@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 6yrs agoActive 1hr ago

Should the government regulate social media sites, as a means to prevent fake news and misinformation?

In January 2018 Germany passed the NetzDG law which required platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to take down perceived illegal content within 24 hours or seven days, depending on the charge, or risk a fine of €50 million ($60 million) fines. In July 2018 representatives from Facebook, Google and Twitter denied to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary committee that they censor content for political reasons. During the hearing Republican members of Congress criticized the social media companies for politically motivated practices in removing some content, a charge the…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings x  Delaware

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 312 Delaware voters.

27%
Yes
73%
No
22%
Yes
57%
No
4%
Yes, social media companies are politically biased and need to be regulated
11%
No, the government should not determine what is fake or real news
2%
Yes, there is too much fake news and misinformation on social media
5%
No, social media companies are private and should not be regulated by the government

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 312 Delaware voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 312 Delaware voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Delaware voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8D7X8VB from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but government should require all media outlets (paper, online, radio, tv, etc) to provide both points of view when discussing any political issue. we are at this point; because both points of view are hardly every side-by-side.

 @6VRCV2L from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

The government should ensure that people who intentionally mislead others are flagged and responded to with factual, non-bias evidence from all sides of the actual story.

 @9NLZLPX from North Carolina  answered…6mos6MO

Yes, but clearly define the terms "fake news" and "misinformation" to ensure that the government doesn’t simply censor what it disagrees with

 @8YZCWH4 from Kentucky  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, there is too much fake news and misinformation on social media. But social media sites should NOT be regulated by the government, they should be regulated by the owners. Social media sites should STOP being politically biased.

 @6VRZ2N2from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

Social media companies tend to be profit driven which greatly hinders their ability to run their business without bias. Advert sales are not monitored strictly enough and this results in certain individuals/companies/sovereign states taking advantage of the system in place to push their own political/social agenda with the use of fake statistics and facts to control the mind set of the populous.

 @6VRGFFV from New Mexico  answered…4yrs4Y

The governments role should ensure that antitrust laws are not broken and that there is not a monopoly regarding information. I think that the site providing their information should be required to include enough personal information so one can determine if it is biased.

 @99JGS33 from Kentucky  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, there is too much fake news and misinformation on social media. But social media sites should NOT be regulated by the government; they should be regulated by the owners. Social media sites should STOP being politically biased.

 @8YFFX26 from Kentucky  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, there is too much fake news and misinformation on social media. Social media sites should NOT be regulated by the government, they should be regulated by the owners. Social media sites should STOP being politically biased.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Social Media Regulation” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5mos5MO

Senate Passes Child Online Safety Bill

The centerpiece of the legislation would create a “duty of care” for social networking platforms that mandates they protect minors against mental health disorders and from abuse, sexual exploitation and other harms. Companies could be held liable for failing to filter out content or limit features that could lead to those adverse impacts.Led by Mr. Blumenthal and Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, the legislation also would require technology service providers to turn on the highest privacy and safety settings by default for users under 17 and to allow youths to opt out of some features that can lead to compulsive use, such as auto-playing of videos.A second measure included in the package would strengthen privacy protections for anyone under 17 and ban targeted advertising to children and teens. It would create an “eraser button” for parents and children, requiring companies to permit users to delete personal information.Mr. Blumenthal acknowledged that he and Ms. Blackburn had “diametrically opposed” voting records on most issues — he is the third-most liberal senator, and she the second-most conservative, according to the nonpartisan service GovTrack. But they united around the goal of making the internet safer for children. And they were particularly motivated by the parents who told gut-wrenching stories of losing their children, some to suicide, and young people who described the mental distress that social media imposes on them.

5 replies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2317 replies

Active 3 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies