Marjorie Taylor Greene banning Twitter and Big Tech censorship

No wonder Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) – a politician who has done his part in promoting the virus. ideas like QAnon – was was suspended Sunday on Twitter and Monday from Facebook sending false Covid-19 vaccine.

Not surprisingly, Greene and his followers did something about it criticizes Twitter and Facebook for banning him for his political beliefs, not for his repeated lying denial of Covid-19 risks and the effectiveness of the vaccine.

But the suspension of Marjorie Taylor Greene on television raises the question before the January 6 Capitol riots and the 2022 mid-elections: How have TV media coped with the upcoming turmoil from elected officials and aspiring incumbents. this year?

“I have never seen or heard anything about it [social media companies] “She’s planning to tackle it,” said Katie Harbath, Facebook’s chief of social media from 2011 to March last year, who now heads the technology monitoring company.

In 2019 and 2020, the world experienced a heated debate over whether technology companies should intervene when politicians like former President Donald Trump used social media to broadcast. harmful lies or inciting violence. The controversy came under threat of January 6 and Trump’s ban on the site. Prior to that, Facebook and Twitter allowed Trump and other world leaders not to violate their policies because their speeches were basically the same. is considered a “story” – but he left the scene with Trump’s ban. It was controversial but clear from the standpoint of Facebook and Twitter, given the vicious threat to US democracy.

But over the past few months, there has not been much movement on the topic of social media platforms moderating politics’ speech. Facebook pushed a can in the street until 2023 if Trump will be allowed to return to his platform. Twitter is still in the process of developing a new strategy as it should police national leaders, which he says is expected to be released in the coming months.

Now, Greene’s situation is a reminder that whether online dating companies are ready or not, the debate over how politicians should be allowed to use social networking sites is growing. And it is happening in the political climate that much polarized and plot-driven concept.

Greene has long been experimenting with the limits of what she does on television

Like his political ally, Trump, Greene has made a name for himself by making scary, angry, and slanderous remarks on TV.

Prior to the recent suspension, Greene had already received four “demonstrations” from Twitter for the Covid-19 false positives, as well as 12-hour suspension in July. His fifth blow, which led to his permanent suspension, became a matter of “many deaths from Covid vaccine.” Greene posted the same message on Facebook, which responded and suspended the 24-hour account on Monday.

Although Twitter banned Greene’s account, it still has access to Twitter through its official Twitter account with about 400,000 followers. He is now raising money “emergency donations” to his political campaign to fight “Big Tech censorship.”

Greene, like other right-wing activists and activists banned from television, has turned to a television program – which has banned it. enough carelessness and secret chat – until his followers. “Twitter is the enemy of America and can not stand the truth,” Greene told Telegram in response to the suspension of Twitter. “Well, I show America we don’t want them and it’s time for us to defeat our enemies.”

Monday, Republican House President Kevin McCarthy (RCA) spoke in public which did not name Greene by name but seems to be referring to his case, encouraging a well-known online law called Section 230 be changed so that professional companies can be held accountable for their decision-making decisions that are in place.

Today, down The first rule of reconstruction, companies such as Facebook and Twitter are considered as private individuals who are well within their legal right to ban anyone who wants to. This includes those who are like Greene who have repeatedly violated their professional decisions.

But aside from that, there are a lot of concerns about how secret organizations like Facebook and Twitter should interact politically. Facebook and Twitter have slipped into political scrutiny, with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claiming the company. should not be a “resister of the truth” and Twitter founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey production freedom of speech the core principle of the company’s philosophy. But even though these companies refuse to be politically correct, the reality is that both companies continue to deal with this on a daily basis by causing people to discuss politics on their platform. And it exposes them to criticism and criticism.

“Business companies have a lot of power. There are only a handful of platforms – and Twitter and Facebook are two of them – that handle a wide range of public issues, “said Gautam Hans, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who uses First Amendment law and technology.”

The rules of social media on political discourse are still vague

In other words, Greene’s case against the TV media was well-known because it was about Covid-19, a story that Facebook and Twitter have been hard at work on since the epidemic began in early 2020.

But when it comes to other topics like Trump’s “Big Lie” fake news of the 2020 elections that were stolen from him, or if the January 6 riots at the Capitol were justified, the TV media coverage on what is unconstitutional is very difficult.

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, for example, Twitter and Facebook intensified their efforts to spread voter fraud. Companies often write or remove false information about voter fraud or electoral fraud.

But now, one year later, it is unclear how these standards will change, especially for many Republican members of Congress are the ones who want to continue supporting “The Big Lie.”

During the Capitol riots, social networking sites also used aggressive tactics in an effort to reduce the prestige of violence that had taken place. Facebook, for example, issued an emergency plan to remove any praise from Hurricane Capitol, or call for it to bring weapons to any location in the US.

Facebook did not answer the question of whether the measures were still in place for one year to commemorate the event, while others 34 percent of Americans believes that government abuses are sometimes justified, according to a recent study.

Facebook Policy Vice President Monika Bickert said in a November interview that the company was “taking action to tackle electoral fraud and fraud while working to help people vote,” but did not say much about the new plans.

“We are developing our own anti-voting policy and we will continue to develop our own strategies for addressing the legitimacy of voting practices, such as voter fraud,” Bickert said in a statement. “And all of this applies to the US 2020 elections and we will have a lot to share as we approach next year’s elections.”

A Twitter company spokesman sent the following message to Recode on Tuesday:

Our approach before and after January 6 was to take strong action against accounts and Tweets that cause violence or that can lead to cybercrime. Coordination and monitoring in government, civil society, and private organizations is also important. We recognize that Twitter plays an important role, and we are committed to doing our part.

There is a long way to go before Facebook and Twitter can make their political rhetoric clear. But even then, the problem around the complex boundaries of political speech cannot be completely solved.

Hans explains: “You can have very clear rules and guidelines. “But really, there is always human wisdom that comes into this, and it’s a little confusing.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *