3 ms·

This article is about Facebook trying not to be a censor, and consequently getting slammed for not acting strongly enough against "Fake News". Changing to lower

This article is about Facebook trying not to be a censor, and consequently getting slammed for not acting strongly enough against "Fake News". Changing to lower or higher levels of censorship will just result in different amounts of yelling from one side or the other. The middle of the road is a no-mans-land where you get shelled by both sides of the political spectrum.

thehappypm 6y ago
The “middle of the road” is actually impossible — there’s no Goldilocks level of censorship. Once your policy becomes less permissive than the legal minimum you are inciting a whole world of criticism.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  I mean, that's basically another way of stating the same point I'm making, except that I think "legal minimum" is also non-viable for similar reasons (unless you're 4chan apparently). I can't see any safe ground, any way that for-profit social media can scale sustainably.
qtplatypus 6y ago
I would argue that it is censoring. By being more lenient to right wing sources compared to other sources who carry out the same infraction you create a bias and are censoring in favour of those right wing sources.
bleepblorp 6y ago
Social media neutrality isn't a 'both political sides bad' problem but rather an issue that ties into differences in strategies between conservative and non-conservative political blocs. Conservatives, not just in the United States but globally, pour vast resources into using social media platforms to propagate ideas that are objectively false and to embed those ideas into the minds of vulnerable people. There is no equivalent effort by non-conservatives in any English-speaking country. Non-conservatives see ample ammunition in the actual behavior of their opponents and see no need to use falsehoods to help their cause. Compare: Trump claiming that Biden will destroy the suburbs by letting non-whites liven in them vs anti-Trump forces using actual pictures of actual children in actual cages. Also compare: the lies used to manufacture support for Brexit vs. the actual truths about what would happen. Rampant dishonesty is seen by many, particularly non-conservatives, as social cheating and social media platforms that enable it are condemned by non-conservatives for pro-conservative bias. On the other hand, social media networks that do not tolerate political lies will, purely because most political lying is done by conservatives, more heavily restrict pro-conservative ideas and be condemned by conservatives for anti-conservative bias. There's no way to square the circle of responding to habitual conservative dishonesty without favoring either conservatives or non-conservatives any more than there's a way to be neutral in the face of a wildfire: you either put it out or you don't.
- intended 6y ago
  Agreed! Well said If you moderate by common decency values, massive chunks of conservative voices would be off Reddit, FB, Twitter - and then they will evolve to dodge the new filters, or cause filters to create collateral damage. Deplatforming these voices also plays into their strategy of calling themselves victims. Since most people don’t know the ins and outs of frequency of rule breaking, and the disproportionate amount of false information in conservative circles, people assume (wrongly) that it can’t be “that bad.” I wish someone had a cost benefit analysis on what is the most effective way to resolve this, but right now social media firms are forced to treat outright conspiracy theories at the same level as science and research. Perhaps it’s a civilization level issue - we have the technology and structures to create platforms - servers, networks, computer science theories. We don’t have a solution or science for handling the structures that come on top of it, like what is the societal cost of keeping crazy theories on a network, vs the cost or methods required to stamp it out, and the philosophical arguments that support or prohibit such action.
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    It's an civilization-level issue that social media (particularly Facebook) has amplified but did not create. It is a serious civilizational health issue that conservative political blocs in many countries have adopted electoral strategies based on spreading information that is objectively false. If social media platforms did not enable this, conservatives would simply find different avenues to lie. Expecting for-profit social media platforms to combat the rise of rampant dishonesty as a political strategy in nominally democratic countries isn't ideal, but it's the only tool we have to mitigate the damage.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      I think that the 3 posts above are quite biased. I do not doubt that the conservatives are doing a lot of lying but this is true for the other side of the camp as well. Take Snopes for example, or people systematically mis-quoting certain historical figures (such as churchill) or even modern figures (such as stallman or damore), or the propaganda against wikileaks and snowden, or the anti-science sentiment that goes regarding research results that they do not like, etc. > If you moderate by common decency values, massive chunks of conservative voices would be off Reddit, FB, Twitter So would the far left. People do not particularly enjoy being baselessly accused, cancelled, and have people call for violence on them. (not to mention that in the past certain things which we consider as decent such as homosexuality would be considered indecent) > but right now social media firms are forced to treat outright conspiracy theories at the same level as science and research. They really are not. More like they are being pushed to censor posts based on what a 3rd party deems are wrongthink or incorrect.

