Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Coronavirus

Facebook Removes Coronavirus Misinformation but Will Only Ban Lockdown Protests If They Violate Social Distancing

"Unless government prohibits the event during this time, we allow it to be organized on Facebook," a company spokesperson tells Reason.

Robby Soave | 4.20.2020 1:53 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
dpaphotosfour401484 | Sven Hoppe/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom
(Sven Hoppe/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom)

Facebook will remove coronavirus-related misinformation that directly threatens imminent harm, CEO Mark Zuckerberg told ABC News. But contrary to several media reports, Facebook is not taking action against all lockdown protests that are being organized on the site.

"Unless government prohibits the event during this time, we allow it to be organized on Facebook," a company spokesperson tells Reason. "For this same reason, events that defy government's guidance on social distancing aren't allowed on Facebook."

This is slightly but critically different from what was reported by The Hill, which made it sound like Zuckerberg had endorsed some kind of blanket ban on anti-lockdown activism:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that protests against stay-at-home orders organized through his social media site qualify as "harmful misinformation" and are taken down.

Zuckerberg's answer to Stephanopoulos—who had asked about protests that explicitly violate social distancing—was actually more complicated than that. Here was the exact exchange:

Stephanopoulos: How do you deal with the fact that Facebook is now being used to organize a lot of these protests that defy social distancing and defy social distancing guidelines in states? If someone is trying to organize something like that, does that qualify as harmful misinformation because it defies social distancing?

Zuckerberg: This is an important question. If someone is spreading something that is misinformation—certainly, someone saying that social distancing is not effective to help limit the spread of coronavirus—we do classify that as harmful misinformation and we take that down. At the same time, it's important for people to debate policies, basically give their opinions on different things, so there's a line on this. But more than normal political discourse, I think, a lot of the things people are saying that is false around a health emergency can be classified as harmful misinformation that has a risk of leading to physical danger, and we will take that down.

At the behest of state governments, Facebook has indeed taken action against some anti-quarantine protests being organized on the site. But that's because those events were being organized in direct violation of state social distancing dictates, Facebook says. It matters what each state's guidance has been, and it matters whether the event in question is urging participants to take appropriate precautions.

That's markedly different from the idea that all opposition to the lockdowns is being treated as harmful misinformation.

In terms of content, Zuckerberg said that only posts advocating imminently harmful actions would be taken down. He cited a theoretical post recommending bleach as a miracle cure for COVID-19 as an example.

"That's not allowed on our service at all," said Zuckerberg. "There have been thousands and thousands of pieces of content like that we have to take down."

Again, the panic-stricken reporting about the Big Tech censorship would have people believe that Facebook is removing all content about the coronavirus that doesn't toe some government-approved line. But while there are bound to be times when Facebook makes a bad moderation call, on paper, its policy is reasonable.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Coronavirus Finally Gets Trump To Admit Americans Pay His Tariffs

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

CoronavirusFacebookMedia CriticismFree Speech
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (59)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Dillinger   5 years ago

    when will people let facebook die?

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   5 years ago

      When boomers stop using it to organize protests.

      1. Don't look at me!   5 years ago

        Is there anything that boomers can’t do wrong?

      2. fdylan   5 years ago

        Facebook is paying $530 Per day. Be a part of Facebook and start getting Extra Dollars every week from your home. nbv..I just got paid $8590 in my previous month……….,Visit Site

  2. lap83   5 years ago

    Can we just get this over with and write a new constitution that prioritizes social distancing above all else. The suspense is killing me.

    1. Longtobefree   5 years ago

      How about an amendment that requires all socialists to stay twenty feet from any polling place?
      Think of all the lives that would save. 600,000 or so.

    2. Formerly Cynical Asshole   5 years ago

      Sure. And with the current crop of politicians writing it, the new constitution will be 4,000 pages long and we'll have to ratify it to find out what's in it.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

        And most of those 4,000 pages will be left to the executive branch to write the actual regulations on which the "rights" will be allowed/enforced.

  3. AustinRoth   5 years ago

    We are only following the orders of the Government as we define it.

    We don’t agree with the Constitutional right of Assembly, unless it is violent Antifa protests that destroy property and cause injury. Those are approved.

    1. Nail   5 years ago

      Antifa already has face masks so it's kosher.

      1. NoVaNick   5 years ago

        And 6 foot long baseball bats too. Although the BO from Antifa is probably enough to keep coronavirus away.

  4. Longtobefree   5 years ago

    Well, Mark, please explain to me how six feet is medically different from five feet eleven inches.
    Since all we know is that we know nothing because the past 'data' is all propaganda, who picked six feet, and who validated the science behind it? Why is no one advocating seven feet? Surely that would save the proverbial one life?
    Why is social media considered "essential"? Shouldn't we be saving the scarce bandwidth for the poor people in the middle of the country?
    Who is John Galt?

  5. Chipper Morning Wood   5 years ago

    Lions of Liberty interviews Tiger King libertarian Josh Dial

    Good interview if you enjoyed Tiger King

    1. MasterThief   5 years ago

      He was the actual libertarian managing Joe Exotic's campaign, right? At least, the guy self declared as such and laid out a basic libertarian platform

  6. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

    What the fuck happened to the idea of liberty, Reason? So, if the state bans protests it is okay for Facebook to assist the state by removing posts about a protest of these policies? Come on I know you like to suck Silicon Valley's dick but this is getting ridiculous.

    1. NoVaNick   5 years ago

      I doubt FB would dare remove protest posts for pro-abortion or anti-Trump groups, social distancing or not

      1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

        I strongly suspect you are right. Or counter protests in support of the lockdown. Hell, the government is paying actors to tell us we are all on it together. Can anyone day propaganda?

    2. Jerryskids   5 years ago

      Well, it's not just if the state bans protests, it's also if it contradicts the state's guidance. I'm not sure what "guidance" is. If it's advice you're required to follow, it's not really just advice is it? "You'd be wise to do this if you'd like to stay out of jail" is maybe more of an order.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

        Yeah, 1984 newspeak. It is only advise enforced at the point of the gun and alphabet soup is defending Facebook.

    3. darkflame   5 years ago

      my thoughts too. Between this and the drones, I'm thinking we need to remind the politicians who the country is for.

  7. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

    Fuck, Robby wrote this. I would have pegged Shikha because Robby is generally a little more introspective. Fuck you Soave.

  8. Formerly Cynical Asshole   5 years ago

    "Unless government prohibits the event during this time, we allow it to be organized on Facebook," a company spokesperson tells Reason.

    Let's just skip right over the question of whether or not it's constitutional for the government to prohibit people from exercising their first amendment rights.

    1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

      Yeah, Soave who writes quite often about campuses banning free speech seems to have missed that aspect. SMH. This is the worst fucking take I've seen on Reason in awhile.

      1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   5 years ago

        I think you two are overreacting. What surprises me the most is any big tech business defending any liberty against the government when it doesn't benefit them. Look at Google, so happy to remove all sorts of news from their news site, or anything related to guns from their shopper. They finally got a little bit of spine when the EU was going to make them pay for news linking. Twitter bans people for the slightest non-Progressive attitude. Facebook is a small breath of fresh air in comparison, and that's what this article is about, to me.

        1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

          Overreacting? So we only are going to allow protests that are government sanctioned? And Facebook is okay with that? That is totes libertarian and totes consistent with the Constitution and 1A. Fuck you are usually more consistent than this. Or are you one of those who believes that it is okay for private business to help the government decide what speech is allowed and what isn't?

      2. Under_Pressure   5 years ago

        It really is terrible. Tuccille has been the only one with consistently decent takes on this stuff.

        1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

          Yeah Tucille's take was much more consistently libertarian. I am ashamed for alphabet soup who generally is more introspective then his defense of Facebook's policy of aiding the government to stifle free speech the government doesn't agree with or allow.

          1. Under_Pressure   5 years ago

            I mean, Facebook can lick fascist boot if they want- they are not BOUND by the constitution. But we can sure as hell call them out and think they are evil garbage for doing so as well.

            And the whole tone of this article is just so weird- "Wait, wait guys, you have it all wrong- Facebook isn't banning anti-lockdown protests! They are only banning them if the government says they don't like them! Or if you are choosing not to voluntarily take the government's COMPLETELY FRIENDLY advice. See? Not creepy and fascist at all!"

            1. Geraje Guzba   5 years ago

              LOL on point, sir.

            2. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

              Exactly!

  9. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   5 years ago

    Hard to admit it, but compared to Google, Twitter, and all the damned statists so happy to censor everything not approved by Big Brother, Facebook and Zuckerberg have been relatively libertarian.

    1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

      Until now.

      1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   5 years ago

        No, especially now. If Facebook had been following Twitter or Google, those groups would have been banned right from the start. Facebook and Zuckerberg are not libertarian or even general purpose freedom lovers, but they have shown more spine and willingness to tell the snowflakes to buzz off than anybody else big.

        1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

          So instead they just will remove any mention of speech or protests that the government seems inappropriate? How is that at all libertarian or consistent with Free Speech? Is Free Speech only speech that is government approved? Facebook is doing the bidding state governments issuing unconstitutional orders banning protests and speech. Keep grasping at straws there. This is totally an indefinsible take on your part.

          1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   5 years ago

            Jeezus can yee not view everything in black or white terms? Facebook is better than Google and Twitter and the others, is that not a step in the right direction?

            Let not perfection get in the way of better.

            1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

              I don't see how this is any better. It is still assisting the government in tyranny. Would it be any better if all the other ones were reporting anyone with a Hispanic sounding name to ICE but Facebook only reported those that post about being illegal? How is this really different? Jeez, how can you call yourself a libertarian and be okay with a private company aiding the government in suppressing speech the government doesn't approve of? How? Not the others are worse, but how can you defend that policy in and of itself?

