Reblogged:Tech's Sloppiness and Bigotry Aren't 'Censorship'

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Not too long ago, John Stossel cataloged examples of "fact checkers" employed by social media companies actually snuffing out the truth, thereby proving to be enemies of open debate.

Here's an example:

Big tech wants you to see things the way they do, but they aren't actually censors. (Image by Steve, via Wikimedia Commons, license.)

[Bjorn] Lomborg was censored [sic] for pointing out "rising temperatures have actually saved lives." That's because cold weather kills more people than warm weather.

No scientific study has yet proven that a recent drop in deaths was caused by the temperature rise. But so what? His main point -- temperature-related deaths fell while the planet warmed -- is true.

Yet Science Feedback works with Facebook to keep that out of your Facebook feed.

And that was just one example of Science Feedback keeping social media customers in the dark.

This piece is eye-opening, but its value is severely compromised by its failure -- common among conservatives and libertarians -- to note the fundamental difference between a private platform like Facebook (badly and wrongly) policing its own property -- and government violating the right to free speech. Ayn Rand cannot be quoted enough on this point: "Censorship ... is a government edict that forbids the discussion of some specific subjects or ideas..."

What Facebook and the like do, when they refuse to allow people to present facts that might call current orthodoxy into question, is sloppy or wrong, but it is not censorship. Unlike government, they can't fine or jail anyone, for expressing their opinions, arguments, or data.

-- CAV

Link to Original