Should social networks be responsible for misinformation?

[Dani]

I figured that we were overdue for a hot button topic. Cue the political discussion.

My hot take is that no, social networks should not be responsible for misinformation on their platforms. I believe in freedom of speech, and I believe in free press, and I also believe that as long as a social network makes it transparent that the content being published is user-generated content that belongs to specific members of their platform, then the social network is not acting itself as a publisher, per se, as much as it is a platform for end-users to self-publish.

[Reverend Jim]

Does free speech include hate speech? What about speech that incites violence against an individual or group? Newspapers used to be held responsible for what they published. Why should social media not be held to the same standards? Remind me again how much Fox got dinged for spreading lies about Dominion Voting Systems. Weren't they just practising free speech? If you argue that it was Fox employees who were knowingly making false claims, would it be different if they had instead interviewed non-employees who made those claims? That's what they did with Gorka.

And then we get into the "some say" scenario which Trump uses so frequently. If you call someone a paedophile directly you can be sued for libel or slander (depending on the medium), but if you instead claim, "Some people are saying he is a paedophile" you can then say, "I'm not saying that myself, but I've heard lots of people saying it." You get the same message out and the damage is still done.

1. You use the "some say" tactic.
2. Fox news then reports on that.
3. Now you use the Fox news report as proof of the allegations.

Replace #1 with social media posts.

By the way, the "some say" tactic has been used for millennia by the church. Someone, decades after the crucifixion, writes that miracle "x" was witnessed by hundreds of people, and now adherants claim that there were hundreds of witnesses to the miracle so it must be true.

But I digress. Hot button, indeed.

[rproffitt]

The PARADOX OF TOLERANCE is a must read here.

But given the current environment there's a power grab to control media. And this includes the media you listed.

The US regime has fired those that publish unflattering statistics, damage assessments from bombing Iran and the list continues on.

It's simple to understand for some of us. In short the emperor has no clothes and anyone that disagrees is fired, censored, threatened and called crazy elderly communist hippies.

Again, free speech meets the paradox of tolerance along with today's problem of living in an authoritarian regime.

[Dani]

Newspapers used to be held responsible for what they published. Why should social media not be held to the same standards?

Because I am of the strong belief that, unlike newspapers, social media sites are not publications. Newspapers have editors and hired staff writers and it is well understood that everything you read in a newspaper has been vetted. Social networks are apps that enable common-folk to self-publish whatever they want, whenever they want, usually with no or very little oversight. In this case, social networks are like printing presses. Are you going to hold it against the printing press for hate speech that was published by a newspaper? Some printing presses may have standards and choose to tell their client that they don't feel comfortable with that and refuse to publish it. Other printing presses may not have any oversight that reads what their client prints on their machine. I can go into Office Max and pay for their fancy printing equipment to print a 1000 page manifesto, which is used exclusively by employees, mind you, and the employees there aren't going to read said manifesto, scrutinize it, and turn me away if there is something unsavory in it.

I am not sure of what Fox story you're referring to, but, to generalize, the powers that be at Fox get to choose what does and what doesn't get aired by their network.

I feel as if the law, as it currently stands, sees it the same way that I do. Individuals can currently be held accountable (at least in civil court, I'm not sure about criminal court, but I believe there as well) for what they publish on their social platforms, whether it is hate speech, harassment, etc. Social platforms are required, meanwhile, to cooperate with authorities in helping to identify perpetrators who violate the law in the same way that a printing press may be required to share information on its clientele during a criminal investigation into a newspaper.

