Why I'm not going to Parler

If you are like me, your social media timelines have been filled with people announcing that they are leaving for Parler, an alternative social media site that has been touted as the answer to censorship of tech company censorship of conservatives. While the treatment of conservatives by social media companies has sometimes been a problem, I won’t be abandoning Facebook and Twitter for Parler or Mewe. Here’s why.

The first and most obvious reason is that I don’t want any more social media accounts. I’ve been on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram for years and I’m already questioning the time I spend on these sites. I’ve gone on social media fasts in the past, but the time I spend perusing timelines has gone way up as my workload decreased in the pandemic. The last thing I need in my life is another social media account when I really should be reducing my intake of social media.

At this point, I primarily use Facebook to keep up with family and friends, many of whom are not on Parler, and Twitter for political discussions. I don’t anticipate leaving Twitter either because it is unique in that it allows you to interact directly with political figures, journalists, and columnists rather than just reading a post and leaving a comment.

Depending on how you set up your timeline, Twitter and Facebook allow a well-rounded and fully informed look at both sides of the political spectrum. I don’t think that will be true of Parler and Mewe, which are already being billed as “conservative” social media platforms.

In other words, these new sites will be a bubble of confirmation bias where Republicans don’t hear ideas that run counter to the party line. As I wrote last week, the prevalence of confirmation bias in the conservative media was a major reason that Donald Trump lost the election. Now many Republicans are doubling down on what amounts to retreating to a safe space for groupthink when what they really should be doing is engaging with undecided voters and liberals in an attempt to stress-test their beliefs and win others to their cause.

It takes a certain amount of maturity and intellectual honesty to listen to competing ideas, but if conservative ideas can stand up to scrutiny then we have nothing to fear from being challenged. For me, discussions are much more interesting when there is disagreement. I don’t like being confined to an “amen corner” where every reply to a post is a thumbs-up or people agreeing with you.

We need to hear the truth, even if it is unpleasant and shakes the foundations of our beliefs. You don’t learn about potential weaknesses in your ideas from a crowd of yes-men. That has been a serious problem for the Trump Administration.

The key to a good discussion is being able to agree in a civil manner. This is a problem with people on both sides of the political spectrum (take it from someone who draws fire from both parties). Retreating to conservative websites is not going to make people behave with more logic and civility. With the promise of less moderation and fewer differing viewpoints to learn from, the opposite is likely to be true.

If Parler and MeWe do not moderate, they are likely to quickly become cesspools of profanity, hate, conspiracy theories, obscenity, child sexual abuse, and calls to violence from factions like the Boogaloo Bois. There are indications that this is already happening. Despite billing itself as a place for “free expression without violence and a lack of censorship,” Parler has already had to have a come-to-Jesus moment with users who were testing the site’s limits by posting obscene and pornographic material. I’ve seen all of this sort of stuff on Facebook as well, but the site does try to maintain a basic community standard. Many of the areas where I’ve seen really bad stuff on Facebook are private groups that threaten to ban members who report posts.

But, you ask, what about censorship by Facebook and Twitter? I do agree that there is a bias against conservatives and Republicans but I also think that bias is overstated. In my experience, there is a culture of victimhood on the right where people push the boundaries because they get a certain amount of “street cred” for doing time in “Facebook jail” or “Twitmo.” How many times have you seen posts that begin with “Let’s see how long Zuck [Mark Zuckerberg] will leave this up” or “I’ll bet this gets Zucked?”

I have run a conservative Facebook page, “The Common Sense Conservative,” for more than a decade. In my years as a Facebook admin, I’ve only run afoul of community standards twice. The first time, several years ago, was for posting a meme that listed the two symbols for the male and female genders which were labeled “genders.” This was followed by a list of symbols for other hybrid genders which was labeled “mental disorders.” I got a warning for that one.

More recently, I received a 24-hour ban for two unspecified posts last summer. The problem with this incident was that I don’t know which posts were at issue or what community standard I violated. Facebook allowed an appeal, but there was no way to obtain more information on the case.

So why is it that I can admin a conservative page for years with almost no problems while others are banned on what seems like a weekly basis? I’ve tried to keep my page entertaining yet civil and welcomed people with differing viewpoints as long as they followed the page rules, which include no name-calling, no profanity, and generally keeping things civil. Despite these simple rules, I’ve had to ban a plethora of people over the years who can’t follow stay within the guidelines. Liberals would come to attack me out during the Obama years and now Trump supporters mob the page to call me names and cuss me out. These are the same people who get into trouble with Facebook and who see the appeal of Parler. If you’re like me and don’t want a social media experience filled with anger and insults, the new social media platforms probably aren’t for you.

Social media rules can be opaque and often seem to be applied in a biased fashion, but as I wrote earlier this year, that is permissible under Section 230, which gives social media companies a lot of leeway to moderate posts. Social media companies can and should do a better job of giving clear and objective standards and moderation, but a majority of the problems that conservatives have with social media companies could be avoided by simply being responsible users and not engaging in personal attacks, posting profanities and obscenities, and not sharing fake news and conspiracy theories. In other words, this is stuff that we, as responsible adults and discerning Christians, should be doing anyway.

Alternative social platforms are tempting for many conservatives, but ultimately they may do the movement more harm than good. Already too many on the right live in alternative reality bubbles of conspiracy theories, confirmation bias, and groupthink. Retreating from the public square to a safe space will only make that problem worse. In the end, political movements are built and parties are won by engaging opponents and winning them over, not by retreating to a safe space.

Originally published on The First TV

What does Section 230 actually say?

 One recurring theme of the past few years has been conservative allegations of unfairness on social media. Often these allegations have been paired with calls to reform or repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which governs internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter. Twitter’s removal of the Hunter Biden email story is only the most recent example.

Many of the people who are talking about Section 230 have probably never read it. As a result, there is a lot of bad information about what the law says and does. In the words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

To begin with, it’s important to understand why Section 230 became law in the first place. Last January, David French explained in Time how the law had its origins in a pair of federal court rulings from the 1990s. One ruling held that Compuserve could not be held liable for user-posted content because it did not moderate the discussion boards while the second did hold Prodigy liable because it moderated and removed comments that violated user guidelines.

Essentially, the two rulings created an all-or-nothing situation in which companies took on massive liability if they enforced any standards on users. The situation created an incentive for companies to take a hands-off approach from user forums, which would quickly allow the internet to deteriorate into a cesspool of filth.

Congress saw the problem and uncharacteristically took action. In 1996, Section 230 became law with strong bipartisan support in an attempt to find a middle ground between the two extremes. You can read the full text of Section 230 here, but the meat of the law is section (c):

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

One of the misconceptions about Section 230 is that social media companies are not considered publishers, but note that the law exempts them from being considered a publisher only in the case of posts “by another information content provider.” In other words, Twitter is not a a publisher of content posted by its users, but it is a publisher when it posts its own content.

As an example, when a news website posts an article, it is the publisher of that article and liable for its content. It is not, however, the publisher of the comments section and has no liability for what individuals post in response. This is as it should be.

Note also that Section 230 does not require viewpoint neutrality or objectivity. The law gives social media companies broad latitude to set their own standards and to enforce them. Content can be “constitutionally protected” and still be banned by the social media platform.

This is also as it should be. Social media companies are private platforms and the right to set their own standards is covered by the First Amendment right to free expression. Social media users have a First Amendment right to expression as well, but that right does not include a right to access on a platform that belongs to someone else.

Because social media companies are private, not government entities, the First Amendment does not apply in cases of posts being throttled or removed. Ironically, the right-wing calls for more regulation of social media are literally requests to restrict the First Amendment to combat perceived censorship. The idea is absurd on its face.

It’s also ironic that much of the battle against social media censorship is being carried out on… wait for it… social media. The fact that social media platforms are, for the most part, open marketplaces of ideas is evident by the fact that Donald Trump and a myriad of others can attack Twitter for censorship on Twitter itself undercuts the argument that social media censorship is a serious problem.

This isn’t to say that social media standards and enforcement don’t have problems. There definitely seems to be a bias against conservatives and Republicans. The social media giants should be evenhanded in the enforcement of their standards, but this is more of a customer service issue than one of censorship.

And some of the problem is self-induced by right-wing posters. I know many people who push the bounds of decency and then brag about being banned. In some circles, victim status from having spent time in “Facebook jail” or “Twitmo” gives the user street cred.

More than encouraging fairness, the effect of repealing Section 230 would likely be to end social media as we know it. Companies would have the choice of either no regulation, a world in which threats and obscene material could not be removed, or strict liability for everything posted by every user. Many discussion forums would probably be taken down. If not, decent people would flee as social media became even more vile.

Rather than an expansion of government and encroachment on the First Amendment, a better solution would be for disaffected Twitter and Facebook users to vote with their feet and find an alternative. Parler was the rage among Republicans a few months ago and other competitors will arise to fill any niche created by tech company bias. The social media giants can change or risk losing traffic and revenue. The solution is in free markets, not growing government.

This is especially true on the eve of an election in which Republicans are preparing for a bloodbath. Allowing government to determine what is “fair” strikes me as a bad idea at any time but especially when Democrats are about to take control of both the White House and Congress.

Originally published on The First TV

Why Trump’s Social Media Executive Order Is Both Illegal And Unwise

Today Donald Trump signed an Executive Order punishing social media companies for the way they moderate online content. The order was specifically aimed at Twitter, which has embarrassed the president this week by add fact-checks to several Trump tweets.

The meat of the Executive Order attacks Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, saying, “When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.”

Here is what subparagraph (c)(2)(A) says:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

Communications Decency Act, subparagraph (c)(2)(A)

The law gives social media companies, “interactive computer services,” wide latitude to moderate a wide variety of objectionable content. The law specifically says that even constitutionally protected material can be restricted if the action is taken in good faith.

Another relevant portion of the law is subparagraph (c)(1) which is literally one sentence before the paragraph cited by the president’s Executive Order. That line says:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In other words, the law specifically says that social media companies cannot be treated as publishers of information that they do not produce. Despite the plain language of the law, the president’s Executive Order calls on social media companies to be treated like “any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.” Since laws passed by Congress have more weight than an Executive Order, President Trump’s decree is illegal on its face.

Beyond the illegality of the order, its premise is also wrong. In contrast to many Republicans who claim that Section 230 gives special protections to social media companies, the law actually offers protection based on activity rather than status. When Twitter moderates or removes tweets published by its users, it is protected from liability under the law but, when it produces its own content, it is legally a publisher.

“In plain English, this means that my comments on Twitter or Google or Yelp or the comments section of my favorite website are my comments, and my comments only,” David French explained in Time back in January, adding that Section 230 “allows websites to take down racial slurs – all without suddenly also becoming liable for all the rest of their users’ speech.”

This is exactly what Congress intended when it passed the law. In response to several court cases in the 1990s, Congress designed Section 230 to encourage internet providers to moderate and remove offensive content from their platforms rather than allowing the internet to continue to be a cesspool of insults, pornography, and fake news. Well, even more of one anyway.

As Jeff Kosseff, author of The 26 Words That Created The Internet, explained, “For Congress, the motivator for Section 230 was that it did not want platforms to be these neutral conduits, whatever that means. It wanted the platforms to moderate content.”

The rub is that if the government leaves it up to the internet providers to moderate content then there will be as many different versions of what is offensive as there are internet providers. However, the alternative is that the government become the arbiter of what is fair and what is offensive for all companies.

That is where President Trump wants to go. Trump’s Executive Order calls on the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the FCC to issue regulations determining when internet providers are not acting in good faith, act inconsistently with terms of service, and without a meaningful explanation or allowing users to be heard.

While censorship on social media platforms is not currently a First Amendment issue since the Bill of Rights restricts the government and not private companies, Trump’s plan could make it more difficult to moderate offensive content on the internet by inserting the government into the equation. Twitter has the right to remove content as a private company but if the government directs Twitter to remove or moderate content then it could constitute a First Amendment violation.

Allowing the government to make subjective decisions about the management of content on the internet is never a good idea, but the summer of 2020 is a particularly bad time for Republicans to make such a move. Aside from the strategic fact that Trump’s proposal is an expansion of government into policing free speech on the internet, there are tactical considerations as well.

