2 ms·

Google is not a government organization is a private platform. It generally does not get involved in things like that, but the amounts of misinformation is stag

by takeda 6y ago

Google is not a government organization is a private platform. It generally does not get involved in things like that, but the amounts of misinformation is staggering. I have family members affected by this and it looks like it is a targeted misinformation attack. It starts with Facebook posts, which then often direct you to youtube channels which are condition people into crazier and crazier theories. It is so weird, because many of these theories even contradict themselves, yet people still believe them. The guy in article is also an oncologist and he talks about subject that is not his expertise. It's like asking a front end engineer how to best design the a new data center. This is especially dangerous since we are currently in middle of pandemic and many people will trust his advice.

lukifer 6y ago
There's a relevant engineering axiom, that a sufficient quantitative difference amounts to a qualitative difference (sometimes phrased as "quantity has a quality all its own"). At some ineffable point, a "private platform" of sufficient scope becomes a Commons, resembling a social substrate more than a mere voluntary exchange between individuals. A historical equivalent would be "company towns", with goods only available from company stores, exchanged in company scrip, etc. [0] Obviously, from a purely legal perspective, you are 100% correct. Google is under no obligation to uphold a principle of free speech, non-favoritism, etc., and it would take significant new legislation or regulation to change that. Nonetheless, in terms of the role that is being played in society and culture, tech giants in general, and Google/Facebook in particular, are wielding disproportionate (and arguably ideologically biased) influence, bordering on an attempt to control narratives and ideas. It's perfectly legitimate to find this trend concerning without supporting the particular ideas being suppressed (I think Plandemic/InfoWars/etc, are utter nonsense). I believe such actions tend to be counter-productive: (a) isolating and ostracizing those who are falling for bad ideas only reinforces their beliefs and persecution complex, while obstructing the path back to better ideas; and (b) every once in a while a seemingly-crazy idea turns out to be true (it's instructive the extent to which it was a fight uphill for germ theory to be accepted by the experts of the day [1]). There simply isn't a magic wand that sifts good ideas from bad, a priori; and if the power to make that decision is centralized, even with the best of intentions, whoever wields it will inevitably make mistakes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#John_Snow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#John_Sn...

by takeda 6y ago

lukifer 6y ago

There's a relevant engineering axiom, that a sufficient quantitative difference amounts to a qualitative difference (sometimes phrased as "quantity has a quality all its own"). At some ineffable point, a "private platform" of sufficient scope becomes a Commons, resembling a social substrate more than a mere voluntary exchange between individuals. A historical equivalent would be "company towns", with goods only available from company stores, exchanged in company scrip, etc. [0] Obviously, from a purely legal perspective, you are 100% correct. Google is under no obligation to uphold a principle of free speech, non-favoritism, etc., and it would take significant new legislation or regulation to change that. Nonetheless, in terms of the role that is being played in society and culture, tech giants in general, and Google/Facebook in particular, are wielding disproportionate (and arguably ideologically biased) influence, bordering on an attempt to control narratives and ideas. It's perfectly legitimate to find this trend concerning without supporting the particular ideas being suppressed (I think Plandemic/InfoWars/etc, are utter nonsense). I believe such actions tend to be counter-productive: (a) isolating and ostracizing those who are falling for bad ideas only reinforces their beliefs and persecution complex, while obstructing the path back to better ideas; and (b) every once in a while a seemingly-crazy idea turns out to be true (it's instructive the extent to which it was a fight uphill for germ theory to be accepted by the experts of the day [1]). There simply isn't a magic wand that sifts good ideas from bad, a priori; and if the power to make that decision is centralized, even with the best of intentions, whoever wields it will inevitably make mistakes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#John_Snow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#John_Sn...