Ashley Catherine Fontones|Pocono Record
For this week's Group Editorial, the Pocono Record asked readers to share their thoughts on censorship. The prompt was: "Should social media platforms participate in media censorship? Should the government?"
Last week's prompt: Is voting a privilege, right, or obligation?
Editor's response: Readers cherish their right to vote | Fontones
While this has been a hot topic of debate in the political stratosphere, the prompt only recruited one response. I think this has more to do with the fact that the election is days away, and you readers definitely have more pressing matters to attend to.
This week, I've decided to move forward with our Group Editorial, but rather than have me respond to readers in my Sunday column, I'm going to respond right here. Why not? This topic is not going away any time soon,and if you would still like to sound off, please consider submitting a letter to me on the topic (please keep those letters to 300 words.)
Longtime letter writerDianne Kurkowski-Worm of Stroudsburg was our lone participant this week. Here is her response.
The American people should shudder at the mere thought of censorship in the United States of America.And yet, it has happened.
The New York Post is a venerable newspaper, founded by Alexander Hamilton.It recentlypublished a story aboutfinancial dealings between Hunter Biden and foreign entities.They probably would not come out with such a story for no reason.
Yet a tech giant has decided to take the New York Post off its platform and not publish this story.Unless one has read the originalNew York Post story, the American people have no idea what that story said.Right before the election.How convenient.And the mainstream media is not covering it either.One might wonder why.
It probably would surprise no one that Silicon Valley is most decidedly liberal.Even so: Who gets to decide what is "misinformation?"Mark Zuckerberg, who dreamed up Facebook in his basement?A newspaper editor?A government official?
The answer is no one should censor any kind of news or withhold any kind ofinformation.Especially right before an election.
It is bad enough for the past four years the American media has been so biased in its reporting it might as well be considered censorship.This latest instance with the tech giants is enough to make one's heart palpitate.
I don't want to live in the western hemisphere version of Communist China.Do you?
More than a decade ago, I embarked on my first real job in the media industry. It was an internship in Manhattan, and this was back when internships were completely unpaid.
I was a nervous, college student from Pratt Institute, showing up to my own cubicle in Viacom's Standards and Practices department. For those of you who may not be familiar with the term Standards and Practices, when it comes to television, the department may have a hand in network censorship. I worked in the MTV division, so there was plenty of material to learn from.
Near the end of the internship, we began focusing on the internet. Use of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter were just taking off at the time, and online streaming services like Hulu or Netflix were still relatively new. "Fake news" was not a trending search topic.
I've written about "Fake News" once before. Early on in the pandemic, a chain text message circulated throughout the Poconosregarding the president's impending use of the Stafford Act. The text message usually started off the words: "They activated 3 of my friends who are a part of the National Guard this morning..."
Editorial: The text message is fake.
The text was quickly proven to be fake, but some people in my personal circletook it seriously. The panic the Stafford Act text causedback in March is one example of real world consequences.
I believe in responsible censorship, but my definition of it may surprise you. Censorship should involve carefully researched standards on what type of content should be released to what type of audience. When it comes to a for-profit company like Facebook, they reserve the right to monitor content and remove it at their discretion.
When governments get involved in censorship, that is where the line is blurred.
The Federal Communications Commission is prohibited by law from trying to prevent or censor broadcast material. It is also barred from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech.The FCC is allowed to act, however, when indecent material is involved or at risk of being broadcast to children. Obscene content is not protected by the first amendment.
Such laws exist to protect the first amendment, and in turn freedom of the press. But does such a law apply to a private company like Facebook? The FCCguidelines I referred topertain specifically to radio and television. Guidelines recommend that individual stations make decisions on whether or not to air content.
When it comes to social media, the FCC addresses the industry in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the act protects social media companies from liability for the content posted by users, and allows them the freedom to remove objectionable posts.
Removing the content entirely does not read as traditional media censorship to me, nor are we at this time anywhere close to a "communist state." It would appear that the law protects a social media platform's right to discern whether or not a post should be removed.Still, Facebook's removal of the New York Post article could set the precedent for future actions. Discretion should be the key word that comes to mind whenever a platform moderator is tasked with investigating a post or link.
Facebook was, at one point, making progress on this front.
Over the summer, Facebook put disclaimers on links that were questionable. The message readers received was something akin to: "The content of this link could not be verified by a fact check, and therefore may contain misinformation. Proceed with caution."
I appreciated this approach. Shouldn't readers have the right to assume the risk?
Our next prompt: What are you thankful for?
Those interested should submit 200-400 words on the topic by Nov. 11, to make Fridays print edition. If the group fills up, we will give you a head start on our next prompt. Email afontones@poconorecord.com for more info.
- Ashley Catherine Fontones is the Managing Editor at the Pocono Record. For more information on Group Editorials, email her at afontones@poconorecord.com.
See the original post here:
Group Editorial: The line between censorship and culling spread of misinformation - Pocono Record