E y corporate America s ould limit disinpormation

Re: “Social media giants may have the right to cancel speech,” Jan. 24 commentary

Krista Kafer, in my opinion, misconstrues the motivations of social media platforms such as Twitter when they block or delete “false information about the 2020 election, vaccines, or COVID-19 therapies.” She seems to attribute a cultural motivation for such acts when she states, “social media giants have decided to protect the public ... from disagreement.”

In fact, these platforms are protecting their brands and corporate images for purely financial reasons, and they are not wrong to do it. These companies have to answer to commercial sponsors and shareholders.

Recently, Facebook faced a departure of corporate sponsors because it was perceived as dealing ineffectively with hate speech. How can media platforms be accused of being “arbiters of the truth,” as Kafer labels them, when for the instances in question, the posted material is objectively false and arguably harmful? Would Kafer prefer that social-media giants disregard their fiduciary responsibilities and simply allow disinformation sources, many with ill intent, to post falsehoods with impunity? There is, of course, a slippery slope out there. But is it really that difficult to differentiate between an “unpopular” opinion and the examples of blatant falsehoods that Kafer cites in her column? I think not, and I, for one, am tired of the pretense that all ideas are equally valid when events in the real world clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Craig Phelps, Littleton Freedom of speech is precious, but so is the expectation that in a democracy we will not be intentionally lied to by the media or elected officials in positions of authority.

Ann Applebaum’s history of Eastern Europe 1944-1956 details how the Soviet Union and the puppet governments and media it controlled used wide-spread, well-planned, coordinated lies to help establish and maintain the dominance of communism in populations where it would have otherwise withered.

Facts stem from observations, and the number and quality of those observations count. Those observations constitute the evidence needed in a scientific debate, a court of law, or the congressional floor.

Krista Kafer confounds facts universally supported, facts with little supporting evidence, facts that have both supporting and refuting evidence, and the “alternative fact” behind which the supporting evidence is tiny compared to that refuting it (lies) or for which there is no supporting evidence at all (big lies).

Kafer’s comment that “Science affirms…” facts about hydraulic fracturing, preschool programs, and mammalian sex is itself possibly a lie, and at best a half-truth. To affirm means to “assert strongly and publicly,” which is the prerogative of individuals — Kafer included — but doing so tells us nothing about the underlying evidence or whether it is “fair,” i.e., unbiased.

Establishing what is “true”—separating fact from fiction — is often difficult and thus can be, and is, exploited for power and profit. Maintaining a democracy demands obtaining, and paying attention to, strong and unbiased evidence. Doug Andersen, Lakewood