Social Media Censorship: Jay Bhattacharya vs. Kate Klonick
Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya debates St. John University's Kate Klonick on the federal government's role in social media censorship.
HD DownloadShould the federal government be able to "urge," "encourage," "pressure," or "induce" social media companies into censoring free speech about COVID-19? A recent ruling in federal court said no. That ruling is the subject of this month's Soho Forum Debate between law professor Kate Klonick and professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. The resolution is: "The making of national internet policy was hindered, rather than helped, by the July 4th federal court ruling that restricted the Biden administration's communications with social media platforms."
Arguing for the affirmative is Kate Klonick, an associate professor at St. John's University Law School, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a distinguished scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies. Her writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and numerous other publications.
Arguing against the resolution is Jay Bhattacharya, M.D. Ph.D., a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, as well as a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. His peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. Dr. Bhattacharya was one of three main co-signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, an open letter published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.
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.
Please
to post comments
Arguing for the affirmative is Kate Klonick, an associate professor at St. John's University Law School, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a distinguished scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies. Her writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and numerous other publications.
Well, that paragraph already lays out a lot of reasons for me to dislike her, even beyond the basic idea that she thinks the government can tell social media what needs to be taken down.
In forty years that will be like saying you wrote for Völkischer Beobachter, Pravda, the People's Daily and Arriba.
In which order?
Under no c ircumstances should any government have this kind of power.
Correct.
THIS is why NO sane, non-Evil, non-TOTAL-Power-Pig would EVER DREAM OF voting for Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer!!!
Trump threatens Twitter, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-threats-social-media-twitter-fact-check-warning-executive-order/
Trump threatens social media companies after Twitter adds fact-checking labels to tweets
CBS story dated 3/28/2020.
I wonder if anything significant about twitter has changed between then and now?
trump is no more fit for office now than he was in 2016 (IMO, not at all), but the idea that he's the "would-be dictator" and more authoritarian between himself and Biden comes mostly from people who also said his single biggest failure was to not declare protracted lock-downs at the Federal level (which left only "deep blue" states closed 18 months into the "six weeks to flatten the curve"), combined with having "too much focus on vaccine development" as President, and then supposedly becoming the leader of the "vaccine heistant/anti-vax" movement as soon as Biden took over and switched from saying that he'd never trust the "trump vaccine" to bragging as if his "leadership" had somehow led to the production and distribution ramping up on-schedule in Feb-March 2021 and "getting more shots into arms" than had been possible when 0.01% as many doses were available nationwide.
The same people who think trump was an authoritarian failure (at least they're correct in that he failed at being authoritarian) who would use any opportunity to cling to power, also had nothing but glowing things to say about the President of NZ who quarantined the entire country and completely closed the borders for 2 years as well as postponing an election in response to 12 positive tests nationwide. in the month before the voting was scheduled to take place. Almost makes you wonder if these people understand what the word "authoritarian" means at a very basic level.
"Should the federal government be able to "urge," "encourage," "pressure," or "induce" social media companies into censoring free speech about COVID-19? A recent ruling in federal court said no."
Well, there goes White Mike and Sqrlsy's arguments out the window.
They have no credibility here!
Twat, and Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer DOES have credibility? In TWAT parallel universe, pray tell? Where Spermy Daniels rules and drools, perhaps?
Trump threatens Twitter, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-threats-social-media-twitter-fact-check-warning-executive-order/
Trump threatens social media companies after Twitter adds fact-checking labels to tweets
That's why I'm reluctantly voting for the guy who actually did censor Twitter.
There is credibility here?
Who knew?
"A recent ruling in federal court said no."
So what is there to 'debate'? Settled law.
It's not yet settled law as the case is being appealed.
Hmm. The ACLU takes a bold stance against civil liberties.
https://thepostmillennial.com/aclu-teams-with-washington-state-dems-to-intimidate-signature-gatherers-for-ballot-initiatives
Bhattacharya wins this debate by showing up.
