Friday, 29 May 2020

minitrue or signal-to-noise ratio

Accruing no irony for the fact that Trump has his soapbox and megaphone by the graces of the provision of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields social media platforms from being sued for libel and leaves posting and moderation up to the internal policies of the host (since in this case freedom of the press is determined by whom owns said press) so long as those decisions are enforced in “good faith,” the same which he proposes to undermine—perhaps fecklessly with an executive fiat, is the last, best safeguard that any outlet has in carrying his threats, incitements and character assassinations since no one would want to risk the liability of amplifying such lies if there was not a reasonable guarantee of being immune from prosecution.
This legal aegis has of course emboldened Trump to take his message to greater extremes (not to mention to legislate and publish policy changes via tweet) and is the sort of sensationalism that underwrites the apparent free cost and freedom of speech that is served up on these commercial platforms that are draped—or swaddled, in the robes of a public utility, and mostly likely as with earlier efforts to confirm a media bias will prompt no change—including doing less than nothing to combat disinformation—may signal a chilling when it comes to hosting statements critical of the regime, which is full-stop propaganda. This side-show is of course a cruel distraction from the abject failure of the United States to respond to a health crisis made far worse by the government’s abrogation of responsibility and leadership and a push to reopen businesses and return to a loathsome status quo that wasn’t expressed in pent up purchasing and hiring to stimulate the economy and get people’s livelihoods restored but rather satisfy the entitled desire of people to be waited on and to make up for lost time with gun violence and police brutality.