Bobby Tony has a Rare Moment of Uncertainty | Eastern North Carolina Now

Often Wrong, But Never in Doubt

    Occasionally, I may have a moment where I have not already made up my mind about a subject. Though rare, it usually provokes a search for additional facts, opinions and / or guidance. We are currently undergoing an evaluation of just how much we should be protected from post on Social Media. Both Twitter and Facebook have felt the need to limit access of a post or link that they deem as possibly non-factual.

   Due to a lack of education or perhaps a willful ignorance, we often hear about the ‘RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!’  I may be wrong and am certainly open to corrections, but I thought the 1^st Amendment only prevented the Government from interfering with expression of one’s opinion.  Without trying to delve into various rulings by the Supreme Court or certain legislation regarding free expression. (FIRE!!!!), I have long thought that the expression of opinions or even dare I say pseudo-facts is just part the normal give and take in any society, however private entities certainly have the right to limit what they put on their platform..

   So, when it comes to Social Media, I expect the content to be somewhat equivalent to the what I have called the “Cliff Clavin Rule.” Everybody has an opinion and everyone has their own version of the facts. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," he probably had no idea how wrong he was.  I will grant that was before Social Media platforms like Facebook (2004) and Twitter (2008) began to dominate the interchange with the digital version of a Cheers type Bar.

COME ON BOBBY TONY WHAT IS YOUR POINT!

   Okay, here goes.  What is the practical difference between published media and social media?  By practical I am not talking about a legalistic definition where one is held accountable for what is published while the other is merely providing a platform for expression.

   I can’t really tell the difference any more. Broadcast, Cable and Podcast seem to contain the same amount of false, salacious and outright provocative news as the Social Media.  In regards to FACTS, I would dare anyone to be able to sort the truth from FACTS in both forums.  Please don’t tell me about Fact Checking and Snopes as the arbiter of truth.  For the most part FACTS are FACTS and do not have nuance or consensus.

   So here is my uncertainty:

 Are all the people trying to limit information on Social Media trying to protect me from hearing, reading or watching something that I should not hear, read or see, or are they trying to protect me from something they don’t want me to hear, read or see,?

   There was a time when Caveat emptor was the operative principle in both commerce as well as social discourse.

   It is a short form of Caveat emptor, quia ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit.

   "Let a purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party."

   I have been unable to find the actual source of Caveat emptor (plenty of explanations on what it means but no actual ‘who first said it’), but if it’s Latin  I suspect it has been around long before Facebook, Twitter or Cliff Clavin came on the scene. I also suspect that anyone who could speak Latin would be smart enough to tell BS from FACTS.