radsch4_Scott OlsonGetty Images_trump ban

Facebook debe vetar a más líderes mundiales

Jul 19, 2021 Courtney C. Radsch

WASHINGTON, DC – He sido una defensora profesional de la libertad de expresión por más de una década. Por eso apoyo la reciente decisión del consejo asesor de contenido de Facebook de mantener la suspensión de la cuenta del expresidente Donald Trump en la plataforma y el nuevo protocolo de Facebook que le permite excluir a figuras públicas por hasta dos años en tiempos de agitación civil. Pero considero que no es suficiente.

Trump usó su púlpito de matón en las redes sociales para atacar y hostigar a organizaciones de prensa, adversarios políticos y exaliados. Lo usó para sembrar dudas sobre la elección presidencial de 2020, y una proporción importante de los estadounidenses sigue dudando del resultado, a pesar de la total ausencia de pruebas de irregularidades generalizadas o fraude. Y lo usó para perpetuar la desinformación durante la pandemia de COVID‑19.

Es decir, con ayuda de las redes sociales, Trump atentó contra las normas e instituciones en las que se basa el funcionamiento del sistema de gobierno representativo, y aumentó la cantidad de muertes por coronavirus en Estados Unidos. Y usó las redes sociales para prácticas de hostigamiento y discurso de odio que están explícitamente prohibidas por las normas de esas plataformas.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 21 Comments on this article

Phil Richards Jul 29, 2021

Simple questions:
(1) Should private organisations be allowed to act as policemen? And if so, yes, should they be subject to regulation?
(2) Is Facebook a publisher with editors legally responsible for its content, or is it more of a blank wall with people spraying grafitti on it?
(3) Is Facebook a utility like a telecoms company? And should telephone companies listen in to your conversations, put a beep over words you use, or ban you from using the telephone?
(4) Its entirely possible for people turn off, or only see things from those they choose. So what is the problem, EXACTLY? Is it just that some people say things you disagree with, so you think they should be banned? You have the hallmark of a dictator. Is it that you feel the need to make that decision because you think other users - whom you claim to regard as equal - are so stupid they will be taken in? Patronising hypocriscy.
(5) Speech and the written word are the only ways people have get to know what others think, and therefore whether they would vote for them, or not. Isn't that why the First Amendment came first?
(6) The question then becomes whether Facebook can, and should be allowed, to determine the public agenda by pushing some views but not others. It can and does through its non-neutral algorithms - so it is not just a wall.
(7) Yes, a supermarket or a telecoms company would not be allowed such a market share. Why is it OK for Facebook to have such a dominant position? Why should it not be split up, like Bell?
(8) Don't Apple, Google, Twitter and others deserve such examination too.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Venkatraman Anantha Nageswaran Jul 21, 2021

I am very tempted to cancel my subscription to 'Project Syndicate' for providing a platform for such banality suffused with venom, unadulterated with any logic or fairness or symmetry or reason. Should 'Project Syndicate' ban her from the platform?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
nigel southway Jul 21, 2021

We should ban Journalists ... fake news is far more a danger
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Schaefer Jul 20, 2021

Does anyone honestly think what Psaki said is new? If you do, you REALLY need to get out more.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Greg Daniels Jul 20, 2021

If Facebook wants to ban someone that's there business. When the Biden administration pressures it to censor speech it becomes all of our business.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard Crane Jul 20, 2021

So, Radsch thinks a democratically elected President who presided over peace and prosperity is the same thing as a genocidal junta? Maybe Radsch should be banned.
- Viswanathan Suresh Jul 30, 2021
  
  Mr Crane: Just who were you alluding to when you said:
  
  ".. democratically elected President who presided over peace and prosperity .."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Johnson Jul 20, 2021

Courtney, are you aware that you are an apparatchik?

One of the many reasons that people supported President Trump was because he was willing to call out people and organizations that were suppressing truth. You can agree, or disagree with his positions, but there was a herculean effort by the powers of the government and the press to shut him down. That is what you should actually be concerned about. Trump is not the problem
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Burack Jul 20, 2021

It boils down to this. Some of us think the correction for speech we disagree with is more speech. Others think the problem is suppressing that speech. As for instance in demonizing and blocking as a "debunked conspiracy theory" the idea now apparently okay again that COVID may have leaked from a lab. Was this view espoused and then blocked over a year ago one of Trump's sins? And who now will check the "blockers" such as this writer? Fortunately, so far, the marketplace of ideas is still bigger and much better than Facebook, Twitter, or Google. But I am sure those who favor their arrogant efforts at thought control are busy thinking about how to shut the rest of us up as well. After all, it follows logically from their logic.
- Ray B Jul 20, 2021
  
  Yep, you hit the nail on the head... Psaki Biden's press secretary all but admitted that they collude with social media to censure speech for which they disagree. The new buzzword is "misinformation." CDC and Saint Fauci all but admitted he used misinformation to ensure enough PPE was available for the health workers. Masks on masks off, businesses open, or close, people dyeing of the poke censured off the internet. You can't get anything but misinformation for manipulating the masses. I am not prepared to give Facebook wok 20 somethings the power to determine what is truthful or misinformation. I can figure that out for myself like a billion other people...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Brad Mueller Jul 20, 2021

Well. At least you're honest about censoring speech you don't agree with.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Jul 20, 2021

I suspect that the " newsworthiness exemption " is a fraud. Facebook, like other platforms do not work in the public interest. They are commercial enterprises and they are generation clicks for advertising revenues. The digital platforms are not neutral public spaces, they are no equivalent to an ancient Greek "agora - gathering place".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
walcottj Jul 19, 2021

Dr. Radsch’s analysis is sound, but IMHO she is too easy on traditional media and stops short of exploring the multiple factors that have made even the most respectable outlets vulnerable to exploitation.
In short, failing economics, increased competition for attention amid what’s become a cacophony — not all of it responsible and much of it partisan in one way or another — and technologically-induced ADD have encouraged the preference for the sensational, often at the expense of the responsible.
Russia, China and others have seized upon this by planting stories in foreign media, knowing that some Western outlets will pick them up or link to them, which implicitly suggests they are credible, to avoid getting “beaten” on sensational stories.
Former President Trump, who unlike the U.S. intelligence community was and is free to manage domestic perceptions, did and continues to do the same thing with no need for foreign intermediaries.
Sadly, an old saw in journalism is truer than ever: A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
Full disclosure: Dr. Radsch was a student of mine at Georgetown, so I may be partly to blame for what I’ve argued here.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/uIyCRt3es

Facebook debe vetar a más líderes mundiales

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Facebook debe vetar a más líderes mundiales

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification