Author Topic: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation  (Read 17872 times)

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2022, 02:21:09 PM »
And it's not like the CNN (just as an example) talking heads have different politics than the news room does.
And would you say that's also true at Fox?  And I don't mean that as either a rhetorical question, or a whatabout, I'd genuinely like to get some input on this.  I'll grant you it could be the case (windows, souls, etc).  But it seems on the face of it that'd require either Chris Wallace (OK, bad example, he left, but only one I have to hand, sorry) or Carlson Tucker being better actors than I'd credited them for.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #51 on: January 18, 2022, 03:06:17 PM »

And would you say that's also true at Fox?  And I don't mean that as either a rhetorical question, or a whatabout, I'd genuinely like to get some input on this.  I'll grant you it could be the case (windows, souls, etc).  But it seems on the face of it that'd require either Chris Wallace (OK, bad example, he left, but only one I have to hand, sorry) or Carlson Tucker being better actors than I'd credited them for.

It's totally the same at FOX. But there's a bit of a difference in left-wing messaging than right-wing messaging, so on the surface it's not symmetrical. I don't know if you've noticed, but left-wing propaganda (let's just assert blankly that both sides [or actually anyone with big money at stake] put out propaganda) tends to be unified in tone and content. You won't see much dissension or vast disparities in the presented worldview. For some reason the talking points in the left-world are often either unanimous, or else when they disagree they act as if they agree (i.e. they won't overtly claim to be disagreeing, even if their points are contradictory with each other). But right-wing propaganda seems to present as a more mixed messaging, where as with negative space you can carve out what it is by what it isn't. Right-wing media is not necessarily for exactly one thing, so you'll see different talking heads with different agendas (to the point where a Glenn Beck can even be at odds with other right-media pundits) but they are nevertheless unanimous in being against various left-wing agendas. I think this can make FOX news look more varied in outlook than CNN or MSNBC, and superficially it probably is, but that doesn't mean that the high-ups don't issue orders and have an agenda that their employees are expected to serve (whether they are aware of it in those terms or not).

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #52 on: January 18, 2022, 03:07:29 PM »
I think its time we stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for how we engage with news.   

My tactic is to simply not watch the news. What would you suggest, sending them nasty emails?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #53 on: January 18, 2022, 03:46:39 PM »
I think its time we stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for how we engage with news.   

My tactic is to simply not watch the news. What would you suggest, sending them nasty emails?

By take responsibility  I mean paying attention to the difference between what is news, what is comminatory of the news and what is 'news entertainment' (telling me what I want to hear)
 It is possible to discern the difference without having to make 'media', whatever people mean by that, into the big bad bogyman behind all our problems. 

That reality is that blaming the 'media' is just a excuse to be lazy and that allows us to dismiss what we don't want to hear or know.

If we don't take responsibility with how we engage with new why should the 24 hour 'news' channel.  From a business perspective its reasonable for the 24 news channels to assume they are give the people what the want. 

As you keep up with current events what news sources do you use? With regards to those are you able to discern what is New and what isn't

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2022, 04:12:36 PM »
As you keep up with current events what news sources do you use? With regards to those are you able to discern what is New and what isn't

I hate to say it, but my first line of warning is Twitter.  Not necessarily from traditional news sources, but from regular people that I follow.  When something interesting happens, chances are they will make mention of it.  They're not great sources of information and analysis, but they will speedily inform me of something new without having to keep my eyes peeled on FNC or CNN all day.  These people that I follow typically have no dogs in the hunt.  They're not making money off of it or trying to make a political point.  They just saw something and went "whoa" and so they share.  Like the Tonga eruption yesterday.  Betty White dying.  Stuff like that.  But I watch out for anybody trying to spin or analyze anything.  The first line of warning is just that.  Not good for much else.

The second line is typically journalism people I also follow on Twitter.  This can include a few news organizations.  These people are primarily good for informing me what the politically motivated are going to be talking about, what they are doing, and what the latest BS is about.  It's not a lot of information.  It's simply "this is what the political class is going to be flipping out about now".  Usually not informative, but it's often a good place to know what to look for next. 

The next line is research on my own, usually the internet.  Something has come up on the radar and I want to know more, I google.  I can take info from any number of sources, just as long as I have an idea of who it is coming from and what their bias may be and what their agenda is.  Then you critically read the news.  You get multiple sources.  You find what you want to find.  Ask questions.  It's like doing a cheap 15 minute research project.  Get good sources if you can but start anywhere.  It's fine to get something from FNC or the Grey Hooker, as long as you read it critically.  Same if it is an official notification.  A bunch of the problem at this level is that you have to have an idea of what is motivating other people.  Some people assign some weird fantasy motivations to biased people and organizations.  But it's usually not nefarious.  Start with the assumption that journalists, politicians, government agents, military personnel, medical personnel, law enforcement, are just people.  They're imperfect.  Some more so than others. 

The next line may be actually live news reporting, on CNN or FNC or whatever.  This rarely happens for me anymore and it would have to be something serious for me to be interested in it.  The last time I watched the news like that was Jan 6 21.  Quite amazing.  Sometimes you can't beat what cable news can show you on the spot.  I'll never forget 1-17-91 on CNN. 

The last line is analysis outside of my own.  I do indeed have a collection of pundits that while I may not agree with on every subject, I have a basic belief in their honesty and know what they are selling me.  I read their articles, listen to their podcasts.  It's not very informative.  I listen primarily to understand the arguments being laid out.  My collection primarily consists of the dastardly spawn of the demon prince Buckley, and their many exiles. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #55 on: January 18, 2022, 04:16:54 PM »
I do something similar to that, Grant.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2022, 04:25:43 PM »
That reality is that blaming the 'media' is just a excuse to be lazy and that allows us to dismiss what we don't want to hear or know.

I'm sorry but I just don't think you understand how things work. No one has a choice whether or not to be affected by these things. It is known, for sure - not some conspiracy theory - that depending on how Facebook sets its algorithms for example it alters the human behavior of the users. Seeing certain content versus other content changes how you perceive the world. Hearing trends or 'popular ideas' changes how you think of reality. If you think you can escape this by not being "lazy" then in all honesty in this particular department your position similar to the 'trust my immune system' group. You think you can strength your way out of being sucked into narrative. What you don't realize is that narrative is all you ever had in the first place. You think you can avoid it, but you can't because all of your life is a series of narratives. The question is which ones you inhabit; the question is not can you discern your way out of reality.

Quote
If we don't take responsibility with how we engage with new why should the 24 hour 'news' channel.  From a business perspective its reasonable for the 24 news channels to assume they are give the people what the want.

