Individuals and government leaders have grown increasingly concerned about the power of social media companies to shape public discourse. European governments have stated that curbs on free expression should be decided by the law and not by private companies.  Especially here in the United States, we believe, the right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. At a conference we attended this weekend, we were told the power digital platforms wield is unfathomable. And it's not just Twitter and Facebook gaining more control of the stories we see and here. Many newspapers have had to cut back and now use wire services rather than their own reporters. This makes wire services like the AP, AFP, and Reuters more important than ever. 

I don't know how we balance freedom of speech with incitement. I don't support "anything goes."  Digital media platforms can censor what they publish (should they?); we know radicalization occurs because algorithms drive people to live in bubbles (listen to the Podcast: Rabbit Hole from The New York Times). We know that social media played a key roll in the growth of Al Qaeda, the uprising in Egypt in Tahrir Square, and the attempted coup in the US. Even in traditional media, we're seeing more focus on ideology and narrative, rather than fact checking, research, and accuracy - blurring the lines between news and op-eds. 

On Twitter, Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has discouraged Iranians from COVID-19 vaccinations and called for genocide, yet his texts have not been amended nor banned.

On Twitter, Walker Bragman's blood libel re:Pompeo Wines is still up. Is it just pithy or is it anti-Semitic? It's definitely offensive. 

Facebook did not like the review of A Promised Land: Obama's Memoir by CAMERA. The facts CAMERA challenged were carefully researched and backed up by reputable sources, yet Facebook decided it was racist and wouldn't allow CAMERA to promote it. There is no place to appeal a decision like this. 

In Sheldon Adelson's obit, The New York Times falsely claimed the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem caused unrest across the Middle East. The article's authors do not provide any examples to support the claim that unrest abounded after the embassy relocation. Though many in the foreign-policy establishment said the decision would cause mass turmoil, their predictions of doom never materialized. 

How rioters vs demonstrators are defined has been a problem for Israel in how interactions between the IDF and Hamas/PLO are reported. Over the summer the AP revised it's Stylebook regarding usage of "riot." It was revised following the BLM protests. While most protests were peaceful, a number of the demonstrations turned into riots. The AP style book instructs reporters to avoid the word "riots" (even when there's looting and violence) because it undercuts historic grievances and puts an emphasis on property. Note: The Oxford Dictionary defines riot as a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.