I grew up watching Air Coryell offense. What a delight to watch Fouts connect w/ Charlie Joiner, Wes Chandler & Kellen Winslow on the regular. The Epic in Miami (divisional playoff) in Jan 1982 San Diego v. Miami was the greatest NFL game I ever watched. The multiple fumbles in the end zone were unforgettable. I still have a #14 hand-painted mini Chargers figure from my old electric football set that sits in my office.
It continues to amaze me that sanctimonious billionaires like Zuckerberg, worth over $200 billion, intentionally refuse to effectively police their operations. It's never enough wealth. They never admit mistakes, fearing the loss of a dollar. The lack of character is astounding.
Good point, Louis--not me, for sure. But there is a difference between free speech and aberrant behavior. Declaring someone dead falsely is pretty easy pickings. There has to be a limit somwhere reasonable.
I think Elon is the one trying to encourage people to get one of his chips implanted in their brain….all under the guise of helping disabled people, of course.
I agree it is reprehensible to post fake death notices. But there are a lot of lies and deceptions and bad behavior on social media just as there was on fence posts, library walls, town gazettes and junior school gossip sessions in days of old. Wrong? Yes. Harmful to some? Yes, often. But to some extent putting up with opportunistic people without morals or common sense is part of the price you pay for living free. If my speech offends you, I'm sorry but that is just too bad. However, if I spread lies about you which are defamatory, you have a case of action for damages for libel or slander. We need to strengthen our slander and libel laws and force social media and other publishers to determine the original source of a potentially defamatory posting and the defamed person needs to pursue action aggressively. A few high profile cases where some loser loses a libel suit and will be paying the judgement for the rest of his life would serve as a deterrent. As for Mr Wyden, he and his colleagues gave Section 230 protection to social media sites years ago. They are free to repeal the law they created. As for government monitoring and censorship. Yeah that ended in January 2025, when a new Sheriff rolled into town. Turns out the old Sheriff was a bit too cozy with the censors which resulted in suppression of information the old Sheriff didn't like and his deputies were busy using their government authority to "urge", "encourage" or demand censorship. Some deputies even whispered "Nice social media platform you have there, it would a shame if something happened to it". Last, you had a very good quote in our piece. Something to the effect of "Who will decide what's true or false". Who indeed and that is why freedom is far more important than some hurt feelings or someone like the great Dan Fouts having to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain. Thanks for your piece John. Always a pleasure.
Brian is right but I stopped logging into Facebook regularly last year. They seem to willingly allow fake posts since it seems to increase engagement. I get the business goal but don’t appreciate the lack of commitment to some level of authenticity
Ron Wyden should know about fake news. Look at the Russian hoax changing the narrative of January 6th. I think he’s the wrong person to trust in any issue
Great that Fouts and others are not dead; however , Wyden would be the LAST Politician I would trust to be on the side of “common sense”, since he and other liberal politicians change their stance to produce whatever is their narrative to push a non -common sense liberal cause. Let’s watch and verify what Wyden actually does ! But don’t hold your breath !
J.C. A great story. I have wondered often who monitors these people. Its not reserved to fake news. My cell phone now receives advertisement and I have to put extra effort to get a message out.
I cant believe our government allows us to be controlled by outside interests. If I look at an add on a product I will receive nonstop ads on this or a similar product. I want to leave facebook but I have been told I can't. Any ideas. USC did not lose 6 players in a California avalanche? LOL
you can definitely leave fb, with a bit of effort (I have), probably your info will never leave their servers but you won't be producing more and getting 'notifications' from them
Thank you for taking this on, John. It’s not in your wheelhouse yet you nailed it.
Social media platforms are allowed to escape libel and other laws that apply to legacy media, newspapers and so on, because 30 years ago Congress provided a deliberate loophole. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act said social media companies were not publishers but instead were bulletin boards. Social media was therefore deemed not responsible for what users post—the opposite of what happens in legacy media.
The solution is simple and profound. Repeal 230 and make the billionaires and their platforms subject to the laws governing publications instead of allowing them to get ever richer with platforms that spread lies and have contributed to the coarse, divided politics and public discourse today.
American society is flushing itself down the toilet in large measure because of 230. Repeal it.
Would it fundamentally change social media, make it less attractive to the public. Yes. Hell yes.
But we will adjust. Isn’t anything better than this cesspool? The billionaires won’t make as many millions but the public will benefit incalculably.
We've all heard the old adage, "Money is the root of all evil." While that still rings true for the most part today, it's also hard to argue that in today's world "Social media is the root of all evil." For every one good thing social media provides, there must be five to ten bad things it creates as well. I personally believe the world would be a beter place if we didn't have social media.
I probably have my head rammed way up my own backside, but in my mind social media fabrications aren’t anything other than an opportunity to exercise critical thinking skills. I’m still bewildered that people make gobs of money being, “influencers”. I’m also perturbed that I haven’t figured out how to do so myself. 😄
We all have a choice on what we consume…we need to choose more wisely.