I can't speak to particular middle managers or lower level employees, but higher-ups know exactly what they're doing. They know it's baiting for clicks. On social media platforms it's clearer still to the employees because they literally rig the system for certain results. It's like a psych experiment they are running. So FB employees know they are deliberately trying to trigger toxic behavior and make people hate each other. This is coming out more publicly now, but I've heard about it for a while. 'News' stations do the same, but they use soft methods rather than direct programming since it's people-run rather than software driven at CNN and FOX. If you think the media companies are magically more nice and ethical than software platforms...well I guess I can't convince you otherwise. The people who matter know exactly what they're doing. They don't even think of it as wrong, it's their duty to their shareholders or whatever.

Quote
As you keep up with current events what news sources do you use? With regards to those are you able to discern what is New and what isn't

I find Google-fu is the best tool for seeing who's reporting what and how they do it. Occasionally you hear from an insider directly. I would never scan major media networks to keep informed, but rather I use them to see what it is they're selling. Anything ranging from Reddit to social media is a good way to hear that a news item exists, as Grant mentioned. After that it takes some reading to see if you can learn anything. A lot of the time when it's an AP type news story you'll see the exact text copy-pasted on numerous different websites. That's already telling - it means they don't know anything.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #57 on: January 18, 2022, 04:38:24 PM »
My tactic is to simply not watch the news. What would you suggest, sending them nasty emails?
I guess a further step would be "friends don't let friends watch the news".  Though given the most popular alternatives, whiff of council of despair about that.

don't know if you've noticed, but left-wing propaganda (let's just assert blankly that both sides [or actually anyone with big money at stake] put out propaganda) tends to be unified in tone and content. You won't see much dissension or vast disparities in the presented worldview.
That's an odd-sounding narrative if taken as referring to "the left" (especially in America's Overton, i.e. everything from pretty-right-of-centre to wherever you like.  The left that quarrels with itself incessantly (according to popular narrative, certainly including this parish: see the "left destroying itself on trans issues" thread), but in its insidious media manifestations, it's suddenly a monolith?  Sounds a rather ad hoc rationale.

Quote
I think this can make FOX news look more varied in outlook than CNN or MSNBC, and superficially it probably is, but that doesn't mean that the high-ups don't issue orders and have an agenda that their employees are expected to serve (whether they are aware of it in those terms or not).
"Varied" wasn't quite the term that sprang to mind.  I was thinking more on the lines of, a news division that's at least occasionally adjacent to the facts, and utterly unhinged 'opinion' slots.  I mean, I suppose it's a kind of variety, but a very strange one.  If there were different strands of opinion, that'd be a more recognisable sort of "variety".  By all means have the Dominionists arguing with the Fiscal Conservatives, taking issue with the Neocons, hashing it out with the Libertarians, tutting at the Movementists, and so on, and so forth.  That'd be "varied".  Rather than having a new outlet with some news in it, and opinion shows that are just different shades of fawningly sycophantic Trumpkin.

OK, as a non-consumer I might be suffering from sampling bias, in that I tend to hear about the most egregious examples.  But conversely, I hear constant lamentations about how bad CNN is (I don't watch that either, I hasten to add).  As bad as ONAN, wow.  Yet no sort of even vaguely comparable examples.  i.e. in the category of shamelessly and recklessly false on the plain facts.  Of course I also have to price in my own crazily extreme Marxist eco-anti-human biases.  (i.e., 'centrist' in normal developed-world PolSci money.)  "And CNN is just as bad because...  mumble-mumble fault on both sides and I don't much care for their tone."

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #58 on: January 18, 2022, 05:32:47 PM »
Quote
No one has a choice whether or not to be affected by these things

I don't agree with that statement which may be our point of departure.
I don't have a choice as to the weather I will face when I walk out the door... I can dress accordingly. I can limit how much I am affected and engage.... or I can choose to hide indoors.
 

I've mentioned it before that when I read your arguments I sometime wonder if you have a issue with the notion of responsibility, taking it or asking for it.
I know that isn't the case and maybe I'm the only one wo wonders about this and I acknowledge that may say more about me. 
When I use the word responsibility I'm not associating it with blame.   
« Last Edit: January 18, 2022, 05:40:37 PM by rightleft22 »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #59 on: January 18, 2022, 06:50:37 PM »
I don't agree with that statement which may be our point of departure.
I don't have a choice as to the weather I will face when I walk out the door... I can dress accordingly. I can limit how much I am affected and engage....

If you think you can limit how much you're effected by the things around you, just like whether or not to walk through a physical door, then I submit to you that you just don't understand how the mind works. Sure, everyone thinks they're totally the king of their own castle. But actually that tends to be a righty argument; the lefty position is more typically that people are invariably beset by their environment and improvement can't come without also cleaning up the surroundings. Yeah, responsibility goes along with that, but in isolation is just a rephrased bootstrap argument.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #60 on: January 19, 2022, 09:04:24 AM »
We are bigger then big and smaller then small...

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2022, 04:58:56 PM »
Biden just said: "I make a special appeal to social media companies and media outlets — please deal with the misinformation and disinformation that's on your shows. It has to stop."

Just one aspect of this disturbing comment is that he conflates two types of "bad" information. Misinformation is a subjective term that is the result of presumably authentic information that either misrepresents facts or one party simply feels is not accurate. Disinformation, IMO requires purposeful intent to propagate knowingly false information.

I think your confusion comes from a misdefinition here.  Misinformation is false or refuted facts or a true statement out of context such that it is false.  It's literally, statements of fact that are wrong as they are presented (even if they could have been true in context).

Disinformation is a subset of misinformation, where the statement is deliberately spread to create the impression that the false statement is true or to generate confusion or to otherwise call the truth into question.

The problem with Biden's "call to action," is that what he's really targeting are opinions with which he disagrees and information that contradicts his own policies.  Neither of those is misinformation or disinformation.  Biden has no problem whatsoever with spreading disinformation that serves his goals, his commitment is not to honest reporting but to picking the direction of the reporting bias.

Quote
I wonder if supporters of this believe that ideas, context and majorities are static? Will they endorse this when the misinformation de jour becomes theirs?

His supporters absolutely believe in the suppression of ideas and opinions they don't want to hear, which they eagerly conflate with misinformation and disinformation when they have the chance.

Let's step out of the gray political area and talk about something that hopefully we can all agree on. Flat-Earth. Right now, nobody cares about those guys because their beliefs don't really matter to intelligent people. Nobody is running on a flat-earth platform, nobody is proposing to cut NASA's budget because space isn't real.

What if it did get to that point? What would be the responsibility of social media companies? Would they paint a banner over the top of the content but still let it ride? Ignore it? Banish it? Would it be out of line for a politician to demand that they stop users from sharing flat-earth nonsense?

These are actually better questions than you got credit for.  The Earth is not round is disinformation.  Does it actually need to be labeled?  Let's assume you decide it does, how comfortable are you when someone writes a travel blog describing how they're looking out over miles and miles of flat desert and enjoying the peace, and the next thing you know there is a banner on the blog disputing the "misinformation" and putting in a mandatory disclaimer that the desert only appears flat and the earth is actually round?

Are you good if someone is writing a theoretical physics paper arguing that based on a new dimensional theory all of reality could be constructed as flat, even what we perceive as a round Earth, and they get shadow banned and then removed from social media for spreading disinformation?

One size fit all rules are terrible ideas, as are rules that allow things that are neither information nor disinformation to be labelled as such so that opinions and contrary evidence can not be presented. 

I think its possible but that it requires those taking in the information to learn some skills
- Know the difference between a journalist that reports news and those that comment on the news.

There is no difference, it's a delusion that there ever was.  All journalists are commenting on the news, it's just a question of degree and whether they have an interest in the outcome.

Quote
- Know the difference between News and opinion and speculation.

There often is no difference.  What's news?  What someone's opinion says is news.  Everything about that opinion forms the basis on whether something is news (even if it's not true or not relevant) or not news (even it it's absolutely true and relevant).

Quote
A 24 hour news channel less then 20% is news the rest is commentary, speculation and opinion.

It's a "based on a true story" entertainment, where the true story may have been apocryphal.  Even the 20% you think is news is a narrative decision about what to report.  There's a near infinite amount of equally "news-worthy" stories not covered or reported every day.

Quote
As msquared point out it gets worse when speculation is reported as news and self referenced as fact.

Which is the only way the media operates. 

Quote
We make the medio out to be this big bogyman but the Media reflects the listeners.
We get the media we deserve and apparently we want News as entertainment more then we want facts.

I'm not sure that's true.  We get the media that the very rich men that wanted to own the media want.  When they wanted to sell papers we got a media that focused on reporting accurate stories of interest, when they want to sell political power and access we get the media we have to today where the only relevant criteria is how much it helps the narrative.

I feel that most info coming from actual news desks at the networks or cable channels ARE fact based.

Sure, in the same way that misinformation includes taking a true statement out of context and using it in a way that's false.  There are facts out there, but what is curated and put into the news is hand picked for the narrative that the media wants to sell, whether or not the end product reflects the truth.

Quote
But these channels make more money off their opinion people, and opinions are just opinions. They cannot be fact based because they have to do with values and beliefs that are not objective.  I mean, most everyone is an objectivist when it comes to their values.  They believe they are right and the other guy is wrong.  But we can still identify an opinion because it deals with values or prescriptions rather than facts.

Actually the reason they make money off of their opinion people is because they are often fact based.  They tie their opinions directly to the facts that the viewers can then verify.  It's an effect trick of persuasion where you boost the credibility of the opinions that are interlaced with the facts, and its a trick that is also easily converted by propagandists when they produce their own messages. 

Fenring was actually correct.  Biden is trying to do an end run on the Constitution here.  This one should be obvious to everyone, there's no way it would pass the "if our positions were reversed" test.  What Biden said could easily be construed as a threat, it could easily be construed as a promise that the Government won't prosecute free speech abuses in its favor, or even that it will reward them, any one of which makes the social media companies acting at the best of the government and subject to the full set of Constitutional protections that apply to the government.  Ask yourself if this would be okay if Trump had done it and social media had complied.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2022, 05:50:09 PM »
Quote
These are actually better questions than you got credit for.  The Earth is not round is disinformation.  Does it actually need to be labeled?  Let's assume you decide it does, how comfortable are you when someone writes a travel blog describing how they're looking out over miles and miles of flat desert and enjoying the peace, and the next thing you know there is a banner on the blog disputing the "misinformation" and putting in a mandatory disclaimer that the desert only appears flat and the earth is actually round?

In the effort to combat horrific and dangerous speech, this does already happen. People get bans for posting innocent pictures of their own kids. People get historically interesting content blocked because the software filter sees hate symbols or hate speech inside it. I'm not sure why I should be concerned about some false positives. Now, there is a line and a judgement call. Should every photo that pattern matches with the OK hand gesture result in a blocked account or demonetization because it is sometimes used by white supremacists? I'd say not.

Did the blogger in question just have that information? Or is their post of the nice flat desert accompanied by the hashtag #NASALies to get more clicks and shares? Would I be bothered if everybody sharing a video of the FlatEarth21 Keynote speech got a blur cover put on it saying don't trust this nonsense? No, no I wouldn't be.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2022, 05:54:16 PM »
I think part of the disagreement here comes from things not strictly part of the argument. What we're talking about is essentially deplatforming speach that is disagreeable to some people. That has been done, sure, in the case of criminal speech and other directly threatening things. Now it's being done on opinions, not just threats and such. And part of why this is hard to agree on is that it seems these social media platforms are in a practical sense a kind of public utility, like a street corner to talk to people but hosted on a particular site. Imagine if a private company bought the city park and deplatformed frisbee players. But of course these sites *are* private to begin with, but functionally that's not the niche they fill. They're more public even than a mall, being both a casual and even an intimate gathering place for all sorts of interactions. Should the public square be governed by true-think? But if you see it as a private company then it can have any policy it wants. It can't be both ways, and right now it's treated both ways.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2022, 06:05:58 PM »
Ask yourself if this would be okay if Trump had done it and social media had complied.
If by "it" you mean "asked them to remove misinformation that actually objectively was misinformation", that's have been a considerable improvement on TFG's many actual "calls" to social media.

As as for "compliance", bear in mind most social media do have anti-misinformation policies already.  Generic "make that more effective please" is hardly sinister, unless you're happy to jump through ten more hoops of supposition and preconception on that -- as several of you of course are, per ibid.  Clearly what would be is, "do this specific thing favourable to my partisan interests, or else" -- as #45 and allies repeatedly did.

But people will of course insist on hearing the one thing as the other, and vice versa, out of sheer determination to do so.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2022, 07:05:54 PM »
And part of why this is hard to agree on is that it seems these social media platforms are in a practical sense a kind of public utility, like a street corner to talk to people but hosted on a particular site.
Right.  Essentially it's the monopoly/anti-trust issue.  According to the Dismal Science, you'd need over a half-dozen similar-sized sites/platforms to properly function as a competitive market.  But how the heck is that ever supposed to work?  Given the "I'm on here because [X] is" effect makes it the classic natural quasi-monopoly.  Maybe once Web 3.0 -- or 4.0, etc -- technically unbundles the different levels of services in some different way.  Or Clover Cleveland II just plain shuts down stuff he doesn't like, of course.

Of course part of the argument to abolish Section 230 is exactly to force a clearer such distinction.  The current law allows them to kinda-sorta publisher, kinda-sorta platform.  At least in their home market, which obviously is crucially because of headquartering, and because of sheer size.  If they have to behave slightly differently in different territories, or pull out of them, it's not an existential thing.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2022, 07:16:45 PM »
None of the normal legislation would work here. It's practically the first time that by definition the reason these platforms work is precisely because everyone is at the same place. It's not just that FB happens to have the most clients, but that so long as it's functional people can't congregate in the same fashion if there are multiple competing sites splitting the market. So it's much more like the public park in design than like a website, one of many. Literally what people need, as demonstrated by FB, Amazon, etc, is a single place where the stuff is. No price shopping at competitors, no "they don't sell that here", no "hey where's the content here". Technologically there is zero reason to have content scattered all over the place so you have to hunt for it. But the economic system is at odds with the technology, forcing us to choose between the structure we actually want (which in economic terms is monopolies, a bad thing) vs a highly inconvenient and nonfunctional structure (i.e. diverse competition). In this sphere we really don't want competition, it makes thing suck. It's the one case where I can actually see a good argument for nationalizing certain types of platform (the running of it can be subcontracted privately, but without that contractor being the owner).

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2022, 09:03:20 PM »
It's the one case where I can actually see a good argument for nationalizing certain types of platform (the running of it can be subcontracted privately, but without that contractor being the owner).
As someone can see a lot of very good arguments for national ownership of quite a lot of things, I can also see a couple of pretty big holes in that idea.  One being the authoritarian/single-point-of-freedom-failure one, and the other being the "there's more than one country" observation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2022, 02:17:58 AM »
It's the one case where I can actually see a good argument for nationalizing certain types of platform (the running of it can be subcontracted privately, but without that contractor being the owner).
As someone can see a lot of very good arguments for national ownership of quite a lot of things, I can also see a couple of pretty big holes in that idea.  One being the authoritarian/single-point-of-freedom-failure one, and the other being the "there's more than one country" observation.

Although the internet is accessible from most countries, individual websites and companies are very much regimented by the governments in which their head office inhabits. That's why, for example, the Pirate Bay hangs out in Sweden, so that it will be subject to their laws specifically even though people from many nations visit their site. Anyhow, Amazon for instance already has local iterations between each country, which could well be run under that government's auspices if they felt like it; it's not decentralized even now. FB would be a little different, but perhaps some international group of countries could agree on a rule set and format and 'share it' so that users could interact freely across all those countries. It wouldn't be that hard, but would just be a change. Things change.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2022, 03:21:50 AM »
Sure, US companies operate under US law.  That was exactly my point.  They do, others don't (except as regards their US subsidiaries and operations).  US companies are not going to want to "lose out" to non-US companies by way of regulatory changes that affect them, and not their overseas competitors.  (Which are pretty limited right now, but it's not exactly the slowest-moving of areas.)  And to this point, US governments have been pretty protective of their tech sector in that respect.  I'd be quite the change of tack to suddenly start regulating it heavily, much less taking it into public ownership.

Of course there's the option of doubling down and going "Big, Beautiful Firewall" along the Chinese model, and restricting foreign platforms operating in the US too

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2022, 05:30:22 PM »
Quote
These are actually better questions than you got credit for.  The Earth is not round is disinformation.  Does it actually need to be labeled?  Let's assume you decide it does, how comfortable are you when someone writes a travel blog describing how they're looking out over miles and miles of flat desert and enjoying the peace, and the next thing you know there is a banner on the blog disputing the "misinformation" and putting in a mandatory disclaimer that the desert only appears flat and the earth is actually round?

In the effort to combat horrific and dangerous speech, this does already happen.

First off, the effort is not to ban "horrific and dangerous" speech, which shouldn't even be a goal in a country that's built on free speech.  That the same people are on this thread arguing that's a laudable goal are also on a thread arguing against removing books from school libraries should be causing such cognitive dissonance that your heads actually explode.  It's sad that we've declined so far that we think "hate speech" should be a crime in a country that has a guaranty of free speech.  It's even worse when the label of "hate speech" is so flexible and open ended that it can be spread to cover any unpopular opinion.

But second, the kinds of things resulting in ban are completely divorced from any reasonable and articulable standard of hate speech.  Pretending that banning the kinds of "borderline" cases you flag that are no where near the border is part of an effort to remove truly evil content is complete motte and bailey argumentation.

For goodness sake, social media literally banned the President of the United States from sharing his political speech.  That's completely insane.

Quote
People get bans for posting innocent pictures of their own kids. People get historically interesting content blocked because the software filter sees hate symbols or hate speech inside it. I'm not sure why I should be concerned about some false positives.

Because the cases demonstrate that the "line" is so far to the side of insane as to be dangerous.  If you're a free person you should be able to make your own decision about such content.  Are you saying that you can not?

The reality is that this has nothing to do with a real risk and everything to do with a desire to prevent 2 other adults from sharing content over which you disapprove.  If this existed 20 years ago, speech supporting trans rights could easily have been banned for being disinformation if it promoted the idea that a trans person is the gender they transition to, today it bans speech contradicting that position.  None of that speech is legitimately banned under an objective principle in a free country.

Quote
Now, there is a line and a judgement call. Should every photo that pattern matches with the OK hand gesture result in a blocked account or demonetization because it is sometimes used by white supremacists? I'd say not.

No photo like that should.  Honestly, racists shouldn't be demonetized or banned, let the legal system take care of it if they violate the law.  It's particularly nonsensical when we don't regularly demonetize black racists, no matter what they say, or many of the anti-semetic posters.  As a result, 99% of what's banned has little to do with "white supremacy" and 99% of racist content never  faces any risk of being banned.

Quote
Did the blogger in question just have that information? Or is their post of the nice flat desert accompanied by the hashtag #NASALies to get more clicks and shares? Would I be bothered if everybody sharing a video of the FlatEarth21 Keynote speech got a blur cover put on it saying don't trust this nonsense? No, no I wouldn't be.

That says more about you than you may think.  You're presenting as the new face of the book burners of America, congrats.  Or would you be okay, if the "removed" books in the other thread were allowed to stay in the school libraries but the text on every page was made unreadable and royalties to the authors were clawed back?

Ask yourself if this would be okay if Trump had done it and social media had complied.
If by "it" you mean "asked them to remove misinformation that actually objectively was misinformation", that's have been a considerable improvement on TFG's many actual "calls" to social media.

No, by "it" I mean the same thing Biden did, asking for opinions and arguments that disagree with his views and policies be labeled disinformation and banned.  There's no question, Biden doesn't care about the truth, he only cares about his own narrative.

Quote
But people will of course insist on hearing the one thing as the other, and vice versa, out of sheer determination to do so.

Or, they'd continue to pretend that when Biden is calling to ban misinformation, and telling deliberate lies in his own speeches, that what he's really asking for is "objective" rather than "subjective" screening.

None of the normal legislation would work here. It's practically the first time that by definition the reason these platforms work is precisely because everyone is at the same place. It's not just that FB happens to have the most clients, but that so long as it's functional people can't congregate in the same fashion if there are multiple competing sites splitting the market. So it's much more like the public park in design than like a website, one of many. Literally what people need, as demonstrated by FB, Amazon, etc, is a single place where the stuff is. No price shopping at competitors, no "they don't sell that here", no "hey where's the content here". Technologically there is zero reason to have content scattered all over the place so you have to hunt for it. But the economic system is at odds with the technology, forcing us to choose between the structure we actually want (which in economic terms is monopolies, a bad thing) vs a highly inconvenient and nonfunctional structure (i.e. diverse competition). In this sphere we really don't want competition, it makes thing suck. It's the one case where I can actually see a good argument for nationalizing certain types of platform (the running of it can be subcontracted privately, but without that contractor being the owner).

The reality is that there is some truth to what you say, multiple platforms competing is a terrible model where those platforms don't cross communicate.  Now if there was a requirement for interoperability of posts then perhaps it could work.  But in that case, this kind of platform based censorship would be even more dangerous as it would infect the interoperable neutral space.

In reality the forum for "public debate" is now social media and the government has been completely negligent in recognizing that and stepping in to protect the rights of those participating.  Section 230 and similar protections should be available on an exclusive basis only to those platforms that commit to protect the free speech of the participants on the platform.  Such platforms should be required to maintain content neutral moderation and prioritization for public facing posts and content (i.e., no stealth banning or algorithym suppression), be required to disclose all moderation decisions (including deprioritizing and prioritizing content), cite to the exact cause of the moderation decision (including with a citation to the violated law for negative decisions) and be strictly liable for any improper moderation.  The "soft" permissions for moderation should be removed.  They should be completely free to create, offer and promote any user selected content filtering options, which may include the exact kind of blocking, filtering and prioritizing that they currently do without user control or permission.

Absent a commitment to the protection of free speech, the platforms should be treated as publishers of all content that is publicly presented on their forum and have no extraordinary protection from claims resulting from such publication.  Including, specifically, that they should be liable under defamation and libel theories for third party "fact checking" that they promote or use to determine moderation where such fact checking is false or based on opinion rather than fact.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #71 on: January 26, 2022, 06:32:17 PM »
So all of the internet should look like 8chan/8kun. Anything goes unless it is illegal? There shouldn't be an effort on the part of private companies to ban hate speech, Seriati? Is that what you would want for our forum here?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #72 on: January 26, 2022, 07:32:00 PM »
Because the cases demonstrate that the "line" is so far to the side of insane as to be dangerous.  If you're a free person you should be able to make your own decision about such content.  Are you saying that you can not?

Well of course we can make those kinds of decisions but other people, the plebs more specifically, certainly can't be relied upon to do so. And they're so easily riled up.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #73 on: January 26, 2022, 08:40:36 PM »
Because the cases demonstrate that the "line" is so far to the side of insane as to be dangerous.  If you're a free person you should be able to make your own decision about such content.  Are you saying that you can not?

Well of course we can make those kinds of decisions but other people, the plebs more specifically, certainly can't be relied upon to do so. And they're so easily riled up.

Well, I don't know. I don't actually think people can resist brainwashing very well no matter how smart they think they are. Actually if they think they're really smart if could make it worse. I basically agree that some kind of curation of content is required on any platform, it can't be a total free-for-all. What sort of curation is required, and by whom, should be a matter for careful deliberation and making sure that it isn't aimed at suppressing political, non-conformist, and minority views. I don't trust FB at all not to use a platform like theirs to basically conduct psych experiments on the general public, deliberately trying to rile them up with algorithms to see (a) what happens and (b) how to maximally profit from it. And whether or not FB itself has a political agenda, hacking into the public discourse even for other reasons is just as bad, perhaps worse. So that's why I said I could at least see a case for nationalizing certain platforms and treating them as utilities. I'm not saying I'm certain about that, but at least it's an option. Letting private actors screw over the nation for $$ doesn't seem to me to be a tolerable option. I don't think democracy is so sturdy that it can withstand certain stresses. Allowing those stresses to happen and calling it "freedom" is actually the reverse of what that word is supposed to mean.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #74 on: January 27, 2022, 09:38:59 AM »
Quote
I don't actually think people can resist brainwashing very well no matter how smart they think they are
How do you know if your not repeating something that you were brainwashed to think?  :)
Begs the question if the ones doing the brainwashing are not also brainwashed, If they can resist thier own brainwashing? Are we only animatron's at the mercy of a master programmer...
As above so below, as below so above - we are influenced and we influence - maybe thier is a gene that determines how much of one over the other we get  ???



rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2022, 09:49:00 AM »
Quote
Absent a commitment to the protection of free speech, the platforms should be treated as publishers of all content that is publicly presented on their forum and have no extraordinary protection from claims resulting from such publication.  Including, specifically, that they should be liable under defamation and libel theories for third party "fact checking" that they promote or use to determine moderation where such fact checking is false or based on opinion rather than fact.

Not sure way a commitment to free speech would mean that platforms shouldn't be treated as publishers... does free speech = free from consequence?
Freedom being defined as everyone saying and doing as they will or desire regardless of any concept of a social contract?

My understanding of freedom is that when exercised it is also a exercise of setting boundaries? What you experience as freedom I might experience as oppression?
I guess another implication of the 'Either Or' 'All or Nothing' world view is that the person with the biggest stick gets to define freedom for everyone else...

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #76 on: January 27, 2022, 09:49:04 AM »
Begs the question if the ones doing the brainwashing are not also brainwashed, If they can resist thier own brainwashing? Are we only animatron's at the mercy of a master programmer...
As above so below, as below so above - we are influenced and we influence - maybe thier is a gene that determines how much of one over the other we get  ???

Frank Herbert said that when you treat people like machines you become more like one; the humanity not mattering, things being just a numbers game.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #77 on: January 27, 2022, 10:38:45 AM »
Frank Herbert makes a valid point... still I'd like to hope that resistance is possible but I can't prove  that I haven't been 'brainwashed' to hope that.
I can only appeal to personal experience but that would not be proof...   not a rabbit whole I wish to jump into  :-\

Reminds me of some of the old determinism threads of the past

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2022, 10:44:26 AM »
In light of US Surgeon General Murthy's comments around censoring Joe Rogan I was trying to think of reasons he wouldn't just go on Rogan's show himself and get the his message on the record:

1. It would only serve to legitimize Rogan's platform and any information coming from it.

Too late. Rogan has far more eyes and ears than all the major news networks combined and needs no endorsement to be considered "legitimate". It would be the perfect forum to get in front of a massive audience to furthe legitimize your own ideas and opinions.

2. It's not a proper or optimal forum to appropriately/accurately convey the information he'd like to see corrected.

JRE is often a 3+ hour long-format discussion in which there is NEVER a "sorry, we've got a commercial break" interruption if things get contentious or awkward. It's literally a place where ideas and opinions can be fully fleshed out without fear of the idiotic 4-6 minute talking head back and forth you see on cable news.

Nuance and context can be fully explored and you can't get away with stating something unchallenged. That fact has bit Rogan himself in the butt many times and literally changed his POV in real time. Imagine that.

3. It would not be a fair environment and he wouldn't be able to properly convey his message and set the record straight without being constantly interrupted (ala Bill O'Rielly).

Rogan has faults but being O'Rielly-esque ain't one of them. He often admits he's wrong, sometimes in the moment and regularly says he has no idea if certain things are true and encourages fact-checks early and often. That doesn't mean he gets everything right, but it means his agenda is far less ego driven than the typical cable opinion head. He can have a strong point of view but tends to let his guests speak freely and does not cut people off.

So why wouldn't Murthy just go on the show? Why ask for censorship instead of simply countering misinformation to a massive audience directly if it's available to you?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #79 on: January 27, 2022, 10:54:40 AM »
2. It's not a proper or optimal forum to appropriately/accurately convey the information he'd like to see corrected.

I think a lot of people are like cave men, peeking out and wondering why things are weird, but not being able to understand what it all means. I literally think many older people don't have a clue what podcasts are, or get why they matter. It's even taking Hollywood people quite a while to realize that this is not only a 'real' medium but actually becoming a primary one. If you haven't you should watch the segment with Bill Maher, where you can see it dawning on his face as he's there that this show is probably more relevant than Bill's show on HBO. Bill is the kind of big-time TV persona who thought he was where it's at, and it befuddles people like that to realize that 'the internet' is more than just a place with stupid websites and porn. Some celebs get it; Rogan's show with Robert Downey Jr showed that RDJ totally respects the format and the show. Rogan has also had some very high profile people on his show, so prestigious that major talk shows rarely get the like. Not only does the viewership warrant it, but the format is almost unarguably superior in every way to other discussion formats.

Realistically I doubt this guy even understands what Rogan's show is. He wouldn't appear because he probably thinks it's some punk on his little website with his little deluded fans. Some people never get it until it's too late.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #80 on: January 27, 2022, 11:01:45 AM »
2. It's not a proper or optimal forum to appropriately/accurately convey the information he'd like to see corrected.

I think a lot of people are like cave men, peeking out and wondering why things are weird, but not being able to understand what it all means. I literally think many older people don't have a clue what podcasts are, or get why they matter. It's even taking Hollywood people quite a while to realize that this is not only a 'real' medium but actually becoming a primary one. If you haven't you should watch the segment with Bill Maher, where you can see it dawning on his face as he's there that this show is probably more relevant than Bill's show on HBO. Bill is the kind of big-time TV persona who thought he was where it's at, and it befuddles people like that to realize that 'the internet' is more than just a place with stupid websites and porn. Some celebs get it; Rogan's show with Robert Downey Jr showed that RDJ totally respects the format and the show. Rogan has also had some very high profile people on his show, so prestigious that major talk shows rarely get the like. Not only does the viewership warrant it, but the format is almost unarguably superior in every way to other discussion formats.

Realistically I doubt this guy even understands what Rogan's show is. He wouldn't appear because he probably thinks it's some punk on his little website with his little deluded fans. Some people never get it until it's too late.

Possibly. I would think a high-functioning adult like the the surgeon general might look into it if he's being asked about it. Rogan's conversations with Sanjay Gupta, Bernie Sanders and many others were really interesting.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #81 on: January 27, 2022, 12:24:11 PM »
Possibly. I would think a high-functioning adult like the the surgeon general might look into it if he's being asked about it. Rogan's conversations with Sanjay Gupta, Bernie Sanders and many others were really interesting.

Some smart people are really, really stupid. Much more stupid than someone of average IQ.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #82 on: January 27, 2022, 01:04:49 PM »
Some really smart Scientists are really stupid when it comes to explaining thier data especially the ones that assume those they are talking to understand statics' and probability. Add to that the ones being talked to don't want to have to think about the informing they are getting preferring to be spoon fed what to think as long as they already know how its going to taste.

 Just a thought but I wonder if social media shouldn't be views as a new type of consciousness if one that functions at the Id level and at best the will to pleasure/power. That our connection to our smart phones isn't replacing our connection to our minds....

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #83 on: January 27, 2022, 01:08:54 PM »
Some really smart Scientists are really stupid when it comes to explaining thier data especially the ones that assume those they are talking to understand statics' and probability.

It's not just a question of underestimating how much the less smart people know. Some smart people do unbelievably stupid things, things that 'dumb people' would conk them on the head for. And it's not just actions, some people are ridiculously dumb at understanding how to do anything other than their narrow little field of expertise, so they are "very smart" in an extremely specific way and very dumb in other ways. And then you have people like software devs or engineers who often don't even have the slightest grasp of how to talk to people about what they're doing, or what normal humans talk like. They'll write something for front-facing clients to read that's barely intelligible as English. The list goes on.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #84 on: January 27, 2022, 01:50:02 PM »
I have to agree. Some interviews of some really smart people (in thier field)) are so painful to watch. You can see it in thier eyes that they don't get why our how anyone might not understand what they are talking about or could take what they say the wrong way.

Actually watching some of the Dem Senators being told that what they are saying isn't connecting to 'ordinary' people  and they just keep on going spouting out the talking points that aren't connecting... and your watching them and realizing they just don't get it.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #85 on: January 28, 2022, 02:11:17 AM »
In light of US Surgeon General Murthy's comments around censoring Joe Rogan [...]
The word "around" doing all the work in that sentence, it appears.  Ermagawd, they're not just coming for our guns and your god, they're coming for our beloved misinformation!  By...  making ever-so-generic comments like "People have the right to make their own decisions, but they also have the right to have accurate information to make that decision with."  That the ScottF's and Seriati's of this world are utterly determined to read as authoritarian government overreach, and what was actually said be damned.

Quote
I was trying to think of reasons he wouldn't just go on Rogan's show himself and get the his message on the record:
To sit in the seat recently warmed by Robert Malone, yet.  Let's be reasonable here, and strike a fair balance between facts and lies!

Quote
Too late. Rogan has far more eyes and ears than all the major news networks combined and needs no endorsement to be considered "legitimate".
Apparently just as Jordan Peterson's the acme of "intellectualism" for some on the right, these days "podcast downloads" is the ultimate standard in "legitimacy" via populism.

Yet on the other hand, we'll (endlessly!) tut at people having a poor grasp of the facts when they get polled with questions evidently above their mathsing level.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #86 on: January 28, 2022, 10:35:14 AM »
"legitimacy" via populism.

Haha, I like how viewership can be called "populism" if you don't like the show getting the viewers.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #87 on: January 28, 2022, 06:15:03 PM »
In light of US Surgeon General Murthy's comments around censoring Joe Rogan [...]
The word "around" doing all the work in that sentence, it appears.  Ermagawd, they're not just coming for our guns and your god, they're coming for our beloved misinformation!  By...  making ever-so-generic comments like "People have the right to make their own decisions, but they also have the right to have accurate information to make that decision with."  That the ScottF's and Seriati's of this world are utterly determined to read as authoritarian government overreach, and what was actually said be damned.

Quote
I was trying to think of reasons he wouldn't just go on Rogan's show himself and get the his message on the record:
To sit in the seat recently warmed by Robert Malone, yet.  Let's be reasonable here, and strike a fair balance between facts and lies!

Quote
Too late. Rogan has far more eyes and ears than all the major news networks combined and needs no endorsement to be considered "legitimate".
Apparently just as Jordan Peterson's the acme of "intellectualism" for some on the right, these days "podcast downloads" is the ultimate standard in "legitimacy" via populism.

Yet on the other hand, we'll (endlessly!) tut at people having a poor grasp of the facts when they get polled with questions evidently above their mathsing level.

This kind of response is boring, vacant. Even the masturbatory tone doesn't make it interesting. I don't set out to deliberatley ignore anyone but you make it kind of feel, I dunno, natural? I know, I know - you're not here for my entertainment. Carry on.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #88 on: February 01, 2022, 01:42:55 PM »
So all of the internet should look like 8chan/8kun.   Anything goes unless it is illegal?

Only those parts purporting to be open forums - and therefore receiving mandated protections from Congress for the content that appears on their forums.  You skipped the part where I expressly allowed for user selected content filtering even in those forums.  Is there any reason that a user shouldn't be able to select whether they see bad language or a string of astericks?  I have no objection to forums being dedicated to specific topics and strictly eliminating other content.  Or to providing user controls that eliminate content the user objects to receiving.

Honestly, the only way that content gets pushed to you on social media is by the choice of the social media provider.  There should be no constraints on content you choose to pull, and there is no reason that your own decisions should not govern what is pushed to you rather than the social media provider's decisions.

230 currently allows for removal of content that "that the provider or user considers"  to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" content.  I would eliminate the ability of the provider to overrule the users own content decisions.  The provider should not be able to remove content based on an "otherwise objectionable" standard and still receive the benefits of 230.  The other standards are also subject to abuse, for example, are breast feeding pictures removable or not?  I would say they should not be, but this standard completely protects if they are.  Provider's should be restricted to moderation for legality, user controls could allow elimination on these or other standards from the user's own feed.

People forget that 230 established as the policy of the US, 5 goals, of which 3 are relevant here:

"(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer."

The deliberate decision involved in creating 230 was not to empower censorship, but rather to encourage user selected content filtering, while also seeking to eliminate criminal content from the internet.  The latter was important as well because of the argument that such content was protected by free speech (which it's not) and that platforms should be liable if a user posts such content (which was technologically impossible - at that time - for them to ensure didn't get and remain posted).

Quote
Is that what you would want for our forum here?

Not at all, nothing prevents a forum from being a limited forum or a sub-forum with agreed upon rules.  People have a right to free association on the internet as well as in public.  But nothing on this forum is pushed to you, nor is anything screened from you, and you're able to interact with those making moderation decisions are you not?

I just disagree that something like FB is legitimately a limited forum.  It's operated as a public forum and in fact is monetized specifically because of it's access to the public.  It's moderation decisions can interfere with the associational rights of its members and have no place being protected by a rule that was intended to maximize a user's ability to choose content when the content was not illegal.

Quote
There shouldn't be an effort on the part of private companies to ban hate speech, Seriati?

Depends on what you mean.  Most companies have no business "banning" speech.  But for social media companies the question is whether they should be allowed to interfere with speech between consenting adults where that speech is Constitutionally protected and not illegal.  That's a simpler question and the answer is no.  If they want to do so, then they should not be protected from the results of their decisions.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #89 on: February 01, 2022, 02:00:26 PM »
Not sure way a commitment to free speech would mean that platforms shouldn't be treated as publishers... does free speech = free from consequence?
Freedom being defined as everyone saying and doing as they will or desire regardless of any concept of a social contract?

My understanding of freedom is that when exercised it is also a exercise of setting boundaries? What you experience as freedom I might experience as oppression?
I guess another implication of the 'Either Or' 'All or Nothing' world view is that the person with the biggest stick gets to define freedom for everyone else...

So to answer your first question, by not actively moderating otherwise legal content the platform is divorcing it's endorsement from the user generated speech on the platform.  By moderating otherwise legal speech, the platform is choosing which speech to publish and should be responsible as a publisher.  If I were to edit the second paragraph of yours as follows, should it be you rather than me that is now responsible for the sentence? 

Quote
My understanding of freedom is ... oppression ... I ... get to define freedom for everyone.

When the public conversation is only that bits a service provider chooses to allow, we don't have a public discussion we just have that service provider's view point.

Whether you believe you experience oppression is not the measure of whether someone else has the right to have a voice.  Effectively that thinking means you believe that your "oppression" entitles you to oppress others.  It's an impossible quandry for any objective standard and it only seems resolvable because those taking your view define their own view as correct and therefore other views as incorrect and okay to suppress.  It's effectively the opposite of having individual rights (or even collective rights), it's pure authoritarian belief that the select few are not only entitled to oppress dissent but morally justified in doing so, and that it would not be morally acceptable not to do so.

"Hate speech" was always little more than a Trojan Horse to break the sanctity of the Freedom of Speech by pretending the underlying speech was something less than speech.  People are entitled to believe and say hateful things.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #90 on: February 01, 2022, 02:11:50 PM »
But private companies do not have to let them speak on their site. Let them get their own site.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #91 on: February 01, 2022, 03:49:18 PM »
But private companies do not have to let them speak on their site. Let them get their own site.

If the government is protecting the private companies from their decisions, and now encouraging them and directing them to remove "misinformation," they are not private companies in respect of the speech.  They are agents of the government.  Censorship of views directly contradicts the express purposes of Section 230 and the protections it provides should be eliminated for those that are curtailing the free exchange of ideas.

Again, the reality is that social media has become the forum for speech.  Allowing it to be treated as "private" with governmental protection from the consequences of being private to facilitate government favored censorship (or really DNC favored censorship, since it's only applied by the government when they are in power) is a gross violation of our rights.  Most social media companies engaged in express fraud about their censorship policies to grow their market share, based on their current barely disclosed censorship practices.  Many are still committing active fraud in respect of the disclosure of their censorship practices.  Only the government's protection prevents them from that liability.

You can sue other media companies for their decisions.  In fact, I'm willing to bet that you don't believe that "private" companies can engage in this conduct in other contexts.  The left has filed endless suits against private companies to force them to give up such controls and discriminatory practices.  There is zero chance you would even remotely tolerate it if social media had the opposite bias.  It would never be enough to found your own companies and to leave the existing ones in place, they'd have to be destroyed by government, and the suits for fraud would be endless.  I mean heck, Parler was formed for pretty much exactly that reason, and the left was relentless in trying to destroy it.  It was never going to be the case that the left would tolerate an alternative open forum to exist.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #92 on: February 01, 2022, 04:29:43 PM »
Quote
There is zero chance you would even remotely tolerate it if social media had the opposite bias.

