3 ms·

Because dominant media platforms have a huge crosshairs on their backs, with different groups criticizing they aren’t doing enough to remove misinformation, and

Because dominant media platforms have a huge crosshairs on their backs, with different groups criticizing they aren’t doing enough to remove misinformation, and at the same time, they are too heavy handed. The consensus is that the platforms have to do SOMETHING, because if not, it becomes a national security issue and regulation is going sweep through the industry. At the same time, the platforms can’t be seen as enforcing government censorship, so they choose WHO, an independent international organization as the information fact checker. Who knows, maybe they also want to win some brownie points with china. I wouldn’t be surprised.

busymom0 6y ago
WHO isn't independent. They have been looking out for China's talking points for a while.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Sure, but the WHO is still ostensibly a global organization that dispenses credible medical advice. Whatever I may think of the WHO, I'm not sure what org could possibly be a better choice to follow for a multinational service.
- saltedonion 6y ago
  Precisely, hence the brownie points from China.
axguscbklp 6y ago
That sounds pretty plausible to me as another explanation.
autoexec 6y ago
> Because dominant media platforms have a huge crosshairs on their backs, with different groups criticizing they aren’t doing enough to remove misinformation, and at the same time, they are too heavy handed. > The consensus is that the platforms have to do SOMETHING, because if not, it becomes a national security issue and regulation is going sweep through the industry. Personally, I think that education is always better than suppression. Rather than remove these videos, a better option would simply be to inform users that the video contains false information and where they can find the truth. Not only does this avoid the problem of being accused of doing nothing or leaving misinformation uncorrected, but it also prevents the persecution complex people will get when information is suppressed and allow us to take advantage of the useful information we can get from misinformation. It's beneficial to be able to see what misinformation people are being exposed to, the specific rhetoric, lies, and facilities being commonly employed to mislead, and the number and types of people who are creating it, falling for it, or just passing it around. Companies like Facebook and Google are in a unique position to get us that kind of data. It could ultimately help us develop ways to identify vulnerable people and where we need to educate them so they are inoculated against this type of manipulation. It could also help us assess how we craft and deliver factual data so that it clearer to these vulnerable groups and less likely to be misinterpreted or misrepresented. All censorship is failure and missed opportunity

busymom0 6y ago

WHO isn't independent. They have been looking out for China's talking points for a while.

themacguffinman 6y ago
Sure, but the WHO is still ostensibly a global organization that dispenses credible medical advice. Whatever I may think of the WHO, I'm not sure what org could possibly be a better choice to follow for a multinational service.
saltedonion 6y ago
Precisely, hence the brownie points from China.

axguscbklp 6y ago

That sounds pretty plausible to me as another explanation.

autoexec 6y ago

> Because dominant media platforms have a huge crosshairs on their backs, with different groups criticizing they aren’t doing enough to remove misinformation, and at the same time, they are too heavy handed. > The consensus is that the platforms have to do SOMETHING, because if not, it becomes a national security issue and regulation is going sweep through the industry. Personally, I think that education is always better than suppression. Rather than remove these videos, a better option would simply be to inform users that the video contains false information and where they can find the truth. Not only does this avoid the problem of being accused of doing nothing or leaving misinformation uncorrected, but it also prevents the persecution complex people will get when information is suppressed and allow us to take advantage of the useful information we can get from misinformation. It's beneficial to be able to see what misinformation people are being exposed to, the specific rhetoric, lies, and facilities being commonly employed to mislead, and the number and types of people who are creating it, falling for it, or just passing it around. Companies like Facebook and Google are in a unique position to get us that kind of data. It could ultimately help us develop ways to identify vulnerable people and where we need to educate them so they are inoculated against this type of manipulation. It could also help us assess how we craft and deliver factual data so that it clearer to these vulnerable groups and less likely to be misinterpreted or misrepresented. All censorship is failure and missed opportunity