4 ms·
The responsibility of handling and interpreting misinformation needs to be shifted to the consumer. People will lie to you almost every day, and you must figure
by docmars 7y ago
The responsibility of handling and interpreting misinformation needs to be shifted to the consumer. People will lie to you almost every day, and you must figure out how to deal with it.
The validity of information should be vetted by those consuming it, not an entity who is in any kind of power. If enough people think someone is lying or untruthful, with enough evidence, then the content should be flagged, labeled, or potentially taken down, because every consumer had the opportunity to contribute their perspective leading up to handling said content.
We need to move away from the idea that certain authorities in our lives (governments, companies, organizations, or any entity with significant power) can determine what's true or not, because it's highly likely to be biased in either direction.
It's incredibly easy for a collective body to double cross their word—to say one thing and intend another at the expense of those who aren't in power.
The problem is, when an organization makes the decision to censor content, it is usually a very small few who make that biased decision on behalf of the—seemingly big—company. Effectively, it is a small team, or even one or two people, unless it's done by a dedicated team of moderators driven by policies, procedures—or worse: bribery—that may or may not be something those individuals believe in.
When it's left to the people interacting with that content, it's their choice in how to deal with it individually or collectively. That is maximum freedom. To enforce censorship, as a government or organization, is to assume that consumers are idiots, and that's not an assumption they should be making.
- skybrian 7y agoYes, people do lie, but there are plenty of regulations for commercial speech. There are laws against fraud, and so on. Acceptable ads policies may be implemented by private companies, but few people would say they aren't needed or aren't in the public interest. Furthermore, you've bought into some libertarian assumptions about how markets work that aren't actually true. Some trust is necessary to make buying convenient, and the organizations running marketplaces have incentive to regulate who can sell there.
- docmars 7y agoI think the point I'm trying to drive more is: the opportunity and ability to moderate content, speech, etc. needs to be in the hands of the people, not just the entity. On Facebook, I have the ability to report or flag a post, and that's a fair amount of power I have, especially since I have the opportunity to fact-check said post if I want to, and contribute to a sincere and meaningful debate around whether that content should be available to others or not. I don't think an organization should be able to blanket-determine what's acceptable or not, lacking transparency into the exact vetting process used show or hide a piece of content, because their values may be at odds with enough of the people using it (i.e. a large enough group of people hold a political view that Facebook may deem "dangerous"). I am confident we can agree that fraud is universally something that most people do not want, except for our lovely fraudsters. When it comes to politics, that is an entirely different ballgame. We are dealing with equally valid views on both ends of the spectrum, in an environment where the majority of those in power are condemning and attempting to control speech coming from the one side. I say this because of the sheer number of anecdotes (including my own) that have noticed practically unanimous support from most major media institutions for one side, while also condemning the other side. I'm not going to specify which sides, because I believe it's obvious.
- 18pfsmt 7y agoWhen I joined HN, people were advocating for the creation of organizations that get people to voluntarily support them with their attention or $. Now people openly advocate for government force to be used to achieve admirable outcomes (even though the claimed benefits are unachievable). Your comment and mine are being pummeled. I'm at -3 for nominating Warren for Minster of Truth (attempt at levity). You?
- docmars 7y agoIndeed they are! Heh, I got a good laugh out of your comment about Warren :)
- 18pfsmt 7y agoEnded-up at -2. How did you fare? I moved off the Navajo reservation in 80s. My cousin (he just got electricity to his house this year; he's had solar for 20 years) still lives there. I can give tours, if you have interest. I'm there 2 weeks in Oct or Nov. Great trout fishing on the San Juan River at that time.
- JohnFen 7y agoWhat you say has a kernel of truth -- we all need to be critical of everything we see and hear -- I think you take it too far. > The validity of information should be vetted by those consuming it, not an entity who is in any kind of power. This would not lead to a place that would be good for anybody. Most people don't have the time or skills needed to do this, and telling everyone that they have to fact-check everything for themselves can only result in some combination of two bad outcomes: 1) People will simply accept everything they read that confirms their own preexisting beliefs. 2) People will simply reject everything they read that goes against their own preexisting beliefs. Both things encourage the continued decline of public debate as well as the continued increase of overall balkanization and the demonization of our neighbors. Also, both will lead to a dramatically increased amount of lying.
- docmars 7y agoSo, Twitter?
- 18pfsmt 7y agoExactly. The answer to false speech or hate speech is not censorship. The answer is more speech deconstructing the facts and logic used to perpetrate such falsehoods. Relying on "benevolent authorities" to arbitrate reality is a dangerous game. They are asking for a Ministry of Truth. 1984 was not a manual folks.