10 ms·

What's tricky about it? Regarding the former situation, the president is one person with clear, self-serving motives. His actions are constantly examined unde

What's tricky about it? Regarding the former situation, the president is one person with clear, self-serving motives. His actions are constantly examined under the critical eyes of the media and his political opposition. The public itself can also use social media to provide additional scrutiny (with varying degrees of quality and professionalism). The public has to search through garbage to find the truth. It's all easy to access, but there's a lot to go through. In the prior situation, businesses are trying to denying the public access to provide scrutiny based solely on the content of the message, regardless of quality. Those same businesses also happen to facilitate content discovery for the overwhelming majority of internet users. There are still political opponents and a few media organizations which might broadcast the message, but it will unquestioningly reach a much smaller audience. The public still has to search through garbage to find the truth. Now, though, some of it is much harder to access. Neither is good, but the prior situation sounds much worse to me.

elif 6y ago
It is not "one person" it is 75% of one half of the population.
- uoaei 6y ago
  Basically none of those people have any standing because they are nowhere near the actual operations of the election process. Please don't pretend that their voices carry equal weight to those who have authority on the matter.
  - croon 6y ago
    I don't think they're purporting that, but merely stating that's how many believe it. It's a significant problem, especially when it's meritless.
  - elif 6y ago
    The two-party political dynamic depends upon hegemonizing more than 50% of the electorate by providing the least offensive political narrative and ideological pretext. T's effectiveness has been through manipulating that ideological pretext beyond campaign politics and beyond the requirement of even narrative cohesion with reality. He wields his populism to coerce even the interests of power themselves, with little regard for the overall homeostasis of Republican party's ideological pretext[0]. If he continues his ideological schism off-the-rails from an oval room at Mar-A-Lago, he has the precisely the same leverage in 2022 elections which he is wielding today. [0] see Loeffler's catch-22
3000000001 6y ago
The president might be one person, but he’s the most powerful person on earth, with the ability to control markets, launch nukes, call millions of followers to arms or order a coup (unlikely to succeed on that one). I find likening fact-checking Trump to censoring a private citizen a disingenuous comparison that plays down the power of the office he holds. If he goes off the deep end doing any of those things, there won’t be much the media or the house can do to stop it, so I think some preemptive action is warranted. Whether YouTube have got it right here is another question.
panda-giddiness 6y ago
> What's tricky about it? ... The public has to search through garbage to find the truth. "The public" is not some perfectly rational collection of human beings. Rather, it's droves of people susceptible to propaganda and misinformation campaigns. Let's be clear: there was no widespread election fraud, certainly not by large enough margins to overturn the election. Videos that purport otherwise are not improving public discourse; in fact, they're causing it to disintegrate. I agree that Youtube should not have carte blanche to remove content that it finds objectionable per its own capricious standards. But that doesn't mean it should have no discretion at all. Truth seeking must be grounded in reality; these spurious claims of fraud are not.
- wpasc 6y ago
  I agree that humans and "the public" are not perfectly rational people. BUT, I don't know that any system that does not treat them as such is any better. Then systems put in place by people who think they DO know better are never sustainable and are corruptible by all influences that corrupt any form of power
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    > BUT, I don't know that any system that does not treat them as such is any better. In all of the civilized world, people are assumed to not be knowledgable about a myriad of problem domains such that only licensed professional can exercises certain classes of judgement. You are not considered to be rational enough to determine what kind of chemotherapy you get, just to name an example of all sorts of prescription medicines. You are not assumed knowledgeable about architecting a building, a car, investing, or all licensed occupations where it turns out that bad opinions can kill people by the millions. So no, effectively we assume by default that people are mostly dumb and dangerous and we raise high bars of qualification for anything in society where there is a potential for huge damage from bad decisions.
    - jtdev 6y ago
      ...but your examples are completely unrelated to the conversation we're having here. Censoring content to millions of people is in no way similar to requiring a dentist to be properly trained and licensed.
mcguire 6y ago
If you falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you will be held responsible for the resulting consequences, even though the other theater patrons could verify your claim independently.
- CivBase 6y ago
  So the solution is to make it so that nobody can yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Hopefully there's never a fire.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    They're trying very hard to create that fire using the stuffing in the seats as we speak. So far it hasn't worked because some people still have their heads screwed on. But it's not for lack of trying. About 10 people stand between a full blown attempt at dictatorship and a functioning democracy.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    Are you arguing with bad faith, or do you think that's what parent commenter meant?
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      Are you arguing in bad faith, or do you actually think making it impossible for people to effectually accuse the winners of a election of election fraud is a good idea?
      - chillwaves 6y ago
        No, but they should have some evidence, especially being the sitting president, don't you think? This is a coup attempt.. and they have nothing to justify it. So are YOU arguing in bad faith to ignore this very obvious problem? No one is saying accusations with evidence and merit cannot be made. They are saying that after losing over 50 lawsuits and having substantiated exactly zero claims, then we are losing patience with offering good faith.
systemvoltage 6y ago
Your whole comment would have fallen apart if the election was overturned by a smart, capable president with authoritarian undertones. Imagine if President X had military on their side, supressed courts, had many militias supporting them and spreading misinformation day in and day out. And getting 100 million votes and had a trifecta (House, Executive Office, Senate) + Supreme Court. Can you imagine?
- CivBase 6y ago
  Yeah, good thing the noble gentlemen in charge of our social media are committed and powerful enough to save us from that dark future. That makes me feel so much safer.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I hear you. What do you suggest otherwise? The society will crumble with volume of misinformation and lies cranked to 11. Truth would drown, by a long shot because even if data is presented, people are brainwashed to ignore it because it doesn't fit their narrative. Can you talk about the alternative? I hear you but I feel like there is no choice. We're in a shitty situation and it is natural to feel fear and have a knee-jerk reaction at any solution (not just the one Google proposed).
    - CivBase 6y ago
      I'm not convinced the misinformation thing is as big of a factor as many people believe. I think it's just a symptom of the real problem: echo chambers. Every contentious issue in US politics gets divided into two major camps, each championed by one of the major political parties. Those parties use their resources to plant the seeds of powerful echo chambers, which eventually become self-perpetuating thanks to our natural tendencies for group preferences and confirmation bias. The misinformation crisis is just a result of an echo chamber throwing crap at the wall to avoid questioning itself. The problem of echo chambers is a hard one to solve, especially when it comes to politics. However, I think an improved voting system would actually do a lot to help in the long term. By introducing a transferable vote, citizens could vote for third-party candidates without fear of "wasting" their vote. Over time, that should hopefully empower more moderate political groups and make the middle ground between echo chambers more accessible. A more accessible middle ground should result in fewer echo chambers. Fewer echo chambers should result in less incentive to create and circulate misinformation. At least, that's my two cents.
djsumdog 6y ago
>The public still has to search through garbage to find the truth. Now, though, some of it is much harder to access. You've already made an assumption of what is garbage and what isn't. You ever wonder if you could be wrong?
- CivBase 6y ago
  I did?

