357

Jim Jordan Gets Flustered As Simple Question Turns Awkward On '60 Minutes' (www.huffpost.com)

submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Ohio lawmaker was asked about Donald Trump's debunked claims about the 2020 election.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) seemed to have an uncomfortable moment on “60 Minutes” during Sunday night’s segment on social media disinformation.

Jordan argued against social media companies taking down inaccurate posts, saying the American people should figure out what’s true and what’s not.

“What about this idea that the 2020 election was stolen?” asked correspondent Lesley Stahl. “You think that these companies should allow people to say that and that individuals can make up their own mind.”

“I’ve not said that,” said Jordan, who is on the record pushing conspiracy theoriesabout the 2020 election. “What I’ve said is there were concerns about the 2020 election, I think Americans agree with that.”

“No they don’t,” said Stahl.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 37 points 5 months ago

I don't see this interview as too much of a "gotcha"... it still lets the whole thing get framed in a very weird and deliberately-conservative-friendly way.

The core issue is, big tech companies have identified deliberate misinformation as a major problem on their platforms, and they're trying to fight it. Conservatives don't like that, because a lot of the deliberate misinformation is being spread by them and by professionals that they're employing. So they're trying to reframe the reality to justify their desire to make it illegal or at least difficult for tech companies to fight misinformation.

There's a myth that government is telling social media companies to censor certain viewpoints, which simply isn't happening, and any communication at all (e.g. if the FBI learns that some misinformation campaign is on behalf of a state adversary and communicates some details about it to a social media company) gets seized on and misrepresented to make it look like that.
There's a myth that this "censorship" is happening based on viewpoint, or whether something is true (like if I go on Facebook and say the sky is orange someone will take it down), rather than based on it being specifically dangerous misinformation or not.
There's very little discussion of the fact that a lot of what's being "censored" is professional misinformation, and only tangentially (through someone reposting or repeating something that a professional outfit originated) does someone's actual organic post go into the crosshairs.

[-] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Which big tech companies are trying to fight misinformation?

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Pretty much every one except X/Twitter. If you don't make some effort in that direction then your platform quickly becomes an absolute cesspool (see Twitter).

this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024

357 points (97.6% liked)

politics

18863 readers

3984 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News