Wednesday, January 17, 2024

It is What It Is. Or is it?

 Saying it is doesn't mean it is because it might not be or does not have to be.  But saying "it is what it is" means it is and always will be because it can't be something else. So, "is it what it is" but does it always have to be?  What if we say it is what it is and it's not but people want you to believe it is.  It might not be what it is but may be something else. So perhaps it's not what it is and IT is an illusion and 'what it is" is actually undefined? Do we just say "it is what it is" because we really don't know what it is?  

That' it! 

Thursday, January 4, 2024

How Historians Will View Us. Will They Conclude We Were Silly?

 The following essay is about history.  But it’s about content to be used by future historians. The Supreme Court is going to decide how current events will be evaluated by future generations.  The Supreme Court is going to decide if future historians will have to sift through the contradictions between the truth and the pseudo-history offered by people that chose to lie.  

The Supreme Court said in Gertz v Welch (1974) that there is no speech value to a lie.  While lies have no value as speech, lies have found its home in the marketplace.  For many, social media has become the marketplace host where lies can be monetized.

 

Facebook has roughly 240 million users in the US.  The company posts its criteria for acceptable and unacceptable content.  None of the criteria for exclusion relate to political viewpoints. However, the Texas legislature has concluded with its bill “relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages,”  that Facebook is deleting content for its political point of view.  The bill allows any Texas resident who has their content banned based on perceived political motives on Facebook to sue the company.  The law also allows suing YouTube and Twitter.

 

This bill will perhaps assuage the majority of Americans that believe social media already restrict content based on its political bent.  Pew Research found that 90% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats believe social media sites censor political content.

 

The bill passed by Texas Republicans declare Facebook and the like to be “common carriers.”  This is the same designation given to Bell Telephone when it was allowed its monopoly on our home phones, back when we all had home phones linked by wire. This is the same designation given to companies that provide transportation of goods and similar services.  All such entities deemed common carriers must hold themselves out for all to use, regardless of the nature of the user.  Bell Telephone had to passively allow all speech and all users. 

 

Such a designation is consistent with the nature of Section 230 of the Telecommunication Act of ’96. Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). Essentially the section of the law clears social media of any responsibility for its content.  Those covered by this section are considered passive conduits for its content.

 

President Trump sought to limit Section 230, along with Senators Rubio and Hawley saying that Facebook was censoring content it should not and that 230 offered too much protection.  Democrat Ron Wyden, among the authors of Section 230, believed that Facebook was not sufficiently active in limiting bad content. 

 

Social media can censor content.  It is not a First Amendment matter as they are not a government agency. If given common carrier status, its ability to censor content or specific users could be challenged.

Whether determining social media as a common carrier is an elevation of status is a matter of perspective.  

But changing its status to such would mean it could not censor speech or limit any user’s ability to publish.  Speech related to racism, homophobia and xenophobia would receive all protection given to any other speech.  Perhaps such protection should be offered.  Perhaps Milton’s Marketplace of Ideas provides a model for what social media should be—a flea market of ideas in which, in Milton’s hopes, the best of ideas would rise to the top.

 

The case of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) concluded that while Gertz assertion that there is no such thing as a false opinion was true, often opinions are stated in ways that they could be understood by the average person to be factual assertions. Essentially, if a statement could be proven true of false, it is not as much an offer of an opinion as an assertion of fact.  Did Milton anticipate the marketplace could be inhabited by such manipulation as social media often offer.

 

So, should Texas legislatures prevail in the upcoming challenges to this law?  Should social media be considered common carriers?

Facebook has stock holders dependent on continuing its hold of its marketplace share.  Throughout media history, media have self-regulated as a means to forestall government regulation and consumer boycotts.  One could argue that social media do such self-regulation merely to maintain good standing in the court of public opinion.  Or one could argue that social media act as good Samaritans protecting the public from lies and hate.  Whatever the motivation, social media delete content.  Of course, some argue its censorship is often based on political ideology.  

 

Parenthetically, my brother and I have separately been suspended by Facebook for posting sarcastic comments of a more liberal nature.  We were suspended for spreading lies.  In both our cases we could make arguments our content was clearly satirical and not assertion of fact.  We did not consider our suspensions to be politically motivated.  Many conservatives argue that certain censorship of some assertions of a conservative bent were solely political motivated.  These claims are without evidence of a purely political motivation.  Of course, the 240+ million Facebook users of America are not privy to the discussions that go into when content is removed or users suspended. 

 

There are other legal arguments related to this that can be included, though engaging such discussions must allow the premise that certain social media are common carriers.  Texas legislatures making such an assertion does not make it so.