elif 6y ago

It is not "one person" it is 75% of one half of the population.

uoaei 6y ago
Basically none of those people have any standing because they are nowhere near the actual operations of the election process. Please don't pretend that their voices carry equal weight to those who have authority on the matter.
- croon 6y ago
  I don't think they're purporting that, but merely stating that's how many believe it. It's a significant problem, especially when it's meritless.
- elif 6y ago
  The two-party political dynamic depends upon hegemonizing more than 50% of the electorate by providing the least offensive political narrative and ideological pretext. T's effectiveness has been through manipulating that ideological pretext beyond campaign politics and beyond the requirement of even narrative cohesion with reality. He wields his populism to coerce even the interests of power themselves, with little regard for the overall homeostasis of Republican party's ideological pretext[0]. If he continues his ideological schism off-the-rails from an oval room at Mar-A-Lago, he has the precisely the same leverage in 2022 elections which he is wielding today. [0] see Loeffler's catch-22

3000000001 6y ago

The president might be one person, but he’s the most powerful person on earth, with the ability to control markets, launch nukes, call millions of followers to arms or order a coup (unlikely to succeed on that one). I find likening fact-checking Trump to censoring a private citizen a disingenuous comparison that plays down the power of the office he holds. If he goes off the deep end doing any of those things, there won’t be much the media or the house can do to stop it, so I think some preemptive action is warranted. Whether YouTube have got it right here is another question.

panda-giddiness 6y ago

> What's tricky about it? ... The public has to search through garbage to find the truth. "The public" is not some perfectly rational collection of human beings. Rather, it's droves of people susceptible to propaganda and misinformation campaigns. Let's be clear: there was no widespread election fraud, certainly not by large enough margins to overturn the election. Videos that purport otherwise are not improving public discourse; in fact, they're causing it to disintegrate. I agree that Youtube should not have carte blanche to remove content that it finds objectionable per its own capricious standards. But that doesn't mean it should have no discretion at all. Truth seeking must be grounded in reality; these spurious claims of fraud are not.

