4 ms·
Regulation of online media is all but inevitable. Historically all media sources were directly compared by individuals and groups. You used to get the paper f
by lumost 6y ago
Regulation of online media is all but inevitable.
Historically all media sources were directly compared by individuals and groups. You used to get the paper from a news stand/paper boy and could glance at all the headlines in comparison to each other, your colleagues knew what the tabloids were running and what the different takes on the headlines were. In the radio and TV age, a small number of commentators were directly compared by channel surfers on the nightly news.
We're now in an unfortunate scenario where individuals only see algorithmically curated bubbles of news and facts that reinforce their world views regardless of those facts correspondence to reality. They've elected politicians that parrot those facts and world views back to them.
Breaking down these bubbles or removing the peddlers of alternate facts is required for a functional society (as well as a healthy platform). Neither of these actions is likely to be well received by all parties.
History does not look kindly on governments that denied reality.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI don't have a compelling argument for why you're wrong, but it really seems like this is a weightier claim than you're giving it credit for. If social harmony is a sufficient reason for censorship, is there any basis left for objecting to the Great Firewall?
- lumost 6y agoI don't believe social harmony is a sufficient reason for censorship or that censorship is the correct approach. There are many potential remedies including. - Mandatory content identifiers tags on content/claims for unfactual or unverified reporting reaching more than X people. - Identifying frequent reporters of misinformation and identifying them as such when presenting/resharing information. - Reducing the spread of misinformation in algorithmic sources such as newsfeeds/search rankings. None of these approaches removes or censors the content, but they do identify it and help place it in the appropriate context. In the 90s I had to go looking for claims that the president had dinner with aliens every Tuesday, today such news articles are pushed via feeds.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThat makes a lot of sense to me.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>History does not look kindly on governments that denied reality. History also doesn't look kindly on governments that deprive (directly or via an intermediary party) people of free speech. Walking the line between the two is like trying to fit a telephone pole through a keyhole.