 

So why is this post in a blog dedicated to history?  Why does it matter whether Facebook is able to censor content? If our media content is to become the artifacts of future historical study, the nature of that content is of great importance.  Social media is important today as a tool of access to the world and but will also serve as a tool for the historians of the future to give context to the events that shape our time.  The nature of that content to be analyzed will be decided by how courts look at this bill by the Texas legislature.  Perhaps historians will look past certain lies and opinions stated as factual assertions.  Will future historians view social media as an artifact of an idealistic marketplace of ideas that suffered many of the worst case scenarios enabled by the noble vision?  Or will the legislative fight to enable lies be viewed as an artifact of a broken society?  Perhaps we have not yet seen the moment Milton counted on:  that when all possible viewpoints are offered, the best ideas will rise to the top.

 

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/29/supreme-court-texas-social-media-law/

 

https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/ facebook community standards

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=HB20

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-political-viewpoints/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-section-230-and-why-does-trump-want-to-change-it/?sh=7b05fa7b389d

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/563/milkovich-v-lorain-journal-co

Monday, January 1, 2024

A Few Words About Words

 A Few Words About Words

 

Words are interesting.  Sometimes words are meaningful and sometimes meaningless.

Olives are “flavorful.”   I hear the word “flavorful” a lot on the Food Network.

There is no doubt that olives are indeed flavorful.  However, the primary problem with olives is that they are flavorful. Full of the flavor of olives.  I

 know many people love olives and I am sure most of these people are perfectly good people. But I have to question their judgment.  Because they love olives. I don’t believe olive fans truly like olives. 

Because if they did, they would refer to olives as “tasty.”  Tasty is a word we use for things that are really good.  Like a nice wine.Like a good steak.  Like a good hot fudge topping.  

These things are tasty.  Olives are merely flavorful.

 

Some time ago, I told a friend I did not live olives.  Turns out he grew olives for a living.  He was not offended that I did not like olives.

But he challenged me.  He said that if I ate 8 olives, by the eighth olive I would love olives.  

I responded that while that may be true, I would still suffer through the seven olives of hell.

Olives are flavorful.  Full of the flavor of olives.   They are not tasty.   How we discuss olives depends on the words we use.

 

Another word we use and overuse is “like.”  It was “like cold” when I went to the “like restaurant” and bought “like lunch.”

My daughter used to say “like” a lot.  I started challenging her on the word.  When she asked if I “like wanted lunch” I started responding,

“When you say, ‘like want lunch’, are you asking me if I am planning to simulate wanting lunch, going through the motions of wanting lunch? Because that’s what it sounds like when you include “like” in that sentence.” 

It’s ‘like cold.’  Is the outside world a simulation of cold or actually cold?

Is it “like cold” or actually cold?   Yes, “like” is overused.  It is used in lieu of a creative thought. Instead of finding a good analogy for “cold’—instead of a clever 

visualization of cold, we say “like cold.”  Cliches are also annoying—“cold as ice” is overused and has no benefit to those trying to visualize.

In fact, 645 years ago, a guy named Phillippe from Venice said in the language appropriate to Venice that it was “hot as hell.”  People laughed approvingly at

this novel, brilliant visualization. Hell is hot and it was indeed hot that day. A cliche was born 645 years ago. The phrase is long past its usefulness and is now correctly viewed as dull.

Cliches are overused and share so little.  

I made up the entire story about where “hot as hell” came from, but it’s believable.  That’s how old that cliche seems.

 

So cliches are what we use when we have no clever ways to visualize “hot as….” “cold as….” “dull as…”.  

“Like” is another oral choice we make when we can’t create a clever way to say “we’re hungry as….”  “we’re bored as…” We are like bored which makes us like hungry.

 

Word choices matter and they say something about us.

 

When speaking to some students about the events of October 7, I reminded the students that in discussions of the events of the day, words matter.

I told them, “When you discuss these events with anybody, please remember a few things.  The Palestinians and Muslims did not attack Israel.  Hamas did.

The Jews did not attack Gaza.  The Israeli Defense Forces did.  To blame the Palestinians, the Muslims or the Jews is inaccurate and will spread hate.

We can share information or we can share hate.  It depends on the words we use.”

 

The tone of this essay changed dramatically in the previous paragraph.  Due to my word choices and topics I brought up.

The unifying theme of all of this is that our word choice matters.  Whether we are expressing the outdoor temperature or a war being fought far away.

How we describe something says a lot about us.  Our word choices serve to teach and share and suggest how others should express themselves.  

What is at stake changes by the paragraph.  By the sentence.  The words we choose matter.