Woody Allen: “Eighty percent of success is showing up.”
What did Kodak film and Woody Allen have in common?
They both come in a little yellow box.
I think he stole that from Mike Rowe.
I really liked him in Fanboys and Tropic Thunder.
Did you actually read the debate issue? I've read it several times now and STILL can't figure out what is being debated here! "The making of national internet policy was hindered by ..." What the heck does that even mean. There should be NO "national internet policy" made in the first place. The Bill of Rights is very clear on the subject: the Federal government must not interfere in the expression of people's opinions. How could a ruling that forbids government officials from interfering in the free speech of Americans hinder the development of policies that should not be allowed in the first place? Or was the question, "did the ruling in the case actually work?"
Should the federal government be able to "urge," "encourage," "pressure," or "induce" social media companies into censoring free speech about COVID-19?
This is even a question? F No.
Social media companies should voluntarily censor content of their users that government and Science! says is misinformation or government will need to take measures to encourage them to do so.
Banning the government's ability to ban stuff infringes on the government's freedom of association to ban stuff.
If they would just voluntarily ban stuff, the government wouldn’t have to force them!
/jeff
Except that was never my argument.
What is your argument as to how social media companies ought to regulate content on their platforms?
Jesus big ego, low self-esteem Christ. I didn’t attribute that to you. FFS.
They should do as they please per their ToS.
Govt should never step in except in cases where actual laws were broken (such as Pluggo posting links to kiddie porn, human trafficking, if ballot stuffers are using social media to coordinate their activities, etc). Posting unpopular material or information that does not fit the narrative falls under 1A. Govt shouldn’t be putting pressure on social media companies because of feelingz.
What if a user of a social media platform posts information that is factually incorrect and may be dangerous if acted upon, such as, for example, "drinking bleach cures COVID". Is it okay in your view if that social media company were to at a minimum label that content as "false"? Or would that be impermissible censorship that is pushing an anti-bleach narrative?
Obviously, someone would have to be knuckle-dragging retarded to drink bleach because some guy on the internet said to, but it's easy to understand why you would sympathize with such a retard.
They should do as they please per their ToS.
And if the ToS said "We reserve the right to label information that we deem to be false as such", you would be fine with it?
They should do as they please per the ToS. Again, absent of something criminal such as when Pluggo, the Media Matters shill, posted a link to child pornography on here. In that case, it would have been appropriate for government to be involved. By outside of criminal matters, it should be left up to the company and its agreement with the users.
Are you retarded?
This attempt to blur lines and find grey areas may be an interesting exercise, but it is moot.
The government had entire departments in the Whitehouse, State Department, Intelligence Agencies, CDC and at State levels whose job was to identify "incorrect" content and demand its removal. This attempt to focus on the actions of a free market is nothing but dissembling and red herrings.
In California, we have simple rules to tell whether someone is a Contractor, Employee or Volunteer for an entity. Government agencies were literally PAYING companies to censor content, like a government contractor. And even in cases where no money was exchanged, there were clear lines of quid pro quo. And even in cases where inducement wasn't an issue, the government was *directing* efforts to perform takedowns. They were not merely cheering on censorship (which would be bad enough)- they were actively identifying "objectionable" content and directing corporations to take it down.
So the question of Terms of Service is moot. No Terms of Service can override the Constitution. A private actor cannot (willingly or unwillingly) help the government breach the constitution. A government cannot access private records without a warrant- whether a police officer attempts to take the records, or they induce a private citizen to do it on their behalf. And a government may not censor- whether they do it themselves or induce a private party to do it on their behalf.
Libertarians love the idea of privatizing key government functions because of the market effects. However, this does not mean we condone outsourcing functions a government is prohibited from having. Governments in the US may not censor. Therefore they may not make a law abridging your right to speech. They may not send a government Agent to abridge your speech. They may not hire a contractor to abridge your speech. And they may not induce volunteers to abridge your speech.
