Opinion: Dear social media: Best path to truth bathed in sunshine

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that several Republicans have complained Facebook and Twitter are interfering with the presidential election. The social media giants did this, supposedly, by not letting their users freely share a New York Post expose alleging wrongdoing by Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

It’s ridiculous to argue that media outlets, even social media outlets, should be required to report anything they don’t want to report. That’s a First Amendment issue and isn’t worth debating.

But media are not exempt from criticism for their actions or inactions. And those national voices choosing to try and limit access to the NY Post report on the Bidens need a reminder on the benefits of sunshine and the responsibilities of a free press.

The Post story claims the Bidens’ foreign interests allowed them to profit inappropriately.

Yes, some argue it smells like an ethically challenged October Surprise. The LA Times tells us the story “was based on private emails and photos supposedly retrieved from a laptop allegedly abandoned by Hunter Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop that just happened to be owned by a strong supporter of President Donald Trump.”

Here’s the thing: Voters have a right to hear the story and decide for themselves if it’s significant or believable. No, they don’t have a right to read about it on the most common social media platforms. But preventing users from sharing information with other users on any topic doesn’t promote “truth” as Facebook and Twitter might have us believe. It only hurts the credibility of Facebook and Twitter as disseminators of information.

In a recent editorial, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette made a great point when it criticized Facebook for a decision to ban content that denies the Holocaust.

“Facebook is a private company and has the right to make such sweeping bans to objectionable content,” the editorial reads.

“But how does this serve democracy? Facebook should not be in the business of censoring speech. Fact-checking content if it can be done with transparent, consistent standards is far more reasonable. …

“No matter how distasteful the banned subjects might be, part of living in a free society includes extending that freedom to fringe groups and conspiracy theorists. … Free speech must be protected.”

Again, Facebook and Twitter have every right to ban content they don’t like. But we are all better served with information bathed in sunshine.

— David Stevens

Publisher