3 ms·

> Is this what you mean by wanting to have social media limits? I wasn't advocating for social media limits. Rather, I was trying to present one method of limi

> Is this what you mean by wanting to have social media limits? I wasn't advocating for social media limits. Rather, I was trying to present one method of limiting and contrast with difficulties of enforcing it. How, then, can you "ban" misinformation if the person spreading a link doesn't realize it was incorrect? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring satire? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring honest opinions rather than facts? How can you prevent that same mechanism from censoring discussions?

genericone 8y ago
Ah, I apologize, I attributed semi-advocacy where there was more like devil's-advocacy, and its too late for me to edit my post. Maybe you don't ban anything at all? Maybe above an item that meets viral criteria (or as a click-thru to the post to increase content friction), a viral-disclaimer is put front and center: "This information has not yet been verified but our algorithms have detected that many organizations and individuals have been sharing this". Don't ban, just discourage via technical means? Like how many companies use the dark-pattern of making it unbearable, but not impossible, to go through the process of unsubscribing or cancelling an account. Whenever anomalous unsourced information appears to be spreading, just increase the consumption friction. Make viral-response a controls problem. If that sounds like a typical engineer response, yeah, sorry, not sorry. You want the viral response to be critically damped, some arbitrary compromise between stifling information flow and having a situation like in India where some remote villagers killed traveling strangers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during a viral WhatsApp misinformation situation about child-kidnappings. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910

genericone 8y ago

Ah, I apologize, I attributed semi-advocacy where there was more like devil's-advocacy, and its too late for me to edit my post. Maybe you don't ban anything at all? Maybe above an item that meets viral criteria (or as a click-thru to the post to increase content friction), a viral-disclaimer is put front and center: "This information has not yet been verified but our algorithms have detected that many organizations and individuals have been sharing this". Don't ban, just discourage via technical means? Like how many companies use the dark-pattern of making it unbearable, but not impossible, to go through the process of unsubscribing or cancelling an account. Whenever anomalous unsourced information appears to be spreading, just increase the consumption friction. Make viral-response a controls problem. If that sounds like a typical engineer response, yeah, sorry, not sorry. You want the viral response to be critically damped, some arbitrary compromise between stifling information flow and having a situation like in India where some remote villagers killed traveling strangers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during a viral WhatsApp misinformation situation about child-kidnappings. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44856910