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

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.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    381·
    8 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.