              1. Geraje Guzba   5 years ago

                Because the veneer is one of concern, reasonable concern, understandable concern, humanist concern, for people's safety. They're selling totalitarianism with good packaging, and the packaging won him over.

        2. darkflame   5 years ago

          don't mistake personal benefit for morals. The Zuck chose not to do it up until now because it was more profitable to be openly against anyone not politically left. Now he's seeing endgame stuff happening with some of these statist governors and he's throwing in.

  10. Illocust   5 years ago

    No, what he just said is nonsensical. Constitution trumps laws. The right to peaceably assemble is in the constitution. Facebook is removing protests that do not violate the law as the law must bend to the constitution.

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   5 years ago

      Yes, but they are not sucking government cock as much as Google, Twitter, and the others.

      1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

        But they are still sucking it. Sucking it a little bit, and assisting in the governments attempt to stifle speech is no more defensible then what Google et al are doing.

        1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   5 years ago

          Better is always more defensible than worse. Try sucking on reality for a change, and applaud improvement that is not yet perfection.

          1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

            So ignoring the Gestapo hauling away your Jewish neighbors is more defensible tham calling the Gestapo to haul them away? No caving to tyranny, aiding tyranny is not a matter of degree, it is still tyranny.b

        2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   5 years ago

          Sucking a little bit? Sure. At the point of a gun, that don't make you queer for Big G, Zuckerberg.

          It's the gargling of the nutsack. That crosses the line.

        3. Mickey Rat   5 years ago

          Facebook has also been explicitly threatened in Congressional hearings that there will be consequences if they do not. I am not saying Facebook is great on these issues, but they are walking a line here tat is not entirely of their own choosing.

      2. Overt   5 years ago

        In what way? Google bans guns not because of government, but because they are liberal assholes. But Facebook is literally saying "If government says you shouldn't assemble, we ban you". They are specifically saying that they will consult with the government to decide whether or not your event can happen.

        1. soldiermedic76   5 years ago

          Yes, that is far worse then them doing it of their own accord and beliefs. No, they are doing it to aid the government in enforcing tyranny.

  11. Ben_   5 years ago

    Social distancing outdoors is more-or-less irrelevant. Covid spreads indoors:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-transmission-chinese-study-shows-covid-more-likely-spread-indoors/

  12. Martin Joe   5 years ago

    That's such a great step against coronavirus of Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook, it contains panic & stress for the people.
    https://shoqz-fashionz.com/

  13. speedylee   5 years ago

    Yeah, don't use Facebook. Don't use Twitter. It's making you all retarded.

    1. Nail   5 years ago

      mmmmmhmmm this ^^^^^

  14. Rich   5 years ago

    If someone is spreading something that is misinformation—certainly, someone saying that social distancing is not effective to help limit the spread of coronavirus—we do classify that as harmful misinformation and we take that down. At the same time, it's important for people to debate policies"

    "Oh, very well. I'm not saying that social distancing is not effective; I'm merely debating the policy of social distancing."

    1. Muzzled Woodchipper   5 years ago

      Good luck with that.

      Not even real live scientists who study these sorts of things for a living (as opposed to government experts who study policy for a living) can debate social distancing without getting flagged.

      I had an article removed for such a reason.

  15. Muzzled Woodchipper   5 years ago

    Bullshit.

    I had a post flagged as “partly false” (by USA Today of all fucking rags) specifically because it didn’t toe the government lion. That literally was the only qualm. That government approved “experts” disagreed with non-government epidemiologists.

    The idea that they’re only flagging/removing “harmful“ posts is a complete crock of shit.

    Here’s the original that got flagged....

    https://www.thecollegefix.com/epidemiologist-coronavirus-could-be-exterminated-if-lockdowns-were-lifted/

    1. MasterThief   5 years ago

      They are removing all sorts of stuff that even just barely deviates from the panic narrative. It's ridiculous how so many posts are fact-check blocked just because some part didn't fully adhere to the current narrative (ignoring fact and logic)

  16. Revjust   5 years ago

    In the period of quarantine improve your skills in the field of automotive.
    https://revjust.com/best-mileage-cars-in-india-with-key-specifications/

  17. Mickey Rat   5 years ago

    "Stephanopoulos: How do you deal with the fact that Facebook is now being used to organize a lot of these protests that defy social distancing and defy social distancing guidelines in states? If someone is trying to organize something like that, does that qualify as harmful misinformation because it defies social distancing?"

    How about that the employees of Facebook are not omniscient and do not have the knowledge to determine what is misinformation. There is a rather creepy aspect to the premise of Stephanopoulos' question that what he deems "misinformation" should not be allowed a forum. If determining what misinformation was as obvious to determine as the question implies, it would not be a problem as everyone would recognize it.

    1. Mickey Rat   5 years ago

      So,in Stephanopoulos' view, should the assertion that facemasks are ineffective be considered not misinformation a month ago but misinformation now?

  18. dangfitz   5 years ago

    Maybe if Zuck had been around in the 60's, that State Cop wouldn't have shot Jimmie Lee Jackson at the Pettus bridge.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!