To make this an even more hot button topic than it already is, I think it is very important that DaniWeb staff, and at the very, very least, myself, keep our own personal politics entirely out of the community, the same way I think it's important for the powers that be at any corporation to keep their own personal political beliefs to themselves and not attempt to pressure, influence, or force them on employees, clients, customers, etc. Now that I've gotten that completely out of the way, I will say that I am Jewish and I am married to an Israeli-American. As someone who is Jewish and married to an Israeli-American, I will say that I very strongly disagree with the Free Palestine movement, which I see as a social media propaganda campaign initiated by radical Islam to kill all Jews worldwide, without people (Americans, etc.) even realizing that's what the agenda is. But I completely digress here on the actual politics of it all. What I do think is important to say is that the movement snowballed as much as it did entirely thanks to millennials, Gen Z, and social media. I think that what gets spread around social these days is such a significantly watered down version of the facts, spun such that it appeals to young folks who think that there is this great cause they need to get behind. Without social, do I think that 50 years ago, American newspapers would have spun it the same way? Absolutely not. Do I think that the Free Palestine movement would have even taken off 50 years ago without the power of the people in social media to take it and run with it the way that they have? Again, absolutely not. Given all of this, I still don't believe that social networks are responsible for the misinformation spread on their platform. Convince me otherwise.

[rproffitt]

Are you referring to the USA here?
Read https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship again.

What me worry?

Sadly the attacks are underway against those that disagree with the current regime.

Steven Miller said a few days ago that the networks must be dismantled. If you are not paying attention here, well that's on you.

[Dani]

Read https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship again.

But isn't that announcement in alignment with my viewpoint?

[Reverend Jim]

Are you going to hold it against the printing press

The printing press merely prints. It does not distribute. If I go to Staples and make copies of anti Jewish propoganda, Staples does not distribute it so they should not be held responsible. Similarly, if the papers are sent through the mail I would not hold Canada Post responsible. Neither Staples nor Canada Post could reasonably be expected to know the contents.

Some printing presses may have standards and choose to tell their client that they don't feel comfortable with that and refuse to publish it.

Again, printers don't publish. Publishers do. However, as a private business are they allowed to refuse to print material they disagree with? If so, can they refuse to print, for example, wedding invitations for a gay wedding? Where do you draw the line? Several forums, like ask-leo, moderate all posts before they appear online.

The definition of "publish" is

To prepare and issue for public sale, distribution, or readership.

That definition applies to social media as well as print media. If someone maakes an offending post on Daniweb it is immediately published. I realize that Facebook/Meta is exponentially larger than Daniweb and that moderating the large number of posts would require massive manpower, but Zuck has the resources to do this if he wanted. If there is no way to manage the load then perhaps it should be litigated out of existence.

the powers that be at Fox get to choose what does and what doesn't get aired by their network.

My point was that their talking heads were held responsible for smearing Dominion Systems. However, the knowingly false statements were uttered by Fox employees. They could just as easily have interviewed non-employees to make those same false statements. Should they still be held responsible? If so then why shouldn't social media be held to the same standards? If not then they would be able to use that pipeline to flood the airwaves with all kinds of accusations. Especially if phrased as "Some say that Joe Biden is a paedophile."

DaniWeb staff, and at the very, very least, myself, keep our own personal politics entirely out of the community

Are you saying that I should not express a political opinion? I understand, of course, that expressing political opinions these days can have ramifications far beyond what was expected during the last administration. I tend to save my more vitriolic opinions for non-public forums like DMs and email. For the most part I try to keep things civil, such as the "Islam is a religion of peace" thread from several years back that mike_2000_17 were active in.

[Dani]

Yes it is. So let's hear where you feel your media and other rights are deprived. +0

I don't feel like my media rights are deprived. I don't believe that social networks should be responsible for misinformation, and that aligns with the current administration. During the previous administration, I had some very real fears that, should the laws being discussed at the time end up being put in place, I could be held personally liable for every single thing posted on DaniWeb despite being bed-bound at the time.

However, as a private business are they allowed to refuse to print material they disagree with? If so, can they refuse to print, for example, wedding invitations for a gay wedding? Where do you draw the line?

I am of the belief that, yeah, any private business can refuse to work with anyone for any reason. There are, of course, employment laws where you can't discriminate based on certain things, but that has to do with hiring/employment, and not who you choose to do business with. No one should be forced to do business with someone who stands for something they don't believe in, even if it's something as silly as choosing to never work with people who wear purple ties.

Several forums, like ask-leo, moderate all posts before they appear online.

Yes, and that's their prerogative. There are quite a large number of forums in which all posts must go through a moderation queue. Then there are other forums that don't moderate content at all. And then there are sites like DaniWeb that fall somewhere in-between.

The definition of "publish" is To prepare and issue for public sale, distribution, or readership.

That's a bit of a shortened definition, but even so, how does Facebook prepare the content for publishing? One of the key responsibilities of a publisher, at least according to Google AI overview, is "managing the creation of the content, which includes overseeing editing, design, and production processes." Social networks do not do any of that.

Are you saying that I should not express a political opinion? I understand, of course, that expressing political opinions these days can have ramifications far beyond what was expected during the last administration. I tend to save my more vitriolic opinions for non-public forums like DMs and email. For the most part I try to keep things civil, such as the "Islam is a religion of peace" thread from several years back that mike_2000_17 were active in.

At least for the very vast majority of DaniWeb's existence, back when there was happygeek as community admin, and ~s.o.s~ as moderator admin, etc. one of the key responsibilities of moderators was to make sure that all of their posts remained politically correct, and that they kept their own personal political beliefs to themselves. It's not so much the case nowadays, but back then I relied solely on advertising income for living, paying my mortgage, etc. Advertisers did not want their products associated with any political beliefs, one way or another. Remember, I started DaniWeb back in 2002 as one of the first tech social media sites online (e.g. the MySpace era). At the time, the concept of user-generated content, social networks, etc. wasn't a thing. Advertisers had experience advertising on publications who put out content that aligned with their brand. User-generated content or not, advertisers only wanted to advertise on DaniWeb if their ads were shown alongside content that aligned with their brand. It would have been career suicide for one of our top clients to have an ad that appeared alongside content in which a forum moderator, aka a DaniWeb staff member, aka someone who had been hand-selected to publicly represent DaniWeb, had shared something not very P.C., or said something that didn't align with what that advertiser would have wanted their brand to be associated with. In other words, back then, and I'm talking early 2000s, pre-Facebook, pre-Twitter, etc., advertisers very much considered DaniWeb just as much a publication as The New York Times was. It was the same media buyers at the same agencies purchasing advertising inventory on both sites, after all.

Nowadays, things have shifted, and the concept of user-generated content is very much understood. However, I do think it's important to keep remnants of those times, and one such remnant that I think still makes a lot of sense is for moderators to portray themselves as politically correct, upstanding community members, and representatives of DaniWeb, who are never saying or doing anything that could potentially alienate any other DaniWeb members due to differing political beliefs, etc. At least in the past, most moderators had secondary anonymous member profiles where they could feel more free to express their personal opinions and that sort of thing. For example, Narue was Deceptikon. happygeek had like 5 different member profiles: Bill Andad (I think that was it, at least?), etc.

I know that moderators today (rproffitt, I'm looking at you) are not really upholding that anymore. Largely, that has come from a combination of me being sick and taking a step back, and no longer having the moderator admin to look over the moderation team and keep all the mods in line. (Not that we really need that anymore, either, though.) Things have slipped, for sure, and I, for one, certainly don't think it's for the better.

[rproffitt]

Your rights as of today are not deprived, you have an Executive Order protecting you.

How is that not political and should never be discussed here?

Laws, Executive Orders are POLITICAL. As such, we shouldn't discuss this?

[Reverend Jim]

Hypothetical situation: What would you do if, for example, a user made a post that accused a well known public figure (forgive me for going to this well again) of being a paedophile? The community rules forbid attacking another member, but let's assume the person in question is not a member. The language is not offensive and the accusation is not against another member so it is not against the rules. If the accused person decided to sue, who do you think he would go after? According to your argument (and I'm not sure that I disagree with it), you would not be liable for damages, but you still might go broke over legal fees defending yourself.

[Dani]

How is that not political and should never be discussed here?

