Re: Told You So

On 1/23/2025 2:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/23/2025 2:33 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/23/2025 10:06 AM, cyclintom wrote:

>
The Federal government under Biden was funging Wiki to say the things they wanted to hear.

>
As I understand the situation, based on emails and Mr Zuckerberg's testimony in Congress, the administration merely asked and the various platforms were enthusiastic volunteers in promoting administration viewpoints while suppressing dissenting views.  This fails a strict scrutiny test for 1st Amendment violation. Also, no payments have been implied or discovered.
>
(I just read the news. I am not an expert)

 AFAIK, Zuckerberg has nothing to do with Wikipedia, other than being the subject of a not particularly positive Wiki article.
 And I'd be slightly curious about the details of the "dissenting views" suppressed on Facebook, Twitter or other similar platforms.
 As I understand it, classic dead-tree newspapers are not required to print every viewpoint. If, for example, someone wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper to say "The Federal government under Biden was funging [sic] Wiki to say the things they wanted to hear," or "seriously, the world really is flat" the newspaper editors would shoot those "dissenting views" letter into the nearest trash basket.
 IOW, fact checking is still alive in certain institutions.
 

Ah, there's the rub.
Newspapers are 'publishers' and responsible for their copy.
(limited since the Sullivan case but still responsible)
e-platforms are deemed common carriers and under the 1996 Act bear no liability for statements by their customers.
This is changing in practice, and in IMHO not for the better, but at least people are discussing the issues more which is good.
Yes you're correct Mr Zuckerburg has no (known) nexus to Wiki but I extrapolated from the 'other social platforms' to suppose Wiki was also influenced.  And not actually paid.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971