3 ms·
that article is pushing the idea that Social networks should be better at policing speech on their platform. As said in other comments pushing for more self po
by warp_factor 7y ago
that article is pushing the idea that Social networks should be better at policing speech on their platform.
As said in other comments pushing for more self policing is the worst thing that could happen for democracy and free-speech.
The last thing I want is for a small clique of silicon valley tech execs to decide what I should or should not see on my feed.
I see two solutions on this:
- Censorship is coming from an elected government body
- No censorship and we let people decide what is news and what is fake news.
But having Zuck and his team manipulate newsfeed to push a political or social agenda is a terrible idea. This article is a shame.
- bfdm 7y agoHow are people supposed to make that decision if they are not armed with the information needed? If they only see the fake version, how will they know to even question it? Truth matters. News distributers are expected to fact check and should be held accountable when spreading falsehoods. Removing provably false manipulated media is not itself a manipulation. It is a correction.
- ng12 7y agoAgreed, except Facebook is not a news distributor.
- anonymousab 7y agoThey are a de-facto distributor, even if it wasn't their intention to be one.
- vharuck 7y agoBut isn't "self-policing" the failsafe of free speech? Anyone can share their ideas, no matter how dumb or wrong. Except in certain cases, even deception is allowed. Then everyone else decides what is a good idea worth sharing, or just drivel. Facebook is a non-government entity. They're "people," too. They can totally decide to stop sharing junk when they notice it. And other people, like the article's author, can ask them to do just that.