Laws, Executive Orders are POLITICAL. As such, we shouldn't discuss this?

In the DaniWeb of yesterday, I would be very, very cautious about posting anything even remotely political or anything that could be construed as marginalizing any group, political party, etc. Similarly, I was a hard ass about any moderators, who volunteered to essentially be public representatives of the company, doing the same. After all, my entire livelihood was completely on the line. Nowadays, I've spent the past few years pretty much bed-bound, I have terminal cancer and heart failure, it's been years since I've worked with, aka had to answer to, any ad agencies, DaniWeb is an expensive hobby at best, and, frankly, I can loosen up a bit when I don't have clients to answer to.

I will say that I still think it's not just incredibly inappropriate, but downright completely detrimental to the growth of the community, for myself, moderators, or anyone representing DaniWeb, pretty much, to be anything other than incredibly and overly politically correct when responding to community members anywhere in the forums outside of specific topics such as this one (where, in this case, the OP is asking for it). For example, a discussion or debate amongst us 3 (Dani, rproffitt, and Rev Jim), sure, we can let loose a bit. But a community member posting a question such as, "I'm having XYZ problem with Microsoft Windows." and then having the response, by a staff member none the less, be, "Your problem is you're using a product created by a greedy billionaire. <Insert political rant>" is completely rude and dismissive and uncalled for.

I also want to point out that discussing politics was never against the community rules. Being P.C. was just a rule for those who chose to take on being the public face of DaniWeb, and representing and interacting with the community as such. In years past, most moderators had second and third accounts that they used to participate in political and other hot take topics. That's why it was never against the rules to have multiple accounts. I felt like if pretty much every single staff member was doing it, how could it be made to be against the rules?

Hypothetical situation: What would you do if, for example, a user made a post that accused a well known public figure (forgive me for going to this well again) of being a paedophile? The community rules forbid attacking another member, but let's assume the person in question is not a member. The language is not offensive and the accusation is not against another member so it is not against the rules. If the accused person decided to sue, who do you think he would go after? According to your argument (and I'm not sure that I disagree with it), you would not be liable for damages, but you still might go broke over legal fees defending yourself.

In the case of a criminal lawsuit:

Saying <insert public figure> is a pedophile in a public forum or social network is bound to go completely unnoticed. I can't even begin to imagine how many random insults against Trump are floating around the Internet. Now let's say someone posts somewhere on social media that they're going to assassinate a public figure. The government will come knocking on the door of the social network and the social network shall comply fully with any information they have on the poster such as their IP address, their browsing/viewing/search history, etc. That information shall be used to indict the wanna-be assassinator, not the social network.

In the case of a civil lawsuit:

Jack and Jill are dating and then they have a nasty break-up because Jack cheated. To get back at him, Jill posts on social media all sorts of untruths about Jack's company, including fake bad reviews, and Jack loses business over it. Jack then sues Jill for defamation. In the civil court case, Jack shows the judge screenshots of Jill's social media posts, and is able to prove that Jill knew they were untrue when she posted them. Jack wins the lawsuit. Jack does not sue the social network that Jill posted in. It is not the duty of the social network that, for every single bad thing posted by someone about a company, that the social network become a detective to determine if they are true or not. That would not make any sense.

[Reverend Jim]

anything that could be construed as marginalizing any group

In today's snowflake culture I suppose that thread I referred to earlier might have been considered an attack on a particular group, but I think ideas should always be open to discussion. No sacred cows. For example, criticizing the actions of the Israeli government should not be equated with being anti-semitic. There is a big difference between saying that an idea/action is wrong or stupid and saying why it is wrong or stupid. For the record I'd rather focus on the wrong rather than the stupid.