As we head into the 2020 elections, it looks increasingly likely that Republicans will lose both the presidency and the Senate. If Trump and company act now to set up an infrastructure for micromanaging speech on the internet, it is very possible that a Joe Biden Administration will put that policy fully into place. That fact alone should have been enough to slam the brakes on the Executive Order.

Regardless of the outcome of this year’s election, whatever bureaucratic restrictions the Trump Administration puts on free speech will one day be administered by Democrats. When that happens, it is very likely that the Democrats will use those rules against conservatives. When Republicans give the government a new weapon to brandish, they should remember that sooner or later it will be turned against them.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Think Twice Before Giving The Gift Of Technology

This Christmas, technology gifts are on many lists for people playing Santa around the country. It isn’t only mobile phones, computers, and iPods but there are now wifi-enabled gadgets of every shape and size. But you should think twice before giving these gifts, especially to children, or getting them for yourself.

I’m not anti-technology by any means but just because something is new and high-tech doesn’t mean that it is a must-have. For example, a wifi-enabled toaster wouldn’t necessarily a marked improvement over a traditional toaster. Do you really need to check the status of your toast via the internet or be able to control the settings on the device remotely? Probably not.

Even devices that have legitimate reasons to be connected to the internet also come with downsides. One of the most obvious is the potential for internet addiction. The proliferation of smartphones has already left us a nation of social media devotees who eschew real human contact for the instant gratification of likes in an app. Sites like Twitter and Facebook are designed to make people addicted and keep checking the unending timelines.

If this is a problem for adults now, it will be even worse for the next generation who are growing up in with screens constantly in front of their faces. Smartphones and tablets are used as babysitters for young children even though the American Society of Pediatrics recommends that children under two should not get any – zip… zero… zilch - screen time. Children older than two should only get one to two hours of screen time per day. The Society also recommends that screen time be limited for older kids, something that is very difficult when kids have their own personal devices.

It isn’t just that watching digital media can affect the physical, mental, and emotional development of young brains, television has been described as a stranger that we welcome into our homes who then undermines the values that we teach our kids. The internet makes that problem even worse.

Probably the majority of internet videos are unrated. As Forest Gump said, “You never know what you’re gonna get” and you never know what your kids are watching. Many internet videos are laced with profanity and often ridicule the things that we teach our kids, such as respect for God and country or even the idea that you should be polite and kind to others. On the internet, offensiveness has become a virtue. It would be difficult (but not impossible) for kids to get away with watching porn on the living room television, but it is a simple matter for them to do so on their phones and tablets.

Modern video games are not like Pac-Man or Space Invaders. Many of the most popular games are rated mature for foul language, graphic violence, drug use, and casual sex. Your teenagers will want these games. Even kids much younger than teenagers are playing these games because many parents simply don’t care. If you don’t get these games for your kids, they will still have access to them when they visit friends.

The problem isn’t limited to kids with their devices either. If you’re watching this sort of stuff with your kids around then they are absorbing it just as surely as if they clicked play themselves. Parents with a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality are undermining their own parenting.

There are other factors as well. The internet is a good way to go broke $10 at a time. Just about every app that you download requires a subscription or has in-app purchases. Some have both. In addition to the cost of the device and the internet or cell service, you will want to sign up for services such as Disney Plus ($6.99), Netflix ($8.99), or Hulu ($5.99). Premium plans cost more, of course. Gaming apps and video games have in-app purchases for things that kids will want to enhance their experience. After you buy a game console, your kids will want the membership plan that allows them to play against their friends (and strangers) online. For instance, an Xbox Live subscription is another $9.99 per month. Naturally, most of these subscriptions are set up on recurring credit card billing so it’s easy to lose track of just how much you are spending.

Finally, security is an issue with internet-connected devices. By now, we should all be aware of the threats of strangers who meet online and stalk in real life as well as cyber theft of credit card information. Phishing attacks in which you click on a deceptive link can allow all of your devices to compromised. It was a simple phishing attack through an email with a fake link that allowed the Russians to hack the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Clicking the link allowed the Russians to access the entire DNC network.

