My initial research idea was the use of social media to spread news information. I think that over this first half of the course, there have been developments in social media news. I think this topic still is interesting, timely, and has aspects that need explored.
In this research area, I would like to find the sweet spot between free speech, news being shared on social media, censorship, fact checking. I would also like to explore the banning of users for spreading misinformation.
One main question that I’m planning on investigating is: How do social media platforms balance free speech and the accuracy of the news information shared by their users?
I have found some news stories related to this issue. I find it particularly interesting that news was going to be blocked on Facebook in Australia because the Australian government wanted news outlets to receive compensation from Facebook for posting their news links on the social network. This resulted in a small squabble between the Australian government and Facebook. This is one of the few instances where governments have had conflict with large tech companies.
(Daniel Van Boom)
Some databases that I found on the Forsyth Library site are Communication & Mass Media Complete, Communication & Mass Media Collection, and New York Times. The two communication related databases are interesting because they concern the communication that is transmitted on social media sites. I figure they will have pertinent information on social media news access. The New York Times often has pieces on social media networks and how they should target misinformation or surveillance their platforms. I am also interested in the newspaper’s stance on Section 230.
References
Boom, D. (2021, March 30). Facebook could block news in Canada like it did in Australia. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-could-block-news-in-canada-like-it-did-in-australia/
I look forward to the results your find in your research. I am curious how you would go about collecting data to answer your question. On a personal note, I try to keep an open mind on the fairness of the media and the honesty in their reporting, but I find my faith in them to be failing in the present. Perhaps your research can change my perspective.
I think that this is a very interesting topic as it is a highly discussed topic especially right now with high tech censoring anyone who disagrees. I think you could find a lot of research with this topic and it will be interesting to see how it goes for you!
You could also do Twitter and not limit your research because I think Twitter is one to block accounts more with people who disagree with them. There’s so much to do with this topic!
I am curious about that myself. I can imagine it being exceedingly difficult to draw the line. This idea sounds like a good bit of fun to research. I believe this something particularly important to distinguish between the two. You did not seem to have any trouble figuring out what you were going to research. I wish you the best of luck with the rest of the assignment.
Your post makes sense. I would focus on search terms such as objectivity, bias, opinion, factual statements, and hypothetical statements, and the manner in which it is made clear what the nature of the statement is. It’s been rather obvious over the last several years that almost all sources put “spin” on what they say. We see this in sources that purport to be news, which most assume to be unbiased, even more so in the manner in which some sites are choosing to exercise their editorial standards when deciding to censor, or even ban, some posters. One major point I would focus on is the declaration between what is fact, and what is supposition, and I, personally, would require anything based upon anonymous sources not only be clearly labeled as unproven, but would required all statements to be qualified as such. If something is stated in a manner to make it seem fact, I would place liability on any who made such statement without the ability to prove it. This falls well within our understanding of libel and slander and the understanding that while you are free to speak as you wish, you do bear responsibility for what you say. A common phrase I see made is that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. The problem is the case that comes from in fact ruled that you could do exactly that. It was only at the point where your speech was restricted to that which would “be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
If something is purported to be news, it should be restricted to statements of provable fact, or statement of reasonable questions, and well specify the differences. Anything other than that should be labeled as such.
Reference: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)