As social media sites were flooded with misleading posts about vaccine safety, mask effectiveness, Covid-19’s origins and federal shutdowns, Biden officials urged platforms to pull down posts, delete accounts, and amplify correct information.

Now the Supreme Court could decide whether the government violated Americans’ First Amendment rights with those actions — and dictate a new era for what role, if any, officials can play in combating misinformation on social media.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next month in a case that could have sweeping ramifications for federal health agencies’ communications in particular. Murthy v. Missouri alleges that federal officials coerced social media and search giants like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google to remove or downgrade posts that questioned vaccine safety, Covid’s origins, or shutdown measures. Biden lawyers argue that officials made requests but never forced companies.

Government defenders say that if the Court limits the government’s power, it could hamstring agencies scrambling to achieve higher vaccination rates and other critical public health initiatives. Critics argue that federal public health officials — already in the throes of national distrust and apathy — never should have tried to remove misleading posts in the first place.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you want to claim different from what a well established world renowned weather organisation predicts you better be even better more renowned, not some random shmo with a lot of theories and no proof.

      Can they be wrong, that’s how predictions work they have a degree of certainty. But it’s nonsense to give some theory by someone the same credence as a world leading authority.