3 ms·
That argument puts all platforms in an impossible bind. 1) all platforms are acting against misinformation- singularly around the US elections mind you - 2) m
by intended 6y ago
That argument puts all platforms in an impossible bind.
1) all platforms are acting against misinformation- singularly around the US elections mind you -
2) misinformation will be political, since it will impact one party or the other.
3) making a decision to remove it will therefore be a political decision
So to avoid being labeled political, platforms should not remove misinformation?
Not sure how that computes.
Leaving misinformation up for people to beat with better info, empirically doesn’t work. Social media has proven that at least, COVID and mask wearing is notable but only the most recent illustrative example.
So what should platforms do? Or maybe someone can outline a way to depoliticize such decisions?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- arkh 6y ago> So to avoid being labeled political, platforms should not remove misinformation? Well yes. If you want to edit what your user post, you're not a platform anymore but an editor.
- colejohnson66 6y agoThat’s a very slippery slope. Scams and spam are a thing
- RonanTheGrey 6y agoAs with everything, intent matters, but in spirit I agree with you. As much as I despise what Twitter did, I've been thinking about it for a couple of days and feel that the best option is a large number of strong Twitter competitors, rather than specific regulation. The slippery slope going the other way (silencing platforms) is just as bad as the one we're on. Throw the baby out with the bathwater. Problem is you run into a physical limit at that point, there's only so many social media platforms we can be on, so creating such competition would be... hard... at this point.