wpasc 6y ago
I agree that humans and "the public" are not perfectly rational people. BUT, I don't know that any system that does not treat them as such is any better. Then systems put in place by people who think they DO know better are never sustainable and are corruptible by all influences that corrupt any form of power
- Daishiman 6y ago
  > BUT, I don't know that any system that does not treat them as such is any better. In all of the civilized world, people are assumed to not be knowledgable about a myriad of problem domains such that only licensed professional can exercises certain classes of judgement. You are not considered to be rational enough to determine what kind of chemotherapy you get, just to name an example of all sorts of prescription medicines. You are not assumed knowledgeable about architecting a building, a car, investing, or all licensed occupations where it turns out that bad opinions can kill people by the millions. So no, effectively we assume by default that people are mostly dumb and dangerous and we raise high bars of qualification for anything in society where there is a potential for huge damage from bad decisions.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    ...but your examples are completely unrelated to the conversation we're having here. Censoring content to millions of people is in no way similar to requiring a dentist to be properly trained and licensed.

mcguire 6y ago

If you falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you will be held responsible for the resulting consequences, even though the other theater patrons could verify your claim independently.

CivBase 6y ago
So the solution is to make it so that nobody can yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Hopefully there's never a fire.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  They're trying very hard to create that fire using the stuffing in the seats as we speak. So far it hasn't worked because some people still have their heads screwed on. But it's not for lack of trying. About 10 people stand between a full blown attempt at dictatorship and a functioning democracy.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  Are you arguing with bad faith, or do you think that's what parent commenter meant?
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    Are you arguing in bad faith, or do you actually think making it impossible for people to effectually accuse the winners of a election of election fraud is a good idea?
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      No, but they should have some evidence, especially being the sitting president, don't you think? This is a coup attempt.. and they have nothing to justify it. So are YOU arguing in bad faith to ignore this very obvious problem? No one is saying accusations with evidence and merit cannot be made. They are saying that after losing over 50 lawsuits and having substantiated exactly zero claims, then we are losing patience with offering good faith.

systemvoltage 6y ago

Your whole comment would have fallen apart if the election was overturned by a smart, capable president with authoritarian undertones. Imagine if President X had military on their side, supressed courts, had many militias supporting them and spreading misinformation day in and day out. And getting 100 million votes and had a trifecta (House, Executive Office, Senate) + Supreme Court. Can you imagine?

CivBase 6y ago
Yeah, good thing the noble gentlemen in charge of our social media are committed and powerful enough to save us from that dark future. That makes me feel so much safer.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I hear you. What do you suggest otherwise? The society will crumble with volume of misinformation and lies cranked to 11. Truth would drown, by a long shot because even if data is presented, people are brainwashed to ignore it because it doesn't fit their narrative. Can you talk about the alternative? I hear you but I feel like there is no choice. We're in a shitty situation and it is natural to feel fear and have a knee-jerk reaction at any solution (not just the one Google proposed).
  - CivBase 6y ago
    I'm not convinced the misinformation thing is as big of a factor as many people believe. I think it's just a symptom of the real problem: echo chambers. Every contentious issue in US politics gets divided into two major camps, each championed by one of the major political parties. Those parties use their resources to plant the seeds of powerful echo chambers, which eventually become self-perpetuating thanks to our natural tendencies for group preferences and confirmation bias. The misinformation crisis is just a result of an echo chamber throwing crap at the wall to avoid questioning itself. The problem of echo chambers is a hard one to solve, especially when it comes to politics. However, I think an improved voting system would actually do a lot to help in the long term. By introducing a transferable vote, citizens could vote for third-party candidates without fear of "wasting" their vote. Over time, that should hopefully empower more moderate political groups and make the middle ground between echo chambers more accessible. A more accessible middle ground should result in fewer echo chambers. Fewer echo chambers should result in less incentive to create and circulate misinformation. At least, that's my two cents.

djsumdog 6y ago

>The public still has to search through garbage to find the truth. Now, though, some of it is much harder to access. You've already made an assumption of what is garbage and what isn't. You ever wonder if you could be wrong?

CivBase 6y ago
I did?