The ongoing dilemma amongst American’s pertains to the governing of free speech through community standards on social media platforms.
Facebook and Twitter banned President Donald J. Trump’s accounts after the United States Capitol insurrection yet continues to tolerate the exposure of street violence during riots by unethically referring to rioters as “violent protestors”.
The means of rioting are never justified on any societal front in any pragmatic setting. As a citizen journalism medium, community standards allow for lopsided favoritism between extremist movements.
Professional journalists spend countless hours amongst editors and content producers analyzing the ethical exposure of graphic content.
Social media governance continues to censor presidents yet allows citizen journalists to produce graphic imagery in the moment without question.
Community Standards and the Fourth Estate of the Constitution
The ongoing ethical dilemma circumvents around foreign interference with American elections, clickbait headlines from bloggers who are not trained as journalists, and social media marketing bleeding into the journalism field.
Journalists protect viewers and subscribers through John Rawls’ Doctrine of Double Effect allowing the viewer the opportunity to decide the truth.
Social media bleeds into journalism ethics polluting the sanctity of the minds of the reader.
Facebook community standards exempts politicians from community standards and journalists are setting the record straight to protect the Fourth Estate of the Constitution.
Saving the Institution of Democracy on Social Media Platforms
The first step to saving the sanctity of the viewer would require journalists to take a stance and report objectively.
Unfortunately, the current state of the media tolerates a private opinionated platform through unregulated social media. The solution starts by regulating blogs through categorization for publishing.
As a professional journalist, credentials determine online identity. Facebook requires all journalists to provide their credentials when registering for their Facebook business page.
All who post blogs should be required to provide their status as either a blogger or online journalist. Trolls and spambots impersonate people. Community standards ought to invest in vetting each account through internal audits to reflect whether the person is credible.
From an investigative journalist standpoint, social media confuses the reader through misleading headlines and slang forms of persuasion.
Journalism prides itself on objectivity yet social media continues to pollute the craft of truth seeking falling under the constructs of running as a tabloid.
Censoring the president never considered the various world leaders who launch nerve agent gas on their own people or tyrannize the innocent through black hat tactics who are allowed to continue using the service committing ongoing atrocities against humanity. Why aren’t they being banned?
Weighing the Merits of Presidential Banning
David L. Hudson Jr. of the First Amendment Watch of New York University points out, “Trump and others have described the social media black out as a direct assault on conservative points of a view and a draconian target of only certain types of free speech.”
Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court responded to the black out of Trump’s accounts in an interview by Politico Reporter Josh Gerstein stating, “we will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”
So, the social media dilemma pertains to how Americans regulate the sharing of content that is misleading, which supports the dire need to invest in the beefing up of Fourth Estate protections. Even Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders shared with Gerstein that he “doesn’t like giving that much power to high tech people.”
In the Constitutional arena, Americans face losing their rights to the hybrid platforms of social media.
Weighing the merits of ethical balance falls on the platform of community standards. How can anyone follow unethical rules?
Didn’t Twitter and Facebook require certain policies already in place as the ends in every social media contract?
Or are lawyers the ones responsible for holding Big Tech to respectable standards superseding community standards unjustifiable means as a black hat platform favoring one ideology over another?
Lastly, Florida sought to create laws to govern social media to restrict social media corporations from governing politicians.
Forbes Contributor John Brandon’s column discussed Governor Ron Desantis signed a bill fining social media companies $250,000 per day for banning candidates; $25,000 per day for those seeking local office.
The bill received criticism stating the Florida law violates the Constitution. How can American lawmakers close the flood gates on privately regulated content?
First off, we cannot speak diversity in one breath and act as a gatekeeper through cancel culture with the other.
Diversity does not welcome adversity. We live on social media as double standards. Community standards should promote the end and never the means.
Censorship has been an ongoing issue since Tipper Gore’s attack on the band Twisted Sister.
We, the people of the United States, need to radically shift our approach to the undermining of Big Tech through social media. The people choose the content they follow, which is protected by the Fourth Estate of the Constitution the media chooses not to disclose.
We, the people, freely choose what we endorse. Big Tech does not decide what is fact and fallacy. Social media continues to corrupt and distort the reality of how good-natured human beings see the world.
“Fact-checkers” are simply speaking from the element of what they believe as fact, which is not truth.
Truth is the protection provided by the Freedom of Information Act that fact-checkers choose to ignore.
The hyper politico agenda through social media endorses corporate control and access of all communication resources.
Endorsing brands as truth equates the allegiance to an ideology not self-researched truth. Broadcasting graphic imagery during riots and censoring a president qualify as the means and never the ends.
The ends would seek to ensure the truth is protected in every social media moral contract.