Any government agent who is involved in managing, directing, facilitating or even encouraging such practices is breaching the Constitution. And any company who willingly assists in this is participating in Conspiracy to deny citizens of their rights and should face injunction and (if egregious enough) held accountable as well.
This is way too strict of a standard, and winds up abridging the First Amendment rights of the platform owners. They have rights too, you know.
Here are two scenarios for you to consider:
Scenario #1:
Social media user writes: "If you drink a gallon of vinegar, you will be cured of COVID!"
CDC doctor to social media owner: "That is dangerous misinformation that could lead to people being hurt. I demand that you take down that post in the name of protecting public health, or 'face the consequences'".
Social media owner: "Yes sir, I will dutifully comply because I don't want to be punished."
Scenario #2:
Social media user writes: "If you drink a gallon of vinegar, you will be cured of COVID!"
Social media owner: "Hmm I am skeptical of this claim, and I am also fearful of my own liability (legal or moral) if I leave a potentially dangerous claim unchallenged on my platform. But I don't know enough about the science to make an informed decision. I will consult an expert, who also happens to be a doctor at the CDC."
CDC doctor to social media owner: "Well, based on my expertise, that claim should be regarded as false. The choice is yours, but if I were in your shoes, I would not let that claim remain unchallenged."
Social media owner: "Thank you, based on your advice, I will decide to remove that content."
Based on your standard above, would BOTH of these scenarios represent impermissible government censorship? Both of these scenarios have the same net effect, and in both of these scenarios we the public would not normally know the internal conversations associated with any decision to take down social media content. By my reading of your comment, you would regard both of those as illegal.
I would argue that only the first one represents impermissible government censorship, the second one does not. And if you want to argue that the second one should be disallowed as well, that you are abridging the First Amendment rights of the platform owner.
Now, there is absolutely a gray area between #1 and #2. And I'm absolutely willing to accept that Trump or Biden or both crossed the line in their censorship. But I do not accept that ALL interaction between social media and government is impermissible.
Why does he run to the CDC? He could easily consult any number of private "experts". Why do we even have a CDC? Discuss!
The CDC is where a lot of experts work.
Argue all you want that there shouldn't be a CDC, but we currently do live in a world where a CDC exists.
So you're confirming that private entities should ask the State what they should permit.
Maybe people should not just believe whatever they read from some rando on Twitter.
Scenario 2 is probably OK. Though I would advise the CDC doctor to stop at just the facts and not insert his personal opinion on what the social media guy should do.
And there's also the scenario where several "experts" are consulted and their opinions differ.
Scenario#1 is an example of a government agent engaged in censorship.
Scenario#2 is not germane to my claim, and I note that once again chemjeff is trying to muddy the waters with red herrings (muddy red herrings, at that).
Scenario #2 is not what was happening.
The government literally had entire departments tasked with the cause of locating "objectionable" content and contacting social companies to perform takedowns. The government was literally granting money to semi-private agencies tasked with doing the same. The government was literally PAYING social media companies to build infrastructure to facilitate government agents (and their grantees) making takedown requests.
So my point remains.
Well, this is an easy one.
The Federal government has no role whatsoever in social media censorship.
What about Jen Psaki's rights?
I'm pretty sure she isn't allowed to possess kitchen knives anymore.
What about pscissors?
With a last name like Colonic , do you expect her to be on the right side?
Considering the left side is closer to the tush....
Democratic Party senator Ben Cardin (D) staffer Aiden Maese-Czeropski was apparently discharged after being linked to making an amateur gay porn film in the US senate judiciary committee room. Talk about an ins-erection!
It dogged him, and he was quite hard up about it.
The film may have visually depicted how to filabuster.
It wasn’t an insurrection, it was more of an inhisrectum.
