3 ms·

> What we saw today was precipitated by mass deplatforming and censorship Nah, social media was the hub of misinformation and was abused and here we are. What

> What we saw today was precipitated by mass deplatforming and censorship Nah, social media was the hub of misinformation and was abused and here we are. What they eventually did was too little and too late. There was a lot of fake news on FB, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit etc. that radicalized all these folks. Platforms like YouTube amplified it because it resulted in more views. >When you take away the ability of people to participate in peaceful political discourse, you push them towards violence Nah, the violence is mostly because they believe the election was stolen, based on fake news spread originating from 4chan and then spread on social media and high level politicians. > You can't make people's beliefs go away by silencing them But you can restrict the spread. No one objects when phishing scams and fraud targeting the elderly and others are blocked by social media and email platforms, why is there an objection when bullshit qanon and 5g conspiracies are blocked? There was hardly any blocking on social media till about 2017, and things got way worse with these folks as the right wing and alt right abused the platforms. And now folks like you claim things will somehow get better if fake news is allowed to be spread unrestricted? I don't buy it one bit.

newguy1234 6y ago
The problem is blocking it almost legitimizes it because they say "big tech" is suppressing the information. It is the same effect you get when you try to ban a book. Everyone wants to read it to get the juicy details. The way you counter misinformation is by debunking it and showing it is fake.
- kuschku 6y ago
  That might have been the case in the past, but debunking something takes a lot more time than creating a fake claim. We live in a time where one side is spending all their time and energy to create as much fake content as fast as possible. Even if we had infinite time and energy to expose and debunk it all, the attention of the viewer is limited. As result, we'll never be able to convince people who've read this fake content that what they read is false. There's only two ways this can end: 1. We block this kind of fake, unverified content 2. We accept living in postfactual times where truth is up to the highest bidder and fake content decides elections.
  - lovemenot 6y ago
    3. We accept living in postfactual times where truth is up to the people for whom a grasp on the truth is for them an economic imperative. Mine's not a clear vision, but I imagine this will become a critical issue for a generation and more. Some future hipsters may come to see Donald Troll as a useful harbinger. The genie isnt going back in the bottle. Your 1. is not happening. Just consider who we would need to be, in a future world of effectivly infinite information channels. Your 2. Is unappealing but appears to be a false dichotomy. We don't know how best to proceed: interesting times. Let's remain open to various possibilities, especially if driven by ICT.
- intended 6y ago
  Nope. Experience with social media shows that this is Empirically untrue. There is also boat loads of research showing that just seeing false headlines results in people using that information to make decisions - even if they KNOW the headline was retracted. You can debunk whatever you like, but at that pace of information flow today, this is essentially pissing into the wind. By the time you have debunked one thing, many other topics have been generated and the conversation has moved on. Its far easier to create content, and far harder to verify content. Our brains have some easily hackable ways to verify content.
sneak 6y ago
> No one objects when phishing scams and fraud targeting the elderly and others are blocked by social media and email platforms, why is there an objection when bullshit qanon and 5g conspiracies are blocked? I do object to both. Breaking end to end communications on the internet is censorship. If you are set up to censor phishing, you are set up to censor dissent when the state puts a machine gun in the face of your sysadmin.
skocznymroczny 6y ago
Where do you draw the line? Should posts saying lockdowns don't work be blocked? How about posts saying masks don't work? Being against mandatory vaccination should be blocked or not?

newguy1234 6y ago

The problem is blocking it almost legitimizes it because they say "big tech" is suppressing the information. It is the same effect you get when you try to ban a book. Everyone wants to read it to get the juicy details. The way you counter misinformation is by debunking it and showing it is fake.

kuschku 6y ago
That might have been the case in the past, but debunking something takes a lot more time than creating a fake claim. We live in a time where one side is spending all their time and energy to create as much fake content as fast as possible. Even if we had infinite time and energy to expose and debunk it all, the attention of the viewer is limited. As result, we'll never be able to convince people who've read this fake content that what they read is false. There's only two ways this can end: 1. We block this kind of fake, unverified content 2. We accept living in postfactual times where truth is up to the highest bidder and fake content decides elections.
- lovemenot 6y ago
  3. We accept living in postfactual times where truth is up to the people for whom a grasp on the truth is for them an economic imperative. Mine's not a clear vision, but I imagine this will become a critical issue for a generation and more. Some future hipsters may come to see Donald Troll as a useful harbinger. The genie isnt going back in the bottle. Your 1. is not happening. Just consider who we would need to be, in a future world of effectivly infinite information channels. Your 2. Is unappealing but appears to be a false dichotomy. We don't know how best to proceed: interesting times. Let's remain open to various possibilities, especially if driven by ICT.
intended 6y ago
Nope. Experience with social media shows that this is Empirically untrue. There is also boat loads of research showing that just seeing false headlines results in people using that information to make decisions - even if they KNOW the headline was retracted. You can debunk whatever you like, but at that pace of information flow today, this is essentially pissing into the wind. By the time you have debunked one thing, many other topics have been generated and the conversation has moved on. Its far easier to create content, and far harder to verify content. Our brains have some easily hackable ways to verify content.

sneak 6y ago

> No one objects when phishing scams and fraud targeting the elderly and others are blocked by social media and email platforms, why is there an objection when bullshit qanon and 5g conspiracies are blocked? I do object to both. Breaking end to end communications on the internet is censorship. If you are set up to censor phishing, you are set up to censor dissent when the state puts a machine gun in the face of your sysadmin.

skocznymroczny 6y ago

Where do you draw the line? Should posts saying lockdowns don't work be blocked? How about posts saying masks don't work? Being against mandatory vaccination should be blocked or not?