Policing Social Media
What does Lorenz say about regulating and limiting social media?
My students can't seem to wrap their minds around some things I say in class because they think they think the comments I make regarding any particular subject are based on my likes or dislikes of a particular issue. I am trying to teach them a very important aspect of critical thinking.
You do not have to like or approve of something to defend it. You do not have to hate or disapprove of something to criticize or critique it.
My students have heard me say the following more than once:
I have never used social media in my life.
I think social media is a waste of time.
Social media is responsible for the spread of lies, myths, and false information that makes my job as a professor more difficult each day.
Do not use social media for research, science, medicine, or legal research.
If you see something on social media, verify the information somewhere else.
I would rather eat cat turds than look at social media.
I may be able to understand their confusion if I hadn't also said the following about social media:
All of my friends and family have social media accounts.
Social media is an excellent way to stay in touch with family and friends.
Social media is great for raising awareness and funds during emergencies and a crisis.
Social media has a legitimate place in our society.
I have no problem with social media and I will vigorously defend social media's right to exist and people's right to use social media, even though it generally makes my life and job more complicated. The problem my students have with understanding how someone can not like something and still defend it comes from what they have learned on social media and what social media is. Social media teaches us that disagreement is offensive and hateful. Social media teaches us that data and facts are insensitive and should be avoided. Social media attempts to silence those who disagree with the crowd.
Rights for me and none for thee!
Thus, the lesson to be learned here is that social media argues against itself. The users who don't like to be told what they can and can't do on social media, want to control what everyone else can do and say on social media. They also don't understand the meaning of "platform", Section 230, what the 1st Amendment Protects, and who it protects us from.
I will have more on this but for now, the debate on keeping kids off social media rages. See below...
By Steve Gorman - Reuters January 25, 2024 3:09 PM CST
The Florida House of Representatives approved on Wednesday a bill aimed at barring children aged 16 and younger from social media platforms, following similar action in several states to limit online risks to young teenagers.
Passed by a bipartisan vote of 106 to 13, the measure would require social media platforms to terminate the accounts of anyone under 17 years old and use a third-party verification system to screen out the underaged.
November 15, 2023
By Antigone Davis, Global Head of Safety at Meta (Facebook)
As an industry, we should come together with lawmakers to create simple, efficient ways for parents to oversee their teens’ online experiences.
Legislation is needed so all apps teens use can be held to the same standard.
Parents should approve their teen’s app downloads, and we support federal legislation that requires app stores to get parents’ approval whenever their teens under 16 download apps.
S.314 - Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Sec 230
As part of the President's Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, and as a result of the Department's long standing review of Section 230, the Department has put together the following legislative package to reform Section 230. The proposal focuses on the two big areas of concern that were highlighted by victims, businesses, and other stakeholders in the conversations and meetings the Department held to discuss the issue. First, it addresses unclear and inconsistent moderation practices that limit speech and go beyond the text of the existing statute. Second, it addresses the proliferation of illicit and harmful content online that leaves victims without any civil recourse. Taken together, the Department's legislative package provides a clear path forward on modernizing Section 230 to encourage a safer and more open internet.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation.
The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive—is not an accident. Congress recognized that for user speech to thrive on the Internet, it had to protect the services that power users’ speech.
The law
The First Amendment, as interpreted by the courts, protects us from the government “abridging” our speech. When cops ask, “Do we have less rights than the criminals?” courts say,
If you become the subject of a criminal investigation, you will have the same rights as a criminal.
When cops ask, “Did I lose my rights when I swore to uphold the Constitution?” courts say,
You lost some of the First Amendment rights of a private citizen when you became a public employee because your interaction with the government (unlike a criminal suspect) is voluntary and mutually beneficially. Government employers aren’t required to pay for insubordination.
In contrast, private employees have no First Amendment protection from employer retaliation for their speech because the government isn’t involved. They may have other protections (as may you) such as anti-discrimination laws, union or job contracts, employee policies and procedures, labor law, etc. – but they have no First Amendment protection.
The high court will weigh in on the constitutionality of two controversial state laws that regulate social media companies’ decisions about what content they publish.
Do social media sites have a First Amendment right to choose which information they publish on their websites?
That’s the question the Supreme Court will address this term when it reviews two laws from Texas and Florida that would force businesses such as Facebook and YouTube to carry certain content that they do not want to feature. Under the guise of “prohibiting censorship,” these laws seek to replace the private entities’ editorial voice with preferences dictated by the government.
Reuters March 24, 20233:23 AM CDT
"We're no longer willing to let social media companies continue to harm the mental health of our youth," Cox, a Republican, said in a message on Twitter.
The bills, which the tech industry opposes, requires all users to submit age verification before opening a social media account. Minors under the age of 18 seeking an exception would need permission from a parent.