Perhaps the name of the film is Stumping for Cardin (D)
His woke mom did a great job raising him. I about died laughing when I found out his major at Berkely. What a bunch of bullshit...little bolshie...I'm sure MSNBC will give him a show or FB the now open DIE VP role.
Scar Bro Country
Well, it's up against the wall brokeback mother,
Momma who raised her boy so well,
He's thirty three and fuckin' in a hearing room,
Lickin' gay men's asses and raisin' hell.
He’s the butt of the jokes.
Cardin has said that he would pullout…from seeking reelection in 2024.
Sloppy pullout!
All he was doing was the same thing Senator's do to the public every day in the Senate chamber.
St Johns is a Catholic University...is Klonick a Roman Catholic? Her Bio reads like a classic left wing NYC bolshie which is about as far from Catholicism as you can get.
"culturally Roman Catholic".
As Douglas Murray pointed out, there are Christian Atheists, Muslim Atheists, Jewish Atheists, etc.
cuba and venezuela is catholic
Not if the current pope has his way.
BTW, I'm constantly revising and updating The Hierarchy:
Changes as of December, 2023:
Trump: Literally worse than Hitler
DeSantis: Literally worse than Trump
Josh Hawley: Literally worse than DeSantis
Elon Musk: Literally worse than Josh Hawley
Misinformation is not a problem. People believing lies on the Internet is not a problem. What do I care if some moron thinks that he can be cured of COVID by drinking bleach. It's not my problem if that moron dies. One less idiot in the gene pool. Who cares if some moron thinks that vaccines cause autism and then their child dies of some easily preventable disease. As long as it's not my child or anyone close to me I don't give a shit. Social problems are not real problems unless they affect me personally. That is what every good libertarian believes.
Elections are won by the candidate who convinces enough voters of the most convincing lies. They can be lies like "vote for me and I will give you free health care", lies like "vote for me and I will give you a tax cut", or even lies like "vote for me and I will kill all the Jews". Not only should government do absolutely nothing about these lies - of course that is a given - but NO ONE should do anything about any of these lies. Social media companies should not do any censoring or fact-checking, even if they are private companies, because that too would be wrong, and after all, how do we know it isn't the government doing it by proxy? Private citizens shouldn't be fact-checking these lies either, that is just pushing an unwanted agenda and trying to silence legitimate debate with 'cancel culture' nonsense. We libertarians have a duty to treat all speech as not just legally protected, but sacred and valuable and EQUALLY VALID, and furthermore to prevent anyone from contradicting or fact-checking anyone's speech, even if that speech is lies, because to do so would be to harm the culture of free speech. We must regard all speech as if it were true even if it is not.
Not everyone needs an information gatekeeper. But apparently you do.
Sad.
You're right, I am humbled by your presence. You must be an expert in nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, molecular biology, physiology, engineering, auto mechanics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, aerodynamics, meteorology, zoology, ecology, mineralogy, mathematics, gastronomy, and computer science, that you don't need any information gatekeepers at all. You already know everything.
Dlam does not need the Ministry of Managing MisInformation (MoMMI). I imagine he can go to the sources, review their CV in regard to the topic to evaluate whether they are a credible source, then make a decision based on that. Government officials, journalists, and social media fact checkers that are not practiced experts in that field may get little weight in his decision making.
Except that tends not to happen. What tends to happen, instead, is that DLAM goes to talk to a friend of a friend, who heard from an 'expert' on Facebook, that if Biden is elected he will cancel everyone's student loan debt, so be sure to vote for Biden in 2024 if you want to get rid of your student loans. Or, that if Trump is elected he will bring all those jobs back from China, so be sure to vote for Trump in 2024 if you want to get your good paying job back. I mean, it's gotta be true, right?
Then only use social media platforms that have fact checkers that stamp posts as verified true or false or whatever. I’m not interested in a government MoMMI.
