Platforms

In Philippians 1, the apostle Paul stated that he rejoiced that the gospel was being preached, even though there were some who did not do so out of the right motive. We can remember to be faithful and confident to make the Word of God a priority and to proclaim it boldly. He writes:
19 For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
20 according to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death.
21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

God gives us the confidence to be witnesses to His work in us through Jesus. As we immerse ourselves in the Word of God - to study it, meditate on it, apply it, and proclaim it, our lives will conform to the very image of Christ, and we will reflect His presence in us. We can develop a desire to live according to God's ways and we will be better equipped to reject evil and embrace the truth that we find in the Scriptures. 

+++++

Peter and John were being used of God to do amazing things during the early days of the Church, but not without opposition. In Acts 4, we find that they called upon the Lord, saying:
29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word,
30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus."
31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

A church in Texas produced an ad that was designed to inform and motivate people to come to a new Thursday night service that it had launched, an opportunity that was generated to attract people who might not could attend on Sundays.  According to Movieguide: "The 22-second ad featured Hulen Street Church’s pastor, Wes Hamilton, informing families about the new Thursday night service for people who can’t regularly attend church on Sundays...'Does your work schedule or busy family calendar not allow you to attend church on a Sunday morning?' Hamilton said in the ad. 'If so, I want to invite you to Thursday nights at Hulen Street Church.'”

The story says that the church had placed the ad on platforms Facebook, Instagram, and Google. However, when it approached Hulu, the streaming service, the ad was rejected; the reason: "religious indoctrination," which is apparently grounds for censoring an ad on the platform. 

The church was rejected twice, and so it asked why?  Attorney Jeremy Dys of First Liberty Institute is quoted in the article, from a CBN report: “Hulu came back and said that advertisement violated their guidelines because it engaged in religious indoctrination, and so that’s why they lost their ad,” adding, “They couldn’t post their ad because it engaged in religious indoctrination.” He also said, “Apparently, just telling people that you have a church service available to them at a certain time and day of the week is religious indoctrination to the people at Hulu..."

There is good news for the church, however, in this recent skirmish.  The Movieguide article states:

After receiving Hulu’s claim of ‘religious indoctrination,’ First Liberty Institute sent a letter to Hulu’s Deputy Chief Counsel, Angie Kang, asking for further clarification about this policy. Hulen Street Church has since been allowed to run the ad on Hulu.

While Hulu’s change of course is positive, it is disheartening that it flagged the advertisement in the first place, and it highlights a larger issue within the tech space.

In a statement published at The Christian Post, Dys said: "We are grateful to Hulu for its quick response to our demand letter and for accepting Hulen Street Church’s ad,” adding, “In the future, Hulu — and others in Big Tech — could avoid these kinds of conflicts by adopting advertising policies that do not discriminate against religious organizations, being transparent about its advertising policy, and applying it fairly.”

Movieguide noted that: "The question of social media platforms’ ability to censor is currently being debated in the Supreme Court as laws in Texas and Florida protecting politicians from being silenced on social media are being ruled upon. This ruling will set the standard for Big Tech’s ability to censor opinions they disagree with in the future."

CBN noted: 

The Texas case challenges a law banning social media companies from removing political content, even if that content contains hate speech. While the Florida case looks at a law making it illegal for platforms to ban current political candidates from social media.

The article quotes Daniel Cochrane of the Heritage Foundation, who said: "The logic that the social media platforms are saying is if we host speech then it's our right to decide what's on our platform and what's not, but that's not true for any other kind of common carrier..."

The high court heard the cases late last month, in which representatives of social media platforms challenged the states.  The SCOTUS Blog related:

At Monday’s argument, Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker emphasized that social media platforms are simply “in the business of transmitting their users’ speech” and “do not have a First Amendment right to apply their censorship policies in an inconsistent manner and to censor and deplatform certain users.”

Representing the trade groups, Paul Clement countered that, “given the vast amount of material on the Internet in general and on these websites in particular, exercising editorial discretion is absolutely necessary to make the websites useful for users and advertisers.”

There was skepticism across the ideological spectrum of the court about claims by the two states. The key issue is whether or not social media platforms, as private companies, are bound to uphold the First Amendment.  Cochrane seems to indicate the these platforms are more "common carriers," while Clement, according to CBN, stated: "If the government is doing it, then content moderation might be a euphemism for censorship...If a private party is doing it, content moderation is a euphemism for editorial discretion. There is a fundamental difference between the two."

Well, three things we know, at least: 1) social media platforms are massive purveyors of information and we should not underestimate their power and influence, 2) there have been widespread reports of social media censorship, and 3) there is not a clear path forward: are these platforms to be regarded as private entities (as they are), or more like public utilities, and therefore subject to the tenets of the First Amendment?  Regarding 1), we have to recognize that while social media can be a source of information, we have to recognize the information can be skewed.  I do know this: there are too many reported instances of Christian points of view and those who espouse them being removed. And, there are ways to put pressure on private companies, whether or not they act like it. 

So, we need to make sure we are responsible with our usage of what we consume.  The ultimate "filter" for us is God's Word - we have to be discerning with respect to what we hear, read or see. But, we can also develop a list of trusted sources that can corroborate what we see.  Understand, social media can be quite useful, but it can also misrepresent reality.  Just consider the recent flap in the U.K. about what was a doctored photograph of the family of the Prince of Wales, the son of the King - it was released a few days ago and was the first public photo of Princess Catherine since her surgery a few months ago. But, there was concern that the picture was altered.  Through our knowledge of God and training of our eyes and ears to discern what we consume, we can better identify what is true and what is not.