The proliferation of internet-connected devices provides many other opportunities for hackers. Smart appliances often do not have cyber defenses that are as robust as computers and smartphones. The gap could compromise your entire home’s network. As far back as 2014, computer security experts traced a cyber attack to a “botnet” made up of home appliances such as internet-enabled refrigerators. Keep in mind that internet-based security cameras, baby monitors, and other home devices could also be accessed by hackers and stalkers.

I’m not saying to avoid technology purchases, but tech products do come with responsibility. If you get your kids devices, you owe it to them to limit their screen time and monitor how the devices are being used. This isn’t easy, but there are tools to help parents. One good resource is Funamo, a cloud-based service that allows parents to monitor and control their children’s phones and tablets for a one-time fee of $19.99.

You should also educate both yourself and your children on internet security. Predators can stalk children online and kids can unwittingly click a bad link that could allow hackers to infiltrate your other devices via a common network. You wouldn’t leave small children alone in the mall with your ATM card. You shouldn’t leave them alone online either.

The key to safe technology is education, awareness, and common sense. Learn about web-based threats and be aware of what your family members are doing online. And don’t buy a wifi-toaster.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Facebook Is Still Up To Its Old Tricks

Less than two weeks ago, Facebook announced its intention to reform itself to address conservative concerns of bias. Facebook’s changes were in response to an audit led by former Republican Senator Jon Kyl and included an appeals process and more transparency in why content is removed by the social media platform. Now it seems that Facebook is already up to its old tricks.

On Friday, Live Action tweeted that Facebook had flagged a post stating that “abortion is never medically necessary” as “false news.” Facebook’s notification to Live Action notes that “Facebook reduces the distribution of misleading content while showing additional reporting on the same topic” and warns that “pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share misleading content will see their overall distribution reduced, their ability to monetize and advertise removed, and their ability to register as a news Page removed.”

https://twitter.com/LiveAction/status/1167547494307418112?s=20

Science Feedback, the organization that fact-checked the Live Action posts, rates the claim that “abortion is never medically necessary” as “inaccurate.” The group, which claims to be nonpartisan, argues that some medical conditions “such as pre-eclampsia, HELLP syndrome and placenta previa, in which abortion could become medically necessary in order to save the life of the mother.” The group also points out that “In order for early delivery to save both the life of mother and child, the fetus first needs to have developed sufficiently that it stands a chance of surviving outside of the womb.”

In an interview with Fox News, Live Action President Lila Rose responded, “We have doctors, OBGYNs, [who are] board-certified, who are also featured in our videos, who are saying the exact same thing. In fact, thousands of doctors agree with Live Action, with me, that abortion is not a medical treatment.”

Earlier this year, American medical leaders representing more than 30,000 doctors signed a letter at The Public Discourse which stated, “It is never necessary to intentionally kill a fetal human being to save a woman’s life.” In 1981, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.” Even Dr. Alan Guttmacher, a former president of Planned Parenthood, said as far back as 1967, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

Rose also told Fox News that Live Action had contacted Facebook and was told to contact the fact-checkers with its concerns. It seems that, with a difference in opinion between medical professionals on both sides, that Live Action’s case would be a likely candidate for Facebook’s new oversight board. Labeling Live Action as “false news” seems to be an overreaction since the controversy seems to boil down to a quibble between the word’s “never” and “hardly ever.”

Live Action is not the only conservative facing sanction from Facebook, however. I have had recent reports from members of conservative Facebook groups who say that they are still being sent to “Facebook jail” for posts that do not violate Facebook’s community standards. In one example, a meme depicting Charles Manson morphing into Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led to two of my Facebook acquaintances receiving a 24-hour ban. The picture was what those of us in the South would refer to as “tacky,” but it didn’t seem to violate Facebook’s written standards.

One of the Facebook users shared the meme with me along with several screenshots. In violation of Facebook’s promise to be transparent, the notification only says that the post violated community standards and did not give a specific reason. The notification offered the user to “see options” in order to “learn more about this post and see what you can do.” When this option was selected, it led to a blank screen with an exclamation point icon. There was no explanation as to what community standard was violated or how to appeal to the oversight board.

