7 ms·

Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? How

by mantap 6y ago

Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).

koolba 6y ago
> Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes. > How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. The track record of restricting information from people because you feel like you're smarter than they are is not great. It's also impractically subjective. > Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship). I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it?
- philipkglass 6y ago
  Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes. By this standard, Facebook must allow everything that you can find on Pornhub and Liveleak. Plus much of the material published in Al Qaeda's magazine Inspire. Telling people "crusaders should die" and "here's how to make a bomb from over the counter materials" aren't direct incitements to violence. Reddit could never have banned r/WatchPeopleDie or r/jailbait. (Although it could be hard to spot any actual jailbait in r/jailbait once torrents of MLM schemes and cryptocurrency scams flood every subreddit.) The First Amendment protects a lot. That's why back in 2014/2015 American legislators who were unhappy with Islamist terrorist propaganda circulating on social media called on social media companies to do something instead of passing a law. A law that says "it's illegal to publish photos of dead Americans or their allies with gloating commentary" wouldn't survive the First Amendment. But social platforms could and did deplatform groups cheering for ISIS, to bipartisan approval. You may sincerely believe that only direct incitements to violence should be suppressed on social media. I don't think that there is legislative support for that state of affairs, though. Not even among the conservative legislators who are currently the most critical of social media moderation decisions. If legislators managed to pass a law that said "social media platforms cannot suppress anything that is legal to publish under the First Amendment," I think that they would regret that choice a month after seeing the consequences.
- TheBigSalad 6y ago
  I feel like freedom of speech is about opinions and freedom to criticize. Not freedom to poison society with fake information passed off as real. Why would our founding fathers... Or anyone, want that?
- shureluck 6y ago
  Incredibly well put. I do truly wish that education taught debate these days. One of the things required in debate classes is to argue for the other sides position. I have found that most people I meet these days have never learned this ability to see things with the shoes on the other feet.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it? On your own website or forum, absolutely. It's your property. GP has no right to use it that you do not expressly grant.
himinlomax 6y ago
So which is it, fake news or private information? > Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. Well it's hard for the New York Times cough Judith Miller cough, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
cm2187 6y ago
Does that include CNN posting fake news stories about russian collusion and russian blackmailing for 3 years? The fact that the standard is meant to be applied only one side side means there is no standard.
bgorman 6y ago
Twitter isn't saying the information is false. Twitter is saying the information was "hacked". The truth matters more than how the truth was obtained. If you don't your dirty laundry aired, don't have dirty laundry.
- meragrin_ 6y ago
  If the laptop was abandoned as claimed, it wasn't even hacked. Twitter does not have a leg to stand on. They were just reacting without evidence to try to help Biden.
misiti3780 6y ago
That is absolutely true, but this specific story doesnt seem to be fake. I dont personally care if Hunter Biden used his dad's name to make money (that is par for the course these days), but Twitter and Facebook suppressed the story basically saying because they were not able to verify it, even though they have clearly allowed a lot of fake news to float around their platforms in the past.
belorn 6y ago
The idea that we must have an entity of superior wisdom to determine who aught to talk to the masses is timeless and a recurring theme that get reinvented once every a few decades. The reason why it always get repelled in the end is that while there is always benefits from eliminating the wrong information, the entity with superior wisdom to artfully determine what is wrong and what is right is fiction.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
The NY Post didn’t do that, did they?

by mantap 6y ago

koolba 6y ago

> Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes. > How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. The track record of restricting information from people because you feel like you're smarter than they are is not great. It's also impractically subjective. > Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship). I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it?

philipkglass 6y ago
Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes. By this standard, Facebook must allow everything that you can find on Pornhub and Liveleak. Plus much of the material published in Al Qaeda's magazine Inspire. Telling people "crusaders should die" and "here's how to make a bomb from over the counter materials" aren't direct incitements to violence. Reddit could never have banned r/WatchPeopleDie or r/jailbait. (Although it could be hard to spot any actual jailbait in r/jailbait once torrents of MLM schemes and cryptocurrency scams flood every subreddit.) The First Amendment protects a lot. That's why back in 2014/2015 American legislators who were unhappy with Islamist terrorist propaganda circulating on social media called on social media companies to do something instead of passing a law. A law that says "it's illegal to publish photos of dead Americans or their allies with gloating commentary" wouldn't survive the First Amendment. But social platforms could and did deplatform groups cheering for ISIS, to bipartisan approval. You may sincerely believe that only direct incitements to violence should be suppressed on social media. I don't think that there is legislative support for that state of affairs, though. Not even among the conservative legislators who are currently the most critical of social media moderation decisions. If legislators managed to pass a law that said "social media platforms cannot suppress anything that is legal to publish under the First Amendment," I think that they would regret that choice a month after seeing the consequences.
TheBigSalad 6y ago
I feel like freedom of speech is about opinions and freedom to criticize. Not freedom to poison society with fake information passed off as real. Why would our founding fathers... Or anyone, want that?
shureluck 6y ago
Incredibly well put. I do truly wish that education taught debate these days. One of the things required in debate classes is to argue for the other sides position. I have found that most people I meet these days have never learned this ability to see things with the shoes on the other feet.
triceratops 6y ago
> I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it? On your own website or forum, absolutely. It's your property. GP has no right to use it that you do not expressly grant.

himinlomax 6y ago

So which is it, fake news or private information? > Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. Well it's hard for the New York Times cough Judith Miller cough, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

cm2187 6y ago

Does that include CNN posting fake news stories about russian collusion and russian blackmailing for 3 years? The fact that the standard is meant to be applied only one side side means there is no standard.

bgorman 6y ago

Twitter isn't saying the information is false. Twitter is saying the information was "hacked". The truth matters more than how the truth was obtained. If you don't your dirty laundry aired, don't have dirty laundry.

meragrin_ 6y ago
If the laptop was abandoned as claimed, it wasn't even hacked. Twitter does not have a leg to stand on. They were just reacting without evidence to try to help Biden.

misiti3780 6y ago

That is absolutely true, but this specific story doesnt seem to be fake. I dont personally care if Hunter Biden used his dad's name to make money (that is par for the course these days), but Twitter and Facebook suppressed the story basically saying because they were not able to verify it, even though they have clearly allowed a lot of fake news to float around their platforms in the past.

belorn 6y ago

The idea that we must have an entity of superior wisdom to determine who aught to talk to the masses is timeless and a recurring theme that get reinvented once every a few decades. The reason why it always get repelled in the end is that while there is always benefits from eliminating the wrong information, the entity with superior wisdom to artfully determine what is wrong and what is right is fiction.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

The NY Post didn’t do that, did they?