4 ms·

There will always be people who will go to the echo chamber platforms to consume their misinformation. This has happened ever since the beginning of the web. Wh

There will always be people who will go to the echo chamber platforms to consume their misinformation. This has happened ever since the beginning of the web. What has changed is that we now have huge platforms that can reach a ridiculously large number of people (Facebook, WhatsApp, etc) and these aren't regulated at all. The reach of this platforms is something that only a decade ago was possible only to big media (which tends to be somewhat regulated). We have seen people dying in India because of rumours spread on WhatsApp, a genocide was incited on Myanmar through Facebook, Facebook runs disinformation campaigns for politicians all over the world and earns big cash for it. I think disinformation machine or disinformation amplifier are correct terms to refer to Facebook.

Aperocky 7y ago
And how would you regulate user content without going into censorship akin to China? When arguably one of the biggest media in the United State is onboard on some of the dubious stuff spreading online.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  It wouldn't be difficult to construct a legal standard of "reasonably certain falsehood, presented as truth" (lets say, if a reasonable person took 5 minutes to research this, what would they conclude?) and then set a $500 fine per view in ads and news, and let the courts take care of it. Slander and libel already aren't protected speech, I fail to see why knowingly making false statements (especially maliciously, and especially in an automated, large scale systematic way) should be any different. You aren't protecting anyone's liberty here, the only thing you are doing is enabling abusive, destructive parties. Not everything is a slippery slope to 1984.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    The courts have taken care of it, back in 1964 with Times v. Sullivan. Limitations on freedom of political speech have to pass strict constitutional scrutiny, and a general standard of “truthfulness” would never fly. Even libel and slander laws are particular lax when it comes to public figures. When it comes to political speech in a campaign it only gets tighter. The standard is Actual Malice, and it’s harder to prove then you might think. If there’s one form of speech which is absolutely protected by the first amendment, it is controversial, venomous political rhetoric.

Aperocky 7y ago

And how would you regulate user content without going into censorship akin to China? When arguably one of the biggest media in the United State is onboard on some of the dubious stuff spreading online.

throwaway2048 7y ago
It wouldn't be difficult to construct a legal standard of "reasonably certain falsehood, presented as truth" (lets say, if a reasonable person took 5 minutes to research this, what would they conclude?) and then set a $500 fine per view in ads and news, and let the courts take care of it. Slander and libel already aren't protected speech, I fail to see why knowingly making false statements (especially maliciously, and especially in an automated, large scale systematic way) should be any different. You aren't protecting anyone's liberty here, the only thing you are doing is enabling abusive, destructive parties. Not everything is a slippery slope to 1984.
- zaroth 7y ago
  The courts have taken care of it, back in 1964 with Times v. Sullivan. Limitations on freedom of political speech have to pass strict constitutional scrutiny, and a general standard of “truthfulness” would never fly. Even libel and slander laws are particular lax when it comes to public figures. When it comes to political speech in a campaign it only gets tighter. The standard is Actual Malice, and it’s harder to prove then you might think. If there’s one form of speech which is absolutely protected by the first amendment, it is controversial, venomous political rhetoric.