There is a phrase I've heard all too often screamed by a particular class of people at anyone who criticizes the current administration. That phrase is, "My country, right or wrong." Context matters. The original quote is from 1872 and goes:

“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

• Carl Schurz

There is a world of difference between the two.

let's say someone posts somewhere on social media that they're going to assassinate a public figure

Unfortunately what happens these days is someone (high up) says, "I wouldn't be upset if that person met an unfortunate end." It's like, "Nice business you have here. Shame if something were to happen to it." It wasn't that long after Gabby Giffords was shot in the head that a GOP rep posted a picture of another Democratic politician overlaid with cross-hairs. The implication was obvious but there were no repurcussions. It was an incitement to action, clear and simple.

RE: Jack and Jill, I agree with the scenario. But at what point does the platform bear any responsibility? What if a thousand people use the same platform to make unfounded accusations and threats? At what point does it change from a legitimate platform to one that just exists to spew hate and veiled (and not so veiled) threats? At what point does free speech become hate speech. It's the old how many grains of sand does it take to make a pile.

[rproffitt]

P.C. changes with the tides.

Back to your concern. Today, with executive order in hand and current law, you are needlessly fretting.

[Reverend Jim]

One side is claiming free speech while shutting down the other side from using it. It was reported on Aug 20 that one Democratic state representative in Texas speaking out against the Republican effort to redraw congressional district boundaries was just threatened with a felony charge for speaking to journalists.

One law for thee but not for me.

Still think I am needlessly fretting?

[Dani]

I think ideas should always be open to discussion.

In general, I agree that ideas should always be open to discussion. However, I also think there's an appropriate place and time for it, especially when discussing sensitive and highly divisive topics such as religion and politics.

Something that I take a lot of pride in is that DaniWeb is a global tech forum where people from all over the world, from all different cultures and backgrounds and religions, can leave our differences at the door and come together and just talk about technology and programming and common interests in tech.

Many, many, many years ago, there was a DaniWeb forum member who I was having a private message chat with where it came up that I was Jewish. I forget how or why it came up in conversation, but for some reason, it did. They responded that they were Muslim and lived in some Muslim country in the Middle East. I forget which one. And they asked, "Will you still talk with me?" And I responded with something along the lines of, "Of course. We've been having a really nice long chat about <insert tech topic here>. Why would where you live change anything?" They were floored. They said that they were taught that all Jewish people were nasty and hated them, and they couldn't believe that, not only was I the first Jewish person they ever spoke to, but not only was I not nasty, but I even knew they were Muslim, and was still willing to talk to them. I probably changed their perception of the entire Jewish race that day, and it was so moving for me that it turned into a core memory of mine after all these decades.

So that being said, that's how I choose to continue to think of DaniWeb. Sure, we can have heated debates sometimes in the Geeks' Lounge, and it's natural for the topic of religion to come up in a forum thread that's literally called Islam and Logic. However, outside of the Geeks' Lounge, or topics such as this one that is tagged legal and the first post is actively inviting debate about laws (and so it's natural for politics to come up), topics such as politics and religion have no place in any of the technology or programming forums/topics.

RE: Jack and Jill, I agree with the scenario. But at what point does the platform bear any responsibility? What if a thousand people use the same platform to make unfounded accusations and threats? At what point does it change from a legitimate platform to one that just exists to spew hate and veiled (and not so veiled) threats? At what point does free speech become hate speech. It's the old how many grains of sand does it take to make a pile.

If you ask me, the answer is at no point. I simply don't believe that a social network has a responsibility to check for misinformation posted by its users. I strongly believe that social networks are not publishing houses, and they don't purport to have a team of editors either. They're an app -- a platform -- that allows users to self-publish.

I also believe in freedom of speech. Social networks can make up their own terms of service. As long as it's legal to publish hate speech on the web, if they want to allow hate speech on their platform, then they can allow their users to self-publish hate speech through their platform.

That was the point that I was actually trying to make before when I spoke of the Free Palestine movement. For me, that entire movement is an exercise in terrorist hate wrapped in a pretty bow designed for social media in such a way that has made it go viral. If you ask me, the movement is super attractive because the terrorist agenda is being disguised. Do I believe that social networks have a responsibility to uncover what's beneath the surface and make sure that antisemitic agenda doesn't go viral on their platform? Absolutely not.