As a private company, Facebook has the right to set its own rules and pick what sort of content to allow on its platform. However, if the social media giants want to be public forums for political discussion, they must do a better job of not discriminating against conservative viewpoints. Otherwise, Facebook will find many of its users migrating to competing platforms that don’t discriminate against conservative content+9. No company, no matter how big, is infallible.

Earlier this month, Facebook made a commitment to enforce its community standards with more fairness. Maybe the company is truly trying to improve how it polices conservative content, but it has a long way to go.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Facebook Makes Changes To Win Conservative Trust

The long-awaited results of Facebook’s year-long audit have been released. Unsurprisingly, the report shows that conservatives don’t trust the social media platform for a variety of reasons.

Per Axios’ exclusive report of the audit results, conservative complaints about Facebook fell into six broad categories. These include concerns that Facebook algorithms make it more difficult to spread conservative content, that community standards that label some long-held traditional beliefs as hate speech, that enforcement was biased against conservatives, that Facebook labeling an ad as “political” would jeopardize tax-exempt status, about long approval times for time-sensitive ads, and that Facebook employees writing rules and community standards were biased against conservatives.

The audit was conducted by Jon Kyl, the former Republican senator from Arizona at Facebook’s request. Kyl describes the process in the Wall Street Journal today. The audit consisted of 133 interviews with “individuals, groups, and lawmakers who either use, study or could potentially regulate Facebook,” beginning in August 2018.

In response to the audit’s findings, Facebook has already committed to a series of reforms that are specifically intended to benefit conservatives. The first reforms include:

·        Oversight board – A board will be formed to hear appeals for difficult content-removal cases.

·        Explanations of news-feed rankings – Facebook is launching “transparency tools” that will explain why the content that users see in their feed is there.

·        Page transparency – Page owners can now see when content has been removed for violating community standards and when distribution is reduced due to “false” ratings from fact-checkers.

·        Staffing – Facebook has hired four new employees to work with small groups and answer questions and complaints about content removal.

·        Ad labeling requirements -  Rather than labeling ads as “political,” ads will now be classified as “about social issues, elections or politics.”

·        Ad policies – Facebook has changed a policy that prohibited ads that showed medical tubes in patients. The change will make it easier to get pro-life ads approved.

“We believe these and other measures described in our interim report are steps in the right direction,” Kyl writes. “Yet these are complicated issues, some of which involve conflicting opinions even among conservatives. For that reason, restoring trust fully may remain an elusive goal. Conservatives no doubt will, and should, continue to press Facebook to address the concerns that arose in our survey.”

In a statement, Facebook VP of Global Affairs and Communications Nick Clegg, wrote, “Regardless of one’s own political views, this is about whether we apply our own policies fairly to all sides, and whether those policies begin with an understanding of how core groups of users express their beliefs.”

“While we err on the side of free speech, there are critical exceptions,” Clegg added. “We don’t allow content that might encourage offline harm or is intended to intimidate, exclude or silence people. And we work to slow and reduce the spread of content like debunked hoaxes and clickbait by downranking it in News Feed. We know we need to listen more as we work to strike the right balance with these policies.”

“Even if we could craft them in a way that pleased all sides, when dealing with such nuanced issues, involving policies that apply to billions of posts, we will inevitably make some bad calls, some of which may appear to strike harder at conservatives,” Clegg acknowledged.

The new reforms are merely the first step in Facebook’s attempts to fairly enforce its rules. The process is ongoing and Kyl’s team will issue another report in a few months.

Many conservatives on Facebook have spent time in “Facebook jail” for seemingly innuous posts or had content removed will understandably be skeptical of the social media giant’s commitment to fairness, but today’s announcements mark a significant victory for both conservative users of social media and free markets in general. As a private platform, the company does have the right to enforce its own rules and restrict objectionable content, but it has responded to consumer pressure to enforce its rules more fairly. This is not only good news for conservatives on Facebook but also for advocates of small government who were skeptical of conservative calls to regulate the social media platforms in the name of “fairness.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Meet Alex Jones' Most Surprising Defender

In the wake of several social media giants banning Alex Jones, there was much rejoicing from the left. The enforced departure of the conspiracy guru was cheered as a victory by liberals across the country. There was, however, at least one prominent liberal who bucked the trend.

Bill Maher, the far left host of HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “Politically Incorrect,” gave the tin-foil-hat-wearing talk show host a surprising defense last Friday. Maher began the segment by saying, “Alex Jones, who is not my friend and who tells crazy lies about me is thrown off Twitter, I think, and Facebook and a few other platforms.”

“Thank God!” exclaimed Jennifer Granholm, the former Democratic governor of Michigan and a current analyst for CNN, as the audience broke into cheers and applause.

“Well, if you’re a liberal you’re supposed to be for free speech,” Maher countered.

“That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country,” he continued.

“If you care about the real American shit or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak,” Maher said.

“Sure, but he doesn’t necessarily get to speak on Facebook or Twitter,” Charlie Sykes contributing editor for the Weekly Standard, responded.

“I get that,” Maher agreed.

“If a guy goes out – and this is not opinion -  if he engages in vile slander and fabrication about children who are murdered at Sandy Hook and he harasses the parents of children who were murdered at Sandy Hook … Facebook [and] Twitter don’t have an obligation to provide him a platform because they’re private companies.”

Both Maher and Sykes are absolutely correct. Censorship on social media is a free speech concern, but it is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects Americans from censorship by the government. It does not protect people from censorship by private companies who legally set the rules for behavior on the internet platforms that they own and operate.

“The way to get rid of hateful things is that sunlight is the best disinfectant,” Maher said, quoting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

“A good example is the alt-right rally,” Maher continued. “They had their rally again. Twenty people showed up, okay? Not because we outlawed it, but because we let it happen the first time and these mental midgets found out, oh, it’s not so great when you do this in public because then you go back to the office and people don’t like you so much.”

While both sides of the political spectrum pay lip service to free speech, both sides are happy to censor the speech of political opponents. Liberal activists often shout down conservative speakers on college campuses and social media platforms are accused of bias against conservatives in enforcing their terms of service.

For their part, many on the right approve of using the power of government to regulate what they consider to be “fake news.” An Ipsos poll from earlier this month found that 43 percent of Republicans, a plurality, agree that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.” This would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I rarely get to agree with Bill Maher, but he is absolutely correct here. Freedom of speech should apply to all ideologies, but it is most important for speech that is unpopular or that we disagree with. Nothing in the Constitution or the US law prohibits us from having our beliefs challenged or guarantees the right to an uninterrupted echo chamber.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Now Facebook Will Tell You Why You're In 'Facebook Jail'

If you’ve engaged in political discussions on Facebook, the chances are good that you have had posts deleted and even spent some time in “Facebook jail,” the euphemism for temporary bans that put users in “timeout” when they get caught posting something inappropriate. A big problem is that Facebook’s community standards were vague and unevenly applied. Many users didn’t know what standard they were accused of violating and had no way to appeal Facebook’s decision. Now that has changed.

Today Facebook released its full community standards playbook, an 8,000-word guide that is used by the company’s 7,500 moderators. The guide is split into six sections that are based on specific types of posts that can be removed. These include violence and criminal behavior, safety, objectionable content, integrity and authenticity, intellectual property and content-related requests. The company says that the standards will continue to be updated frequently.

Many of the problematic posts are straightforward, but there are many exceptions. For example, Facebook says, “we default to removing sexual imagery,” but “make allowances for the content” that fits certain criteria such as when it is “a form of protest, to raise awareness about a cause, or for educational or medical reasons.”

“We remove content that glorifies violence or celebrates the suffering or humiliation of others,” Facebook says, but “we allow graphic content (with some limitations) to help people raise awareness about issues.”

Regarding the sticky issue of hate speech, Facebook lists a number of protected categories that include “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disability or disease” as well as “some protections for immigration status.” Facebook does not allow attacks, defined as “violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” on these groups.

Hate speech is divided into three tiers. Tier 1 attacks are violent speech. Tier 2 attacks are “statements of inferiority.” Tier 3 attacks are calls to exclude protected groups.

