of faith or freedom of speech?Many religious folks are decent, good people. Some of my best friends subscribe to institutionalised superstition - and are good humored enough to let me say that without taking offense. But most religions per se enshrine some deeply...
by Lions Den Media 10 years ago
Obama has used the Espionage Act, passed under Woodrow Wilson to shut down media opposition WWI, 6 times in 3 years, whilst it had been used 3 times since 1917, to target or shut down journalists that Obama targeted. In Syria journalists were killed and Obama praised their tough journalistic style,...
by Angie B Williams 9 months ago
The FB post shared, does a great job at explaining what I and so many others have been up against, throughout all of social media, for far too long. Hopefully, things are changing for the better.Thoughts?
by Jacqueline Williamson BBA MPA MS 8 years ago
Many people see the 1st Amendment today as an avenue to say “whatever they want” without regards of the feelings of others. However, according to the United States Exceptions of Free Speech: “Speeches that involve incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats and...
by RealityTalk 9 years ago
Is freedom of speech compromised in America today?It appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to racism, unless the racist in question is white skinned. It also appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to same-sex marriage if the article is anti-same-sex marriage; even if the...
by irachx 4 years ago
Do we really have freedom of speech?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|