I am following up on this comment, Jen: "We are barred from engaging in illegal methods to obtain information — but we sure as hell aren't barred from reporting on that information once it lands under our door, or on our desks, or in our anonymous dropboxes."
It is my understanding that Assange's case (currently before an extradition hearing in the UK) is based on American charges for distributing information over a journalistic platform (WikiLeaks) rather than having illegally obtained the information himself. It is this precedent that has "The Intercept" calling it "the most important press freedom case in a generation."
Granted, this is happening in the UK and the USA and not Canada. Is it on Canadian journalists' radar? Does it put a chill on publishing nefariously obtained information in Canada as well?
Wikileaks is complicated. I think there are several outstanding questions: 1) the degree to which Wikileaks itself can be considered a "journalistic" platform as opposed to a digital clearinghouse for classified information. 2) Assange's relationship with the Russians, and the degree to which he was motivated not by journalistic intent, but rather by the desire to spread disinformation under the guise of journalism. Was this journalism, or was it espionage?
So, I'd say, yes; the Intercept is right in the sense that however that case goes will set a precedent for journalism that might prove to be profoundly damaging. The Times and the Post have also expressed their concerns. I'd say the case is on Canada's radar; but until Assange is extradited and the case is before an American court, the broader issue is moot.
Until then, what happens with Assange doesn't set any precedent for what can be published by a Canadian outlet -- but the legal strictures around Canadian journalism have always been tighter than they have been in the US. But, generally speaking, what matters from a journalistic point of view is whether or not the information is true, verifiable, newsworthy, and responsible to publish. -JG
I am not at all comfortable with Facebook or Twitter deciding what good journalism is but this story about Hunter Biden (or the story with Trump and the Russian Prossy and pee for that matter) is not the hill to die on. Seriously. There are way bigger issues with the policing of content on Facebook and Twitter than this idiotic hunter biden thing - the American election is important but there are more important things happening elsewhere - and there have been for months so to choose this as the issue where fb/twitter are policing journalism or content isn't necessarily the one that makes me cringe and wonder why social media companies are allowed to get away with it.
"If that sounds bad enough to warrant the ban on the journalistic enterprise, I have some really uncomfortable news for you about the ugliest element of scoop-ferreting." - this was awesome.
Also, why does anyone even care if Hunter Biden had sex with 50 prostitutes and opened an only fans page - he isn't the one running for president. Americans are so weird.
So, does The Line count as a QCJO so that we can qualify for the DNSTC? Government penchant for alphabet soup and misaligned incentives may be just what this newsletter could use.
P.S. I miss hearing Jen Gerson busting Jesse Brown's chops on the Canada thing podcast he does.
We have not attempted to verify whether we qualify for the QCJO for the purposes of the DNSCTC, nor have we applied for the CREB or any of its equivalents.
Even if it's true that "to a news outlet, major social media platforms increasingly represent a monopoly on the means of distribution" it doesn't necessarily follow that Twitter, a private company, has any special obligations to anyone, least of all to news outlets. If Twitter or Facebook choose erect barriers to people using their services to distribute misinformation and disinformation, that's their choice.
If anyone doesn't like it, they can always demand their money back and cancel their subscriptions. :)
There may be more nuance to it than that. The best argument I have seen for this is by Matt Taibbi*, who argues that government coercion could more or less give federal governments control over internet censorship via Big Tech.
Also, Jen rightly describes the stranglehold that these companies have over the public square. Should antitrust laws be updated to acknowledge and address this tremendous power we are giving to a handful of corporations? Probably, but it seems like a win for both government and these mega-corporations: as Taibbi puts it, "Instead of breaking up these oligopolies, or finding more transparent ways of dealing with speech issues, there exists now a temptation for governments to leave the power of these opaque behemoth companies intact, and appropriate their influence for their own sake…the platforms keep making monster sums, while security services, if they can wriggle inside the tent of these distributors, have an opportunity to control information in previously unheard-of ways."
It seems very 2020 that the internet -- a tool originally designed for the unprecedented sharing of ideas -- is being used to straightjacket them.
Thank for this. All of your concerns are valid as are Gerson's. Nonetheless, "Are we really fine with Twitter dictating what newspapers can publish?" is a 'special pleading' for those who self-identify as 'journalists' or 'news outlets.'
Social media corporations have changed the information environment, to be sure, but that's not a convincing argument, in my view, that they have a duty or should be compelled to traffic in and abet misinformation and disinformation.
I know a little about Facebook advertising; their policies prohibit advertising things like miracle cures, weight loss schemes, and get rich quick schemes. It also makes some attempt to curb hate speech. Why a disinformation campaign (fake news is like fake miracle cures) by Russia or any other malicious actor would not be something Facebook or Twitter might purge should not be treated any differently eludes me.
The notion that the principle of 'free speech' is so sacrosanct that all speech ought to be unfettered or unaddressed by any entity other than journalists or news organizations is no more defensible than arguing there should be no constraints on polluting the environment because the 'invisible hand of the market' will correct the damage and out the polluters. There is a physical environment and there is an information environment. There are polluters in both who need to be constrained.
By the way, it seems Twitter has reversed itself and is allowing the planted 'news' story to be linked to and retweeted.
