4 ms·
I think we have to trust the people