What’s Mr. Trump’s Hush Money Case? It says of an ‘unlawful influence’ over elections by merely silencing a playboy Porn bunny, paying indirectly via reflecting reimbursement of such through, an Attorney. Correct?
Herein the words to be noted are -> ‘influence’ & ‘indirect’!
Before that, let’s accept there’s a difference between print/electronic mainstream acting as publisher vs what is consumed on social media. While in the former case, we can choose what to buy or subscribe or not; in the latter, it’s pestered upon via FEED, ‘TRENDING,’ or, as a RECOMMENDATION, which isn’t an ADVERTISEMENT, but merely based on your past SEARCHES, that remotely give meaningful results. Further, the User isn’t visiting any Specific Domain Web Portal, nor Subscribing to it like Netflix. Basically, herein, any Newsstand deciding what you should buy! Correct?
Like there’s difference between me visiting WWW.CNN.COM domain or profile, VS, without as an advertisement, CNN is Fed on any user’s or my feed or trend or recommendation or even on my browser’s main page, again without under the label of advertisement. Isn’t this true or am I missing something?
Now, you would say it’s one platform, let’s say erstwhile Twitter with many Users, unlike independent domain names; hence Twitter had an absolute authority to play with anything. Technically may be correct, but ethically destructive. As Users choose selective accounts, including on YouTube. So, what was the point of Random Feed, Recommendations, Trends; without such been accompanied by Advertisement? Absolute unethical practice!
Now, shouldn’t ‘indirect’ & ‘influence’ not been considered a privilege remedy under Section 230 whilst influencing elections in general, globally; via hush hush paying, or even arbitrarily verification of users? Such recipients maybe Anti anyone; right, left or liberal; maybe Anti-Trump or Anti-Modi or Anti-Biden etc. or could be Anti-Anti, but mostly, what I’ve noticed is that, likes of Anti-Modi or Anti-Trump content sold/sells more, in the last ten years. And it involved lots of money. And no one knows who these moderators were!
Of course, an indemnity bond is there between the author & publisher. But wouldn’t paying ‘indirectly’ make the platform a publisher or speaker on the behest of the content provider itself, as herein, the difference is the amount of money involved, & that’s huge? Or even a decade back how blue ticks were distributed arbitrarily that helped erecting careers out of thin air? Further, a columnist hardly makes few hundreds. But on social media, by chanting Anti-Anyone slogans, one can make hundreds & thousands of dollars. That’s a lot of money wherein no distributor, no vetting or no user visiting a specific domain name, are involved. Upload, publish & earn, and if caught, chant Free Speech! And was there any discrimination done that the left, left-liberals were allowed to earn more than the center-right, right wingers?
Statistically also, someone must’ve been able to concentrate the details of the followers, viewers, subscribers, to then generate the segregated list of Anti & Anti-Anti users/creators, and then manipulate accordingly globally later. Who are they? Why even news or political commentaries were allowed to be even monetized on social media?
I truly want a reflection of the likes of Mr. Tim Berners-Lee on this. Is the above usage of Internet, correct or is this what he anticipated? And secondly, isn’t this too the case of ‘influence’ & ‘indirect’ paying hush hush money in the elections?
Think about it! 😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi 2024