I'm not either! But I am at least glad that you are fine with something like 'fact checkers'. A lot of people around here are not. If one were to argue "social media platforms should not have fact-checkers at all", what would your response be?
If you need training wheels for your internet use and it is available, then you are free to have that gatekeeping. I don’t give a shit if you do; I avoid that garbage. I don’t want a Department Against Disseminating DisInformation (DADDI).
Oh knock it off. EVERYONE needs "training wheels" for their Internet of some sort or another, because nobody is an expert at everything, and nobody is capable of determining the absolute credibility of every source of information that exists on the Internet. Everyone has biases and blind spots, and everyone can be fooled by disinformation and misinformation. FFS, *you* have been going around claiming that Ukraine is committing genocide in the Donbass region for 7 years. The proof for this claim is extremely thin, and consists mainly of Russian propaganda as a paper-thin veneer of justification for its war of aggression. Now, you should have the right to repeat Russian propaganda if you so choose. The government should not censor you if you want to repeat Russian propaganda. The government should not pressure social media companies to censor you if you want to repeat Russian propaganda. At the same time, however, I would hope that there are fact-checkers out there who are trying to correct the record and establish the *truth* of the situation in Donbas and elsewhere, and I would hope that when it comes time for the voting public to make a democratic decision on the matter of some type, that the basis for their vote is grounded in truth and facts, and not in bullshit and lies. If you and others WANT to vote on the basis of a belief in the validity of Russian propaganda, you should have every right to do so. But I would *hope* that the number of people who would actually do so is very small, and I would like to envision an education system which prioritizes critical thinking and media literacy which minimizes the chances of people uncritically accepting Russian propaganda as fact, WITHOUT resorting to censorship or government coercion.
I reject the false choice of "Everybody just accepts bullshit as fact and there is nothing anyone can do about it", vs. "Everyone is coerced by government to accept a single government-approved narrative". There is a third way but that requires individual effort by all of us to demand higher standards and not tolerate bullshit among each other and among the media sources that we consume. That is hard work but it is the only pro-liberty way to go IMO.
If you want a MoMMI or DADDI overseeing your internet content, go for it. Not all of us do, Some kids played with Duplo instead of Lego. You can still make things with your Duplo.
Govt should only be involved when folks are engaging in illegal activities such as that Democratic Party mayor in Maryland, Patrick Wojahn (D) and Buttgieg’s buddy, who according to court documents uploaded child pornography to some messaging and chat app.
"EVERYONE needs “training wheels” for their Internet of some sort or another, because nobody is an expert at everything. "
Except for fact checkers.
Remarkably unconstrained by confirmation bias too. Amazing human beings; I'm surprised anyone could ever be suspicious of one.
Social media platforms should do what their owners want. If someone wants to have fact checkers review every post, fine. If someone wants to have absolute free speech with no checking or review of any posts, fine. Users can decide what suits them better.
I don’t make decisions based on any information on Facebook or similar, nor should anyone. I don’t even use Facebook, or X.
I agree that making important decisions based on social media content is sketchy. But it happens, and not infrequently either.
Let people bear the consequences of their stupidity and it should sort itself out.
Haha, Lying Jeffy is broken.
YouTube still bothering with covid labeling on videos. Isn't it about time to drop that useless feature?
The sad thing about this is that if played this video to general public a much larger share would be on Klonik's side than Bhattacharya's.
Klonik's opening arguments didn't even parse as a logical argument. Blathering nonsense.
All scientific conclusions are pending further investigation. However, policymakers need to have a currently accepted scientific view on which to make decisions. This scientific view must be arrived at by a conversation among qualified scientists in a scientific discourse, peer-reviewed papers, discussion at scientific conferences. Social media is destroying the scientific conversation, and Dr. Bhattacharya is participating in that destruction by taking his case to social media rather than to the scientific discourse.
https://politicsofthelastage.blogspot.com/2023/10/social-media-in-year-2020-was-swarming.html