thehappypm 6y ago

The “middle of the road” is actually impossible — there’s no Goldilocks level of censorship. Once your policy becomes less permissive than the legal minimum you are inciting a whole world of criticism.

andrewflnr 6y ago
I mean, that's basically another way of stating the same point I'm making, except that I think "legal minimum" is also non-viable for similar reasons (unless you're 4chan apparently). I can't see any safe ground, any way that for-profit social media can scale sustainably.

qtplatypus 6y ago

I would argue that it is censoring. By being more lenient to right wing sources compared to other sources who carry out the same infraction you create a bias and are censoring in favour of those right wing sources.

bleepblorp 6y ago

Social media neutrality isn't a 'both political sides bad' problem but rather an issue that ties into differences in strategies between conservative and non-conservative political blocs. Conservatives, not just in the United States but globally, pour vast resources into using social media platforms to propagate ideas that are objectively false and to embed those ideas into the minds of vulnerable people. There is no equivalent effort by non-conservatives in any English-speaking country. Non-conservatives see ample ammunition in the actual behavior of their opponents and see no need to use falsehoods to help their cause. Compare: Trump claiming that Biden will destroy the suburbs by letting non-whites liven in them vs anti-Trump forces using actual pictures of actual children in actual cages. Also compare: the lies used to manufacture support for Brexit vs. the actual truths about what would happen. Rampant dishonesty is seen by many, particularly non-conservatives, as social cheating and social media platforms that enable it are condemned by non-conservatives for pro-conservative bias. On the other hand, social media networks that do not tolerate political lies will, purely because most political lying is done by conservatives, more heavily restrict pro-conservative ideas and be condemned by conservatives for anti-conservative bias. There's no way to square the circle of responding to habitual conservative dishonesty without favoring either conservatives or non-conservatives any more than there's a way to be neutral in the face of a wildfire: you either put it out or you don't.

intended 6y ago
Agreed! Well said If you moderate by common decency values, massive chunks of conservative voices would be off Reddit, FB, Twitter - and then they will evolve to dodge the new filters, or cause filters to create collateral damage. Deplatforming these voices also plays into their strategy of calling themselves victims. Since most people don’t know the ins and outs of frequency of rule breaking, and the disproportionate amount of false information in conservative circles, people assume (wrongly) that it can’t be “that bad.” I wish someone had a cost benefit analysis on what is the most effective way to resolve this, but right now social media firms are forced to treat outright conspiracy theories at the same level as science and research. Perhaps it’s a civilization level issue - we have the technology and structures to create platforms - servers, networks, computer science theories. We don’t have a solution or science for handling the structures that come on top of it, like what is the societal cost of keeping crazy theories on a network, vs the cost or methods required to stamp it out, and the philosophical arguments that support or prohibit such action.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  It's an civilization-level issue that social media (particularly Facebook) has amplified but did not create. It is a serious civilizational health issue that conservative political blocs in many countries have adopted electoral strategies based on spreading information that is objectively false. If social media platforms did not enable this, conservatives would simply find different avenues to lie. Expecting for-profit social media platforms to combat the rise of rampant dishonesty as a political strategy in nominally democratic countries isn't ideal, but it's the only tool we have to mitigate the damage.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    I think that the 3 posts above are quite biased. I do not doubt that the conservatives are doing a lot of lying but this is true for the other side of the camp as well. Take Snopes for example, or people systematically mis-quoting certain historical figures (such as churchill) or even modern figures (such as stallman or damore), or the propaganda against wikileaks and snowden, or the anti-science sentiment that goes regarding research results that they do not like, etc. > If you moderate by common decency values, massive chunks of conservative voices would be off Reddit, FB, Twitter So would the far left. People do not particularly enjoy being baselessly accused, cancelled, and have people call for violence on them. (not to mention that in the past certain things which we consider as decent such as homosexuality would be considered indecent) > but right now social media firms are forced to treat outright conspiracy theories at the same level as science and research. They really are not. More like they are being pushed to censor posts based on what a 3rd party deems are wrongthink or incorrect.