Fake posts can happen anywhere, anytime. There is no one monitoring newspapers for fake posts. It has happened throughout the history of publishing (including Mark Twain's (Samuel Clemens') famous comment that "the report of my death was an exaggeration" or alternately "has been greatly exaggerated". That was made in a newspaper of that era. The alternative is to expose free speech to bias and censorship. I will take the occasional error or prank, which can be pursued legally, if needed
Ahh but section 230 protects social media and online newspapers from liability whereas a print publisher can be sued if they print a fake story. At the time 230 was implemented to help protect a new industry. Does it still? BTW, Wyden was one of the representatives who sponsored 230 way back when.
Right. The only recourse for the victims of these hoaxes is to sue the poster, and good luck finding the identity behind the account. Probably some content farm well outside the jurisdiction of US courts.
Error or prank? You make it sound so benign. John actually omitted part of his own story in this article, that he himself was a victim of one of these “pranks” and had to have a conversation with his 9 year old daughter about why people might suddenly ask her about her dead father. Do we really have to sit back and just accept this sort of thing?
Except regarding newspapers there may be only a handful of so-called fake news, while Facebook itself probably has 500,000 to a million fake deaths up there per day. There's no comparison between that and newspapers.
The first paragraph of this post seems like a copout. Zuckerberg responded to misinformation (Russian, Chinese or other) in 2016, and then caved to Trump in 2025. Why not tell it like it is and why they won't do anything that doesn't benefit them politically?
I hear you, John. It's a fine line. But the disinformation in 2016 was way disproportionately designed to support Trump, and I gave credit to Facebook at the time for responding, albeit too little and too late. The turnabout in 2025 showed that they didn't deserve the credit. It's all about the money. And whether it's political disinformation or fake obituaries, I don't think they'll respond to appeals to decency. They have none. As is very evident from the body of your work, you do. Keep it going.
Dan Fouts and Keith Jackson made for a good Saturday.
I grew up watching Air Coryell offense. What a delight to watch Fouts connect w/ Charlie Joiner, Wes Chandler & Kellen Winslow on the regular. The Epic in Miami (divisional playoff) in Jan 1982 San Diego v. Miami was the greatest NFL game I ever watched. The multiple fumbles in the end zone were unforgettable. I still have a #14 hand-painted mini Chargers figure from my old electric football set that sits in my office.
It continues to amaze me that sanctimonious billionaires like Zuckerberg, worth over $200 billion, intentionally refuse to effectively police their operations. It's never enough wealth. They never admit mistakes, fearing the loss of a dollar. The lack of character is astounding.
With your comment in mind, who wants the Big Z monitoring their thoughts and expressions?
Good point, Louis--not me, for sure. But there is a difference between free speech and aberrant behavior. Declaring someone dead falsely is pretty easy pickings. There has to be a limit somwhere reasonable.
I agree and that is why we have libel laws.
I think Elon is the one trying to encourage people to get one of his chips implanted in their brain….all under the guise of helping disabled people, of course.
I agree it is reprehensible to post fake death notices. But there are a lot of lies and deceptions and bad behavior on social media just as there was on fence posts, library walls, town gazettes and junior school gossip sessions in days of old. Wrong? Yes. Harmful to some? Yes, often. But to some extent putting up with opportunistic people without morals or common sense is part of the price you pay for living free. If my speech offends you, I'm sorry but that is just too bad. However, if I spread lies about you which are defamatory, you have a case of action for damages for libel or slander. We need to strengthen our slander and libel laws and force social media and other publishers to determine the original source of a potentially defamatory posting and the defamed person needs to pursue action aggressively. A few high profile cases where some loser loses a libel suit and will be paying the judgement for the rest of his life would serve as a deterrent. As for Mr Wyden, he and his colleagues gave Section 230 protection to social media sites years ago. They are free to repeal the law they created. As for government monitoring and censorship. Yeah that ended in January 2025, when a new Sheriff rolled into town. Turns out the old Sheriff was a bit too cozy with the censors which resulted in suppression of information the old Sheriff didn't like and his deputies were busy using their government authority to "urge", "encourage" or demand censorship. Some deputies even whispered "Nice social media platform you have there, it would a shame if something happened to it". Last, you had a very good quote in our piece. Something to the effect of "Who will decide what's true or false". Who indeed and that is why freedom is far more important than some hurt feelings or someone like the great Dan Fouts having to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain. Thanks for your piece John. Always a pleasure.
interesting reading
Everyone needs to stop using Facebook and all the other social media platforms and the problem will end.
amen, but 'they' won't
yep. social media--the cesspool of humanity (not my quote, bytheby)...
Brian is right but I stopped logging into Facebook regularly last year. They seem to willingly allow fake posts since it seems to increase engagement. I get the business goal but don’t appreciate the lack of commitment to some level of authenticity
I too have left facebunk, Brian, don't miss it at all
your life is already better, GR :)
Ron Wyden should know about fake news. Look at the Russian hoax changing the narrative of January 6th. I think he’s the wrong person to trust in any issue
My issue with Wyden even predates the trust issues. He was Oregon Senator but used to spend majority of his off time living in NYC.
Wyden needs to address AI driven sites that front-run obituaries. Related but separate problem.
