He's probably going to run again

Will media adjust their policies or just continue pretending He doesn't exist?

He’s probably going to run again. Yes, the former guy, He who shall not be named. I really hope He doesn’t but He might. He said as much last week. And why wouldn’t He? His favorability ratings are where they’ve always been and they’re now in line with the current guy. And He’s still very popular in his party.

Which is all to say, He’s probably going to run again. Which leaves the question, how is traditional and social media going to react? Will they adjust their “misinformation” policies or will we create an alternative reality where He doesn’t exist?

Misinformation

Since the former guy left office, a lot has changed. It’s been building up for a while with increasingly prominent fact-checks littered throughout most social media apps. Some broadcast media was doing it in real time. Then on the way out, social media changed their policy from aggressive nudging to official sources, to outright bans for anyone that utters anything that can be construed as misinformation.

This wasn’t just active promotion of correct-information (?). Reporting on misinformation was enough to get you banned. Just last week YouTube suspended The Hill’s channel for playing a clip of Him spreading misinformation. The clip wasn’t promotional, just newsworthy. If the former president gives an interview, generally you report on it.

To be fair, YouTube policy communications manager said the following:

We do allow for content with sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic context, which the removed content did not contain

It’s a tough line to walk. You have to report, but you have to provide sufficient context, or you’re cut off from social media. Considering legacy media relies on social media for much of their growth, will they just not cover Him?

Two realities

I could imagine a situation in which two realities exist. One in which He’s sweeping the primaries and drawing tens of thousands to arenas every day. And another where He’s an NPC, a stand in. The debates will have more bleeps than a George Carlin set. A ten second delay won’t be enough. Maybe they’ll just cut away when He’s speaking to be safe.

He won’t be able to advertise, or His ads will have a list of disclaimers like a drug commercial. There will be a list of people who donated to Him and they will be hounded by journalists.

I would hope news and social media report newsworthy information. That’s how it used to be. For instance, there used to be a policy that you can’t casually print bad words, but if someone important says a bad word, it goes to print, because its newsworthy. The same applies for ideas. I remember hearing terrorists utter antisemitic statements on the news. You can still find these videos online.

Gatekeeping

It’s weird that a handful of tech CEOs can essentially gate-keep who a valid candidate is. That’s what the legal and party system is for. If He did something illegal or is disqualified to run, the courts should weigh in, not tech CEOs.

And if, like me, you prefer Him not to run, you may applaud the gatekeeping by billionaire corporate CEOs. The enemy of my enemy is my friend! But how confident are you that this will always be applied fairly in the future? There’s no clear line. There are things that were bannable if uttered 2 years ago that are now the generally accepted.

The current guy

It’s not just the tech CEOs though. The misinformation policy is heavily influenced by the state. The current guy’s office admitted as much in regards to covid misinformation:

Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff… We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation

Not too far of a stretch to think that the future policy should He choose to run again will be influenced by His opponent.

I mentioned this on my post about Lex Fridman’s interview with Meta CEO. We need to have an honest discussion about the appropriate role of social media in mediating what is acceptable and unacceptable content. It’s not enough to say “they’re a private company they can do whatever they want” when its obvious that they’re being influenced heavily by the state. And so is internet infrastructure, and banks and payment processors. So it’s not exactly a green field.

At the time I don’t think anyone thought He’d run again, so marginalizing Him and removing His voice from the internet seemed like a safe thing to do. But now we have to deal with some hard questions should He choose to run again.