What would that look like? Companies putting warning blurs over posts that called vaccines effective? Companies suspending accounts for people advocating for equality? Companies banning people who try to debunk Q-spiracies?

I guess we'll find out what that's like when Trump Social launches. Assuming they manage to do so.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #93 on: February 01, 2022, 08:16:22 PM »
Section 230, is to protect corporations from lawsuits for other peoples content.  It doesn't disallow content moderation or content standards.  This is well established.  It was never intended to prevent companies from being able to moderate or have content standards.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #94 on: February 02, 2022, 09:30:24 AM »
Section 230, is to protect corporations from lawsuits for other peoples content.  It doesn't disallow content moderation or content standards.  This is well established.  It was never intended to prevent companies from being able to moderate or have content standards.

I *think* Seriati acknowledges that, he just wants 230 amended so that if you do any content moderation you are responsible for everything posted in real time? I'll let him clarify, but I didn't see him make any "except for" carve outs.

What this would essentially do is cause every content distributor to moderator approve every message, it seems. They'd have to perform fact checks, making sure they weren't going to be sued. Instead of having live debates, discussion on the internet would look more like letters to the editor.

Of course the practical result is that the rest of the world would move on with their lives and the US would become an internet backwater, at least with respect to user created content in social media.

Because what the result is not going to be, is having companies stripped of 230 protections suddenly say, "whelp, I guess we have to allow hate speech now." "I guess we just can't do anything to limit the spread of dangerous disinformation. Oh well."

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #95 on: February 02, 2022, 10:00:06 AM »
Because what the result is not going to be, is having companies stripped of 230 protections suddenly say, "whelp, I guess we have to allow hate speech now." "I guess we just can't do anything to limit the spread of dangerous disinformation. Oh well."

His point is that if one has to choose between free speech being eliminated and allowing hate speech, we should allow hate speech. If magically these companies could be trusted to protect divergent views and only throttle actual threats, etc, it would be one thing. Seriati's point is they can't be trusted to do this, and instead use their 'moderation' to de facto censor worngthink. With government "suggesting" to them they must do this, it becomes little better than Russian media.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #96 on: February 02, 2022, 10:03:33 AM »
Section 230, is to protect corporations from lawsuits for other peoples content.  It doesn't disallow content moderation or content standards.  This is well established.  It was never intended to prevent companies from being able to moderate or have content standards.

I *think* Seriati acknowledges that, he just wants 230 amended so that if you do any content moderation you are responsible for everything posted in real time? I'll let him clarify, but I didn't see him make any "except for" carve outs.

I made several except for carve outs.  Moderation tied to illegality for example.  I suggested that moderation decisions (including prioritizing and de prioritizing) be required to be documented, along with the specific basis for the moderation.  Protection from liability should not be present if that latter type is not neutrally applied, and much the same way that one can demonstrate racist intent with statistical data, one should be able to demonstrate anti-conservative (or anti-anything) intent with statistical data.  I also said that the soft discretionary parts of the standard should be eliminated from the host's discretion.  The intent of the law was to grant users more control, and to protect hosts against suits for user generated content.  It was never to endorse and protect censorship by hosts.

Quote
What this would essentially do is cause every content distributor to moderator approve every message, it seems. They'd have to perform fact checks, making sure they weren't going to be sued. Instead of having live debates, discussion on the internet would look more like letters to the editor.

Or more likely to stay out of the moderation business.

Quote
Because what the result is not going to be, is having companies stripped of 230 protections suddenly say, "whelp, I guess we have to allow hate speech now." "I guess we just can't do anything to limit the spread of dangerous disinformation. Oh well."

There's a difference between banning people from having a discussion with each other that you think is "hate speech" and the way their alogorithms magnify speech.  You could easily have a filter option as a user that asks that "hate speech" be removed from your feed, and I have no problem with that idea, even if the moderators decisions are wrong.  I have a problem when you can't choose and only the moderator has a say.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #97 on: February 02, 2022, 10:28:18 AM »
Absolutely not good enough to ask people to "opt-out", first it isn't functional. You're going to ask millions of people to select which subreddits they want to see or not? That's not how feeds and engagements work. Everything from tik-toks FYP to facebook "you might likes" are forced on the user. So does your change mean that goes away and you now have to subscribe? How do you even find that? How does advertising work?

I don't want a service to pop up the "I hate <racial group>" page and then having to click "show me less of this". It isn't illegal speech, so it doesn't activate your illegal carveout.

The second reason for this is that I don't want those platforms to aid and abet people recruiting people to their racist organizations.

There's still no evidence that conservative voices are being silenced en masse. It's only the crazy dangerous people like Alex Jones, and yes I am 100% okay with the techs silencing his inducement of harassment by claiming that Sandy Hook never happened. Or helping to encourage the attack related to Pizzagate by spreading that lie. Smearing a completely innocent person for being the Parkland shooter.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #98 on: February 02, 2022, 10:58:36 AM »
You're going to ask millions of people to select which subreddits they want to see or not?

Oh no!

Quote
I don't want a service to pop up the "I hate <racial group>" page and then having to click "show me less of this".

Uh, why not? Anyhow, the issue Seriati is referring to is about the moderator throttling content he doesn't like. But that doesn't mean they can't use algorithms to predict what *you* actually do like. You're thinking oldschool, that's not how it works now anyhow. It would be very easy now for the system to recognize that you never do searches for such content. It would also be easy for the algorithms to use 'neighbor' categories, in other words, showing you something a few steps lateral from something more racy, and if you partake it can show you the next level over, and if you don't it won't. There are many ways to program such things.

Quote
The second reason for this is that I don't want those platforms to aid and abet people recruiting people to their racist organizations.

I'm, like, not a fan of racist groups, but I don't see why you should get to decide what is 'racist' and what isn't (not every group is called the KKK) and force that on others. Also I don't see why it's 'abetting' to let people talk. Is AT&T 'abetting' racists talking on the phone? You really have to think of it like that. People should be free to discuss their ideosyncratic BS to their heart's content, and it stops when they start breaking the law. There are plenty of conservatives who legitimately believe that not just woke but a good chunk of left-wing beliefs are actively racist. According to your logic FB is abetting them and should be banned? No, because you don't agree with the definition. Remember, if they should be barred, that might just apply to you too depending on who's making the decision.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's appeal on misinformation & disinformation
« Reply #99 on: February 02, 2022, 11:46:06 AM »
It's not up to me. FB makes the rules for FB. If they want to decide that any post that advocates for racial criteria in hiring or admissions is racist, they can do that. They are then subject to public backlash for making that choice. Their users then have the option to depart, stop advertising, take to the airwaves and criticize them, threaten legislation to break them up as monopolistic, and so on. Their employees have the option to exert pressure on them to loosen restrictions. It is entirely feasible that Trump Social will do that, and they will get criticism, and they won't care because it will just drive even more people into their arms. The more they choose to ban and remove, the more they fuel potential competition.