I am following up on this comment, Jen: "We are barred from engaging in illegal methods to obtain information — but we sure as hell aren't barred from reporting on that information once it lands under our door, or on our desks, or in our anonymous dropboxes."
It is my understanding that Assange's case (currently before an extradition hearing in the UK) is based on American charges for distributing information over a journalistic platform (WikiLeaks) rather than having illegally obtained the information himself. It is this precedent that has "The Intercept" calling it "the most important press freedom case in a generation."
Granted, this is happening in the UK and the USA and not Canada. Is it on Canadian journalists' radar? Does it put a chill on publishing nefariously obtained information in Canada as well?
Wikileaks is complicated. I think there are several outstanding questions: 1) the degree to which Wikileaks itself can be considered a "journalistic" platform as opposed to a digital clearinghouse for classified information. 2) Assange's relationship with the Russians, and the degree to which he was motivated not by journalistic intent, but rather by the desire to spread disinformation under the guise of journalism. Was this journalism, or was it espionage?
So, I'd say, yes; the Intercept is right in the sense that however that case goes will set a precedent for journalism that might prove to be profoundly damaging. The Times and the Post have also expressed their concerns. I'd say the case is on Canada's radar; but until Assange is extradited and the case is before an American court, the broader issue is moot.
Until then, what happens with Assange doesn't set any precedent for what can be published by a Canadian outlet -- but the legal strictures around Canadian journalism have always been tighter than they have been in the US. But, generally speaking, what matters from a journalistic point of view is whether or not the information is true, verifiable, newsworthy, and responsible to publish. -JG
I am not at all comfortable with Facebook or Twitter deciding what good journalism is but this story about Hunter Biden (or the story with Trump and the Russian Prossy and pee for that matter) is not the hill to die on. Seriously. There are way bigger issues with the policing of content on Facebook and Twitter than this idiotic hunter biden thing - the American election is important but there are more important things happening elsewhere - and there have been for months so to choose this as the issue where fb/twitter are policing journalism or content isn't necessarily the one that makes me cringe and wonder why social media companies are allowed to get away with it.
"If that sounds bad enough to warrant the ban on the journalistic enterprise, I have some really uncomfortable news for you about the ugliest element of scoop-ferreting." - this was awesome.
Also, why does anyone even care if Hunter Biden had sex with 50 prostitutes and opened an only fans page - he isn't the one running for president. Americans are so weird.
So, does The Line count as a QCJO so that we can qualify for the DNSTC? Government penchant for alphabet soup and misaligned incentives may be just what this newsletter could use.
P.S. I miss hearing Jen Gerson busting Jesse Brown's chops on the Canada thing podcast he does.
We have not attempted to verify whether we qualify for the QCJO for the purposes of the DNSCTC, nor have we applied for the CREB or any of its equivalents.
Even if it's true that "to a news outlet, major social media platforms increasingly represent a monopoly on the means of distribution" it doesn't necessarily follow that Twitter, a private company, has any special obligations to anyone, least of all to news outlets. If Twitter or Facebook choose erect barriers to people using their services to distribute misinformation and disinformation, that's their choice.
If anyone doesn't like it, they can always demand their money back and cancel their subscriptions. :)
There may be more nuance to it than that. The best argument I have seen for this is by Matt Taibbi*, who argues that government coercion could more or less give federal governments control over internet censorship via Big Tech.
Also, Jen rightly describes the stranglehold that these companies have over the public square. Should antitrust laws be updated to acknowledge and address this tremendous power we are giving to a handful of corporations? Probably, but it seems like a win for both government and these mega-corporations: as Taibbi puts it, "Instead of breaking up these oligopolies, or finding more transparent ways of dealing with speech issues, there exists now a temptation for governments to leave the power of these opaque behemoth companies intact, and appropriate their influence for their own sake…the platforms keep making monster sums, while security services, if they can wriggle inside the tent of these distributors, have an opportunity to control information in previously unheard-of ways."
It seems very 2020 that the internet -- a tool originally designed for the unprecedented sharing of ideas -- is being used to straightjacket them.
* - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/after-the-qanon-ban-whos-next
Thank for this. All of your concerns are valid as are Gerson's. Nonetheless, "Are we really fine with Twitter dictating what newspapers can publish?" is a 'special pleading' for those who self-identify as 'journalists' or 'news outlets.'
Social media corporations have changed the information environment, to be sure, but that's not a convincing argument, in my view, that they have a duty or should be compelled to traffic in and abet misinformation and disinformation.
I know a little about Facebook advertising; their policies prohibit advertising things like miracle cures, weight loss schemes, and get rich quick schemes. It also makes some attempt to curb hate speech. Why a disinformation campaign (fake news is like fake miracle cures) by Russia or any other malicious actor would not be something Facebook or Twitter might purge should not be treated any differently eludes me.
The notion that the principle of 'free speech' is so sacrosanct that all speech ought to be unfettered or unaddressed by any entity other than journalists or news organizations is no more defensible than arguing there should be no constraints on polluting the environment because the 'invisible hand of the market' will correct the damage and out the polluters. There is a physical environment and there is an information environment. There are polluters in both who need to be constrained.
By the way, it seems Twitter has reversed itself and is allowing the planted 'news' story to be linked to and retweeted.
Thank you for your reply. Your analogy between communicatory and environmental pollution is new to me. I need to think about it more.