5 ms·

I have been pretty vocal about being against censorship from social media companies. But with the stakes being as high as they are this close to an election (no

I have been pretty vocal about being against censorship from social media companies. But with the stakes being as high as they are this close to an election (not just this particular election, but any election in general), I see no problem with social media companies deciding they will not be a party to the spread of misinformation intended to sway the election. These companies are not neutral communication platforms; they have no duty to neutrality. Although I agree they should remain neutral as much as reasonable, drawing the line at election manipulation is perfectly reasonable and consistent.

holler 6y ago
With the stakes being as high as they are, wouldn’t we want to know if there’s a crumb of truth to the allegations? A President beholden to shady foreign actors doesn’t sound like a good idea. Likewise if it’s false then let that come out. The bigger problem is that journalists/newspapers are no longer the arbiters of truth, and instead the distributors are.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  >With the stakes being as high as they are, wouldn’t we want to know if there’s a crumb of truth to the allegations? Sure, but this will not be adjudicated on twitter. Letting the unverified and extremely suspicious story spread on twitter does nothing to bring us closer to the truth. On the contrary, the truth is harmed by the unchecked spread of misinformation because the truth doesn't have the same viral quality as lies.
  - holler 6y ago
    > Sure, but this will not be adjudicated on twitter. I agree with this, but I think Facebook & Twitter shot themselves in the foot by allowing rampant & salacious accusatory headlines to run across their platform unhindered during the past 4 years. There are numerous examples from alleged pee tapes to collusion, and general he said she said. That's the issue I see at least.
    - hackinthebochs 6y ago
      I agree with that. But the issue is how do you stop people from talking about an alleged pee tape compared to stopping the spread of a specific story from a handful of sources. These are two very different problems. So I have sympathy for the position they are in and the difficulty in being consistent with their policies given the vast range of ways manipulative information can be spread.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - holler 6y ago
        Super weird, was suddenly downvoted on both comments twice, but anyways > So I have sympathy for the position they are in and the difficulty in being consistent with their policies given the vast range of ways manipulative information can be spread. I think the true test will be how this is held up in the future. Of course we're in the middle of an insane political divide, but eventually we'll be past it, and next time there will be new candidates, and each time beyond that. So the litmus test will be whether the rules are fair and applied equally as time goes on.
- 8note 6y ago
  Is it meaningful whether the story is true or not? The existence of Trump's presidency says Americans don't care about corruption or whether the president is beholden to shady foreign actors. Maybe that's a good argument for the natural born citizen ship requirement to be removed from the presidency?
- donmcronald 6y ago
  If there was a crumb of truth you'd get to see the raw emails with DKIM signatures that a novice sysadmin could confirm in 15 minutes. At least that would prove they aren't a total fabrication that was typed up in Word.
TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
The entire purpose of a campaign is to manipulate the outcome of an election. A rally manipulates the outcome, as does a debate. As does a news article that raises question about one of the candidate's integrity.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  No. "Manipulate" in this context carries the connotation of unscrupulous control. The purpose of a campaign is to demonstrate to voters that you're the best person for the job. There is no need for "manipulation" to accomplish this. Manipulation is used to convince people to vote for you despite the truth.
  - 8note 6y ago
    That's also inaccurate. The purpose of a campaign is to ensure that more people vote for you than anyone else. Convincing people you're the best person for the job is only one approach. Another approach is to convince people that don't like you to not vote, or to split their vote across multiple candidates. If agree that the manipulation happens outside of the campaign. Once you've won, you can choose who gets to vote in the next election, whether they are allowed to vote at all, or if their vote counts in your next campaign vs somebody elses' Eg. Gerrymandering, allowing/disallowing felons votes (and moving more people in/out of felon status), adding/removing rules on how voting is done etc

holler 6y ago

With the stakes being as high as they are, wouldn’t we want to know if there’s a crumb of truth to the allegations? A President beholden to shady foreign actors doesn’t sound like a good idea. Likewise if it’s false then let that come out. The bigger problem is that journalists/newspapers are no longer the arbiters of truth, and instead the distributors are.

hackinthebochs 6y ago
>With the stakes being as high as they are, wouldn’t we want to know if there’s a crumb of truth to the allegations? Sure, but this will not be adjudicated on twitter. Letting the unverified and extremely suspicious story spread on twitter does nothing to bring us closer to the truth. On the contrary, the truth is harmed by the unchecked spread of misinformation because the truth doesn't have the same viral quality as lies.
- holler 6y ago
  > Sure, but this will not be adjudicated on twitter. I agree with this, but I think Facebook & Twitter shot themselves in the foot by allowing rampant & salacious accusatory headlines to run across their platform unhindered during the past 4 years. There are numerous examples from alleged pee tapes to collusion, and general he said she said. That's the issue I see at least.
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    I agree with that. But the issue is how do you stop people from talking about an alleged pee tape compared to stopping the spread of a specific story from a handful of sources. These are two very different problems. So I have sympathy for the position they are in and the difficulty in being consistent with their policies given the vast range of ways manipulative information can be spread.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - holler 6y ago
      Super weird, was suddenly downvoted on both comments twice, but anyways > So I have sympathy for the position they are in and the difficulty in being consistent with their policies given the vast range of ways manipulative information can be spread. I think the true test will be how this is held up in the future. Of course we're in the middle of an insane political divide, but eventually we'll be past it, and next time there will be new candidates, and each time beyond that. So the litmus test will be whether the rules are fair and applied equally as time goes on.
8note 6y ago
Is it meaningful whether the story is true or not? The existence of Trump's presidency says Americans don't care about corruption or whether the president is beholden to shady foreign actors. Maybe that's a good argument for the natural born citizen ship requirement to be removed from the presidency?
donmcronald 6y ago
If there was a crumb of truth you'd get to see the raw emails with DKIM signatures that a novice sysadmin could confirm in 15 minutes. At least that would prove they aren't a total fabrication that was typed up in Word.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

The entire purpose of a campaign is to manipulate the outcome of an election. A rally manipulates the outcome, as does a debate. As does a news article that raises question about one of the candidate's integrity.

hackinthebochs 6y ago
No. "Manipulate" in this context carries the connotation of unscrupulous control. The purpose of a campaign is to demonstrate to voters that you're the best person for the job. There is no need for "manipulation" to accomplish this. Manipulation is used to convince people to vote for you despite the truth.
- 8note 6y ago
  That's also inaccurate. The purpose of a campaign is to ensure that more people vote for you than anyone else. Convincing people you're the best person for the job is only one approach. Another approach is to convince people that don't like you to not vote, or to split their vote across multiple candidates. If agree that the manipulation happens outside of the campaign. Once you've won, you can choose who gets to vote in the next election, whether they are allowed to vote at all, or if their vote counts in your next campaign vs somebody elses' Eg. Gerrymandering, allowing/disallowing felons votes (and moving more people in/out of felon status), adding/removing rules on how voting is done etc