There have been reports of Facebook users reposting threats that they have received and then being banned. Facebook says that if hate speech is reposted for the purpose of raising awareness, “we expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it.” Otherwise the content may be removed.

When it comes to “fake news,” Facebook allows it. Noting that there is “a fine line between false news and satire or opinion,” the company says, “we don't remove false news from Facebook but instead, significantly reduce its distribution by showing it lower in the News Feed.”

Engadget points out that Facebook addressed accusations of viewpoint bias that results in uneven application of the rules in a recent blog post. “Our reviewers are not working in an empty room; there are quality control mechanisms in place, and management on site, that reviewers can look to for guidance,” the company said.

When the company makes a mistake, new policies will allow users to appeal the removal of content, Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president of product policy and counter-terrorism, told Reuters. In the past, only the removal of accounts, groups and pages could be appealed. Bickert also said that Facebook would begin to provide specific reasons for why the content was removed.

It’s important to remember that the First Amendment does not apply to Facebook and social media. The constitutional guarantee of free speech applies only to government restrictions. Private companies like Facebook have the right to police their communities as they see fit, but unless the companies respect freedom of speech they will ultimately chase users away to more open platforms. There has already been much talk online  from conservatives about leaving Facebook and Twitter in the wake of the news that the companies favor liberal viewpoints.  

Facebook’s new openness about community standards seems to be an attempt to fix the problem of vague standards for users. As Bickert said, “You should, when you come to Facebook, understand where we draw these lines and what’s OK and what’s not OK.”

Now if Facebook would just apply those standards evenly across the political spectrum. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Former Facebook Exec Says Social Media Is Ripping Society Apart

There are plenty of voices decrying the pernicious effects of social media on society, but when one of those voices is an architect of Facebook’s rise to near omnipresence, it draws a bit more attention. That was the case when Chamath Palihapitiya, a former Facebook executive, spoke to a group of graduate students at the Stanford University School of Business last month.

“I feel tremendous guilt,” Palihapitiya, currently the CEO of Social Capital and owner of the Golden State Warriors, said. “I think we all knew in the back of our minds — even though we feigned this whole line that there probably aren’t any really bad unintended consequences — I think in the back deep, deep recesses of our minds, we kind of knew something bad could happen, but I think the way we defined it was not like this.”

“It literally is at a point now,” he continued, “where I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works. That is truly where we are.”

Palihapitiya explained how online popularity is a vicious circle, prompting more and more outlandish and extreme behavior to keep the “likes” coming. “The short-term dopamine driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works,” he said. “No civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth.”

“We curate our lives around the perceived sense of perfection,” he added, “because we get rewarded in these short-term signals. Hearts, likes, thumbs up, and we conflate that with value, and we conflate it with truth. And instead, what it really is, is fake, brittle popularity.”

“It is eroding the core foundations of how people behave,” Palihapitiya said.

To anyone on Facebook or Twitter who has ever watched their post go viral, this sounds familiar. The feeling of validation that comes from a popular post is psychologically comforting, but also addictive. You want to keep the affirmation coming. That requires more viral posts

The easy way to get your posts noticed above all the background noise of the internet is to be extreme. The truth of the parental wisdom that some children misbehave because any attention is better than being ignored is proven everyday online.

“I don’t have a good solution,” he said. “My solution is I just don’t use these tools anymore.” He also said that he does not allow his children to use social media.

“You don’t realize it, but you are being programmed,” Palihapitiya said. “It was unintentional, but now you have to decide how much you’re willing to give up.”

While social media is not inherently evil, it is engineered to keep users coming back so that companies like Facebook and Twitter can generate more revenue from advertising and other services. The ultimate solution is for people to discipline themselves to limit their consumption of social media sites. For some, that might mean deleting the apps from your phone to keep yourself from compulsively checking your notifications every few minutes. Others might find it necessary to delete their accounts altogether.

The world can live without knowing our political opinions or what we had for dinner. We can live without knowing all the little details of other people’s lives as well. We have one life to live. We should make the most of it. Each of us must decide whether we want a real life or virtual one.

“If you feed the beast,” Palihapitiya said “that beast will destroy you.”

Originally published on The Resurgent