Just Security Article Rating

Restricting the Government from Speaking to Tech Companies Will Spread Disinformation and Harm Democracy

Jul 05, 2023 View Original Article
  • Bias Rating

    -6% Center

  • Reliability

    75% ReliableGood

  • Policy Leaning

    -30% Medium Liberal

  • Politician Portrayal

    -61% Negative

Bias Score Analysis

The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.

Sentiments

Overall Sentiment

N/A

  •   Liberal
  •   Conservative
SentenceSentimentBias
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan.

Bias Meter

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderately
Liberal

Somewhat Liberal

Center

Somewhat Conservative

Moderately
Conservative

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

-100%
Liberal

100%
Conservative

Bias Meter

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

60% : To treat the First Amendment as creating something like a wall of separation between government and powerful private actors is utterly bizarre.
58% : The impetus behind the case is the now thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that the government is somehow strong-arming Big Tech into censoring conservative speech and speakers in violation of the First Amendment.
55% : Communications between social media companies and government officials happen no matter who's in power, and the First Amendment is not supposed to lean right or left.)
51% : Just to reiterate: there may be circumstances where the government runs afoul of the First Amendment by effectively forcing private companies to remove protected speech - or, for that matter, forcing those companies to say what they don't believe.
51% : (Nothing in the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Hansen, which upheld a federal law encouraging unauthorized immigration, supports this result.
48% : Invoking the First Amendment, a single district court judge effectively issued a prior restraint on large swaths of speech, cutting short an essential dialogue between the government and social media companies about online speech and potentially lethal misinformation.
47% :Start with the pedantic: The introduction to the opinion announces that "the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment" is "to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas ... rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by the government itself or private licensee."
47% : And the First Amendment certainly doesn't prevent them from merely asking.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.

Copy link