3 ms·

A very rational set of questions, but it makes me depressed that the answers - in a problem space discussed since at least the 18th century - have not been taug

A very rational set of questions, but it makes me depressed that the answers - in a problem space discussed since at least the 18th century - have not been taught and discussed in philosophy and ethics classes and thus need to be repeated. The problem is always the same: NOT what value do we have in Alex Jones, conspiracy theories, liars, misinformation spreaders, etc. All the people that you and I already agree that there is a low value to misinformation that they spread. The question is truly: who decides what's true and false. Today you might agree with the current Fact Checker group. What if tomorrow Trump decides to be the fact checker. Rudy Giuliani tried to ban certain art in NYC when he was mayor, because it offended his religion (Catholicism). McCarthyites in the 50's sought to ban anything unpatriotic (from the State Department removing books from libraries to finger-pointing and 'calling out' people accused of communism, to the visa entry forms that may still exist that ask if you were a communist). We defend the megaphones of the stupid and the fake as an insurance policy. We're wary of giving too much power to those who can yank megaphones away and pick winners and losers, because history itself shows us that the alternatives threaten all of us more than fake information. >It is wrong to think of these platforms as neutral. They are not. They are always choosing what to show to the public based on selection criteria. Oh, but the devil is in the details, here. How they choose is the critical question that we should be talking about, debating and thinking through.

kiba 6y ago
All your examples involve government officials deciding to censor, with historically fewer media sources to comb through. This is different from social media with much wider input. We defend the megaphones of the stupid and the fake as an insurance policy. We're wary of giving too much power to those who can yank megaphones away and pick winners and losers, because history itself shows us that the alternatives threaten all of us more than fake information. Except people aren't entitled to megaphones of their own, nor their own newspapers or their own radio station, much less on a platform governed by an uncaring algorithm over literal million of people who might say something else. And misinformation really do real damage to people. You can't just pretend that conspiracy theorists don't exist and can't influence people to do real damage, regardless of who's in charge and who decides what is true or false and regardless of what damage censorship did or didn't do.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  I'm not pretending anything with regard to "real damage." Incitement of violence is real and indisputable and no one is defending that. However, "conspiracy theorists" (misinformation) and damage is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's damaging "information"? That is the question you're replying to, and you missed that piece - that is not a nuance, but the critical question we should consider when we call for removal of megaphones, censorship and so forth. You mentioned government v. private platforms, and reminded me that those examples I gave of government don't apply. But again I wanted to point out the examples of the "who" part, and the same argumentation they had "this _ is harmful" where _ is art, or books, or speech. Who bloody decides what is true and false, how do we choose them, and what credentials makes them the choosers? And what if today's choosers and tomorrow's choosers have completely different notions of True and False? You're defending censorship using an ancient argument of "harmful information" that has dangerous downstream effects is the point I am driving at.
  - kiba 6y ago
    No? We're talking about the speeches of private social media platforms, and the fact they choose to promote certain speeches over others. That is not in anyway, neutrality, and they cannot be neutral actors.

kiba 6y ago

All your examples involve government officials deciding to censor, with historically fewer media sources to comb through. This is different from social media with much wider input. We defend the megaphones of the stupid and the fake as an insurance policy. We're wary of giving too much power to those who can yank megaphones away and pick winners and losers, because history itself shows us that the alternatives threaten all of us more than fake information. Except people aren't entitled to megaphones of their own, nor their own newspapers or their own radio station, much less on a platform governed by an uncaring algorithm over literal million of people who might say something else. And misinformation really do real damage to people. You can't just pretend that conspiracy theorists don't exist and can't influence people to do real damage, regardless of who's in charge and who decides what is true or false and regardless of what damage censorship did or didn't do.

mancerayder 6y ago
I'm not pretending anything with regard to "real damage." Incitement of violence is real and indisputable and no one is defending that. However, "conspiracy theorists" (misinformation) and damage is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's damaging "information"? That is the question you're replying to, and you missed that piece - that is not a nuance, but the critical question we should consider when we call for removal of megaphones, censorship and so forth. You mentioned government v. private platforms, and reminded me that those examples I gave of government don't apply. But again I wanted to point out the examples of the "who" part, and the same argumentation they had "this _ is harmful" where _ is art, or books, or speech. Who bloody decides what is true and false, how do we choose them, and what credentials makes them the choosers? And what if today's choosers and tomorrow's choosers have completely different notions of True and False? You're defending censorship using an ancient argument of "harmful information" that has dangerous downstream effects is the point I am driving at.
- kiba 6y ago
  No? We're talking about the speeches of private social media platforms, and the fact they choose to promote certain speeches over others. That is not in anyway, neutrality, and they cannot be neutral actors.