5 ms·

we do need a model that's a cross between the U.S. and Chinese model of Internet censorship or other innovation to control the spread of viral false knowledge.

• bmitc 6y ago
  No one made an attack, so please frame the language differently. I am saying we need to consider what we allow to run rampant. I am asking and thinking about the need to understand these problems and address them appropriately. In fact, I provided no solution other than a vague suggestion. We need to think about it though. That's why "other innovations" was put in there. I didn't advocate for anything specific, so the fact that you call this an attack is just a representative example of the exact problems I am talking about. I am not saying these problems are easy. But should you really be allowed to both intentionally and unintentionally spread blatant misinformation, potentially causing both direct and indirect harm to many hundreds, thousands, if not millions of people all under the guise of free speech? I am not sure that trade off is a good one or even one protected by free speech. Maybe platforms introduce spread control, greatly reducing the viral effect. Such a feature, by itself, would not be limiting any speech, but it is a form of modern censorship in a way by preventing its spread across the platform or network. Our rights say nothing about guaranteeing that everything you say is required to propagate unchecked throughout networks and platforms. Furthermore, these companies are not government entities.
  • Nasrudith 6y ago
    The framing itself is an attack. That you keep on insisting that imposing censorship is a solution or that rights need to be "worked around" is pretty goddamn authoritarian.
    • bmitc 6y ago
      I am suggesting we think about these problems. It isn't "working around rights" to question the anything goes situation we have right now with social media and even our official government media and traditional media companies. Furthermore, our rights guarantee us against government censorship, and I am not suggesting that. It isn't a workaround or an attack to say those rights don't apply everywhere. And I am not insisting on anything. We need to think about it. Humans are easily emotionally manipulated, and our technology is a powerful medium in which to perform that manipulation. It is a very real threat to many systems. It is a fact that the 2016 election was manipulated via social media propaganda through the direct and indirect influence of the wealthy and various companies (Robert Mercer, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, etc.). It is a suspicion that foreign actors also played a part in this. Are you suggesting we just throw up our hands and allow these things to take place? These are explicitly attacks on the very system that you say I am supposedly attacking. We need to address these things as we are clearly vulnerable to them.
      • p1esk 6y ago
        These are explicitly attacks on the very system that you say I am supposedly attacking No. Spreading lies is very different from censoring lies. I should be allowed to say that Earth is flat, or our president is an idiot. You or the president should not be allowed to prohibit me from saying those things.
        • bmitc 6y ago
          They were and are attacks on the democratic voting process. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that you can say whatever you want without repercussions and it does not grant or guarantee you unrestricted propagation of what you write or say or record through non-governmental networks and platforms. We simply need to understand that the Internet, social media, networks, data, etc. have changed things and will continue to do so. We need to understand them and adapt our society to be able to face the new threats they provide and enable. And we need to stop having knee jerk reactions to everything.
          • p1esk 6y ago
            I share your concerns, and I agree that spread of misinformation in the modern society is a problem. However, I don't see how we could censor it without damaging the right to free speech.
  • p1esk 6y ago
    If you see misinformation being spread, spread the correction.
    • bmitc 6y ago
      It's naïve to think that works.
      • p1esk 6y ago
        It's very dangerous to think the way you do, and I'm glad I live in a country where freedom of speech is a fundamental right.
        • krapp 6y ago
          Come now. "Very dangerous to think the way you do?" That's tantamount to wrongthink, and not very pro free-speech of you.
          • p1esk 6y ago
            Yes, I believe it is dangerous to think the way he does. If you believe it's dangerous to think the way I do, fine. Feel free to label it any way you want, wrongthink or whatever. As long as we all are allowed to express our opinions publicly, we will be fine.
            • krapp 6y ago
              >As long as we all are allowed to express our opinions publicly, we will be fine. But then, what's the danger in their way of thinking? Surely you don't believe that a particular idea or form of speech can be inherently harmful? You would be running up against the paradox of tolerance then, which seems to be sympathetic to bmitc's argument.
              • p1esk 6y ago
                I believe the way of thinking that Hitler or Lenin pursued was dangerous. However, I don't believe their views should had been censored at the time, or should be censored now. There are things within their views that should not be tolerated though, such as a direct call to kill someone. Or something like saying "bomb" on the airplane. Certain things in certain circumstances override our right to free speech. Spreading lies is not one them, in my opinion.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]