3 ms·

AI has not made it feasible to censor at scale, that is not correct. And as the article makes clear, the idea that Facebook is not responsible for the content

AI has not made it feasible to censor at scale, that is not correct. And as the article makes clear, the idea that Facebook is not responsible for the content its users create has nothing to do with the problem of misinformation. To solve one would not even touch the other. The suggestions I replied to seem focused on holding Twitter and Facebook accountable for what is displayed on their own website, regardless of provenance. It's not clear to me how that would enable anyone to safely create content that Facebook doesn't believe should be published on its platform. Without the separation of the creator of the content and the organization displaying that content, Facebook would grow more strict, not less. Fundamentally, you're trying to involve the government in deciding what "truth" is. That seems much worse than misinformation, yes?

luckylion 6y ago
> Fundamentally, you're trying to involve the government in deciding what "truth" is. That seems much worse than misinformation, yes? We already have the courts involved in deciding what "truth" is. Has worked out pretty well in general, and certainly better than having private companies do it.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Not to this extent, we do not. This would be a whole additional level, multiple levels even, more subjective. Honestly, it feels like a moot point anyway. The 1st Amendment makes all of this pointless to discuss. It will never happen, short of a literal collapse of the US Government and a reformation under a new Constitution that doesn't include the 1st Amendment. The government will never be involved in deciding what people can and can't say to the extent that this would require. It's antithetical to our current legal system (not to mention our cultural mores). Of course Twitter gets to decide what to publish on Twitter. There's literally no other way to operate, regardless of Section 230.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Misinformation is a flood by a million raindrops, and as courts are severely overtaxed, I shudder in asking for a magnitude more volume in a bunch of low severity cases. People will debate more or less police funding, but massively more judicial funding is on nobody’s radar. What the modern age calls for is the ability to easily enjoin a class of defendants and sue them all for $5, with adjudication taking 1 minute. Now your mom just lost $5 because she retweeted a MLM health scare scam 2 minutes ago.
  - Volundr 6y ago
    I don't think this is a good solution at all. If mom believed the scam at the time she retweeted it there's absolutely no crime there. Being wrong or deceived is not a crime. Frankly your proposing punishing the victim. Any actual solution would have to target the creators of the disinformation, and maybe those who knowingly spread it. Even that is hard in a freedom of speech context though. Even lies are free speech.
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      Saying false things which hurts other people is tortious, not criminal. That's why we don't need to talk about mens rea, or whether or not metaphoral mom meant to be false or hurtful. When we're talking about Section 230, we're talking about torts, and when we're talking lawsuits, we're also talking torts.
      - Volundr 6y ago
        Sure, I take your point that I'm thinking about it the wrong way legally. But I still maintain the idea is bass-ackwards morally and legally problematic. If mum believes the false Facebook meme she's a victim. Yes passing it on passes on the harm, but honestly I also think that doing detailed research into every meme before passing it on is an unrealistic expectation. Almost a decade ago I passed on the meme about Mr. Rogers being a sniper with x number of confirmed kills and always wearing sweaters to cover his sleeve tats. Exactly how much money should that cost me? In many way these memes are the natural evolution of "old wives tales" that have existed for centuries. Probably all of human existence. And from a tort perspective I'm still not sure this applies. Part of the harm from tort comes from the fact it's repeated. If I tell people X bank is financially insolvent, it catches on and there's a run on the bank I'm certainly guilty of something, but I don't think the people who passed it on in good faith are. Rather the fact people were passing it around is evidence of the tort, not additional torts themselves (but IANAL of course). And even if passing on a meme is a valid micro-tort in this scenario, now my mom has been materially harmed by whoever shared it with her. Does she now sue them in her own micro-tort lawsuit and the whole thing bubbles up like some kind of legal reverse ponzi scheme? It seems like all of these micro-suits floating around and sure to create the exact problem the original comment is trying to avoid.

luckylion 6y ago

> Fundamentally, you're trying to involve the government in deciding what "truth" is. That seems much worse than misinformation, yes? We already have the courts involved in deciding what "truth" is. Has worked out pretty well in general, and certainly better than having private companies do it.

TameAntelope 6y ago
Not to this extent, we do not. This would be a whole additional level, multiple levels even, more subjective. Honestly, it feels like a moot point anyway. The 1st Amendment makes all of this pointless to discuss. It will never happen, short of a literal collapse of the US Government and a reformation under a new Constitution that doesn't include the 1st Amendment. The government will never be involved in deciding what people can and can't say to the extent that this would require. It's antithetical to our current legal system (not to mention our cultural mores). Of course Twitter gets to decide what to publish on Twitter. There's literally no other way to operate, regardless of Section 230.
threatofrain 6y ago
Misinformation is a flood by a million raindrops, and as courts are severely overtaxed, I shudder in asking for a magnitude more volume in a bunch of low severity cases. People will debate more or less police funding, but massively more judicial funding is on nobody’s radar. What the modern age calls for is the ability to easily enjoin a class of defendants and sue them all for $5, with adjudication taking 1 minute. Now your mom just lost $5 because she retweeted a MLM health scare scam 2 minutes ago.
- Volundr 6y ago
  I don't think this is a good solution at all. If mom believed the scam at the time she retweeted it there's absolutely no crime there. Being wrong or deceived is not a crime. Frankly your proposing punishing the victim. Any actual solution would have to target the creators of the disinformation, and maybe those who knowingly spread it. Even that is hard in a freedom of speech context though. Even lies are free speech.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    Saying false things which hurts other people is tortious, not criminal. That's why we don't need to talk about mens rea, or whether or not metaphoral mom meant to be false or hurtful. When we're talking about Section 230, we're talking about torts, and when we're talking lawsuits, we're also talking torts.
    - Volundr 6y ago
      Sure, I take your point that I'm thinking about it the wrong way legally. But I still maintain the idea is bass-ackwards morally and legally problematic. If mum believes the false Facebook meme she's a victim. Yes passing it on passes on the harm, but honestly I also think that doing detailed research into every meme before passing it on is an unrealistic expectation. Almost a decade ago I passed on the meme about Mr. Rogers being a sniper with x number of confirmed kills and always wearing sweaters to cover his sleeve tats. Exactly how much money should that cost me? In many way these memes are the natural evolution of "old wives tales" that have existed for centuries. Probably all of human existence. And from a tort perspective I'm still not sure this applies. Part of the harm from tort comes from the fact it's repeated. If I tell people X bank is financially insolvent, it catches on and there's a run on the bank I'm certainly guilty of something, but I don't think the people who passed it on in good faith are. Rather the fact people were passing it around is evidence of the tort, not additional torts themselves (but IANAL of course). And even if passing on a meme is a valid micro-tort in this scenario, now my mom has been materially harmed by whoever shared it with her. Does she now sue them in her own micro-tort lawsuit and the whole thing bubbles up like some kind of legal reverse ponzi scheme? It seems like all of these micro-suits floating around and sure to create the exact problem the original comment is trying to avoid.