What’s the truth this week regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2? (the Texas law regarding Facebook censorship)

It has been about 1.5 years since “Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made” (Guardian, May 27, 2021):

Facebook has lifted a ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made, following a resurgence of interest in the “lab leak” theory of the disease’s onset.

The social network says its new policy comes “in light of ongoing investigations into the origin”.

In February, Facebook explicitly banned the claim, as part of a broad policy update aimed at “removing more false claims about Covid-19 and vaccines”. In a public statement at the time, it said: “Following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), we are expanding the list of false claims we will remove to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines.”

What’s the truth this week? Due to my failure to become a virologist, I express no opinion on the origin of this or any other virus. What about people who are virologists? Fortunately, there are still plenty of limits on what they can say:

Facebook is keen to ensure that a change in one rule doesn’t lead to a free-for-all for Covid misinformation. On the same day that it lifted the ban on lab-leak theories, it tightened up restrictions on users who “repeatedly share misinformation on Facebook”.

What could happen to ruin this happy marriage between Science and censorship? “Is This the Beginning of the End of the Internet?” (Atlantic, 9/28/2022):

Earlier this month, the court upheld a preposterous Texas law stating that online platforms with more than 50 million monthly active users in the United States no longer have First Amendment rights regarding their editorial decisions. Put another way, the law tells big social-media companies that they can’t moderate the content on their platforms.

Part of this fiasco touches on the debate around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which, despite its political-lightning-rod status, makes it extremely clear that websites have editorial control. “Section 230 tells platforms, ‘You’re not the author of what people on your platform put up, but that doesn’t mean you can’t clean up your own yard and get rid of stuff you don’t like.’ That has served the internet very well,” Dan Novack, a First Amendment attorney, told me. In effect, it allows websites that host third-party content to determine whether they want a family-friendly community or an edgy and chaotic one. This, Masnick argued, is what makes the internet useful, and Section 230 has “set up the ground rules in which all manner of experimentation happens online,” even if it’s also responsible for quite a bit of the internet’s toxicity too.

What do we think will happen? Until this Texas situation arose, Facebook was immune under Section 230 from the liability that a publisher or speaker would have, but the company also could enforce an editorial point of view on whatever topics it chose. It has enjoyed the immunity of a phone company with, actually, tighter control of point of view than the New York Times (which sometimes invites a Republican or fake Republican onto the editorial page just to stir things up). It seems too good to be true, but maybe Facebook is big, rich, and influential enough to hold onto this status?

6 thoughts on “What’s the truth this week regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2? (the Texas law regarding Facebook censorship)

  1. > What’s the truth this week?

    One has to test this empirically by posting something and waiting for a 3 day ban. The turnaround time is a bit tedious, but the truth will eventually emerge.

    Facebook seems to be happy that it is down 10% over the past five years, all for the common good.

  2. Why people keep using that brainwashing machine is beyond my comprehension. OTOH it was engineered, a/b tested, and tuned by the teams of psychologists to be as addictive as possible.

  3. I “pulled the plug” on my Facebook account a couple of months ago, but prior to that I had been censored several times and prohibited from commenting twice. In every case, I’m not sure which words or language I used to summon their Algorithm Police, but what I did do, in each case, was take a screenshot of the post or comment with the (!) symbol and RED outline. Then I made a new post on my timeline showing the screenshot and the context.

    I have several friends who must be bolder and more courageous (or just smarter) than I am who were tossed into FB Jail on numerous occasions for their horrific lapses of reason. I think it’s more likely that I self-censor because I still suffer from lingering effects of Stockholm Syndrome, which I developed over a long period of time when saying the “wrong” thing to the “wrong” person would result in a painful and costly disaster. There’s nothing more effective than a liberal/leftist activist Law School cause someone to develop the necessary Truth Awareness modes of thinking. Combine that with an uber-feminist Psychologist girlfriend and I guess I should thank my lucky stars that I didn’t walk my White Privileged Ass into Lake Michigan on a cold December morning.

    Still, Stockholm Syndrome has never, to my knowledge, been an accepted DSM diagnosis. On the bright side, maybe I’m just a big pussy, like Howard Stern was when he finally forced himself to venture out of his $20 million dollar mansion/compound after two years to have an unmasked dinner with a bunch of celebrity friends at a chic restaurant.

    I don’t have any celebrity friends or enough money to buy a mansion, though. Therefore I think I shall remain a pussy, but at least I no longer fear the Facebook censors. Fuck them.

    • I would like to thank Jack Nicholson personally for his performance in this scene. I know there are still lots of folks who are “voluntary” but they should take his advice, it might be tough at first, but they’ll be much better off in the long run:

    • Remember: by the end of the movie, Nicholson’s character was lobotomized and mercifully and compassionately euthanized by an American Indian. If you choose to voluntarily stay in the asylum, there’s a good chance you will be too. So get out, and stay out.

  4. On a more simpleton theoretical level, though, I don’t know why anyone who uses Facebook thinks it would be any different. The basic Terms of Use have always made it clear that not only does Facebook own the content you supply, including photographs, it can do whatever it wants with your account and if you have a problem with that, tough titties said the kitty. You sign up for Facebook for Free! and Always Will Be! and their product is YOU. So you either pull the plug and go elsewhere or leave it to your legal team consisting of a couple of pals who think they know how to read, or you leave the “platform.”

    Those are the stark choices.

    It’s hilarious because I never had a FB account until a long-time buddy of mine called me up one day and said: “Oh, man, you’ve GOTTA be on Facebook.” He’s kind of a big dickhead, but I did it anyway.

    He is no longer a Facebooker. I should have listened to my first and best advice and told him to go have a few more drinks and crash a boat into something.

Comments are closed.