Great that Fouts and others are not dead; however , Wyden would be the LAST Politician I would trust to be on the side of “common sense”, since he and other liberal politicians change their stance to produce whatever is their narrative to push a non -common sense liberal cause. Let’s watch and verify what Wyden actually does ! But don’t hold your breath !
Seriously?
calm down, Rand--it's all good :)
WOW
J.C. A great story. I have wondered often who monitors these people. Its not reserved to fake news. My cell phone now receives advertisement and I have to put extra effort to get a message out.
I cant believe our government allows us to be controlled by outside interests. If I look at an add on a product I will receive nonstop ads on this or a similar product. I want to leave facebook but I have been told I can't. Any ideas. USC did not lose 6 players in a California avalanche? LOL
you can definitely leave fb, with a bit of effort (I have), probably your info will never leave their servers but you won't be producing more and getting 'notifications' from them
Thank you for taking this on, John. It’s not in your wheelhouse yet you nailed it.
Social media platforms are allowed to escape libel and other laws that apply to legacy media, newspapers and so on, because 30 years ago Congress provided a deliberate loophole. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act said social media companies were not publishers but instead were bulletin boards. Social media was therefore deemed not responsible for what users post—the opposite of what happens in legacy media.
The solution is simple and profound. Repeal 230 and make the billionaires and their platforms subject to the laws governing publications instead of allowing them to get ever richer with platforms that spread lies and have contributed to the coarse, divided politics and public discourse today.
American society is flushing itself down the toilet in large measure because of 230. Repeal it.
Would it fundamentally change social media, make it less attractive to the public. Yes. Hell yes.
But we will adjust. Isn’t anything better than this cesspool? The billionaires won’t make as many millions but the public will benefit incalculably.
We've all heard the old adage, "Money is the root of all evil." While that still rings true for the most part today, it's also hard to argue that in today's world "Social media is the root of all evil." For every one good thing social media provides, there must be five to ten bad things it creates as well. I personally believe the world would be a beter place if we didn't have social media.
Kurt, people hear it, but remember it incorrectly.
It is: "THE LOVE of money is the root of all kinds of evil." 1 Timothy 6:10
The last time I checked, no one was twisting my arm to monitor any social media site in any way, shape or form.
Think of porn. It's out there but you don't have to look at it.
likely can't put this genie back into the bottle, darn it
I probably have my head rammed way up my own backside, but in my mind social media fabrications aren’t anything other than an opportunity to exercise critical thinking skills. I’m still bewildered that people make gobs of money being, “influencers”. I’m also perturbed that I haven’t figured out how to do so myself. 😄
We all have a choice on what we consume…we need to choose more wisely.
Ps… I have NEVER used Facebook and NEVER will !
Untrustworthy methodology of communication !
Same
Fake posts can happen anywhere, anytime. There is no one monitoring newspapers for fake posts. It has happened throughout the history of publishing (including Mark Twain's (Samuel Clemens') famous comment that "the report of my death was an exaggeration" or alternately "has been greatly exaggerated". That was made in a newspaper of that era. The alternative is to expose free speech to bias and censorship. I will take the occasional error or prank, which can be pursued legally, if needed
Ahh but section 230 protects social media and online newspapers from liability whereas a print publisher can be sued if they print a fake story. At the time 230 was implemented to help protect a new industry. Does it still? BTW, Wyden was one of the representatives who sponsored 230 way back when.
Right. The only recourse for the victims of these hoaxes is to sue the poster, and good luck finding the identity behind the account. Probably some content farm well outside the jurisdiction of US courts.
Exactly, we’re protecting this poor fledgling internet company called Facebook!🤣
Error or prank? You make it sound so benign. John actually omitted part of his own story in this article, that he himself was a victim of one of these “pranks” and had to have a conversation with his 9 year old daughter about why people might suddenly ask her about her dead father. Do we really have to sit back and just accept this sort of thing?
“Do we really have to sit back and just accept this sort of thing?”
Only if you value freedom.
Do we not have freedom because it’s illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater?
Except regarding newspapers there may be only a handful of so-called fake news, while Facebook itself probably has 500,000 to a million fake deaths up there per day. There's no comparison between that and newspapers.
There’s one comparison. You can sue the newspaper!
Haven’t had a Facebook account in years; I only participate in Substack for Mr. Canzano
No Instagram
No Tik-Tok
My way of rebelling against the NewNormal
The first paragraph of this post seems like a copout. Zuckerberg responded to misinformation (Russian, Chinese or other) in 2016, and then caved to Trump in 2025. Why not tell it like it is and why they won't do anything that doesn't benefit them politically?
Trying to avoid turning this into a political discussion. But need to point at the pivot point.
Appreciate this so much, John.
I hear you, John. It's a fine line. But the disinformation in 2016 was way disproportionately designed to support Trump, and I gave credit to Facebook at the time for responding, albeit too little and too late. The turnabout in 2025 showed that they didn't deserve the credit. It's all about the money. And whether it's political disinformation or fake obituaries, I don't think they'll respond to appeals to decency. They have none. As is very evident from the body of your work, you do. Keep it going.
Caved to Trump ? You mean Biden when the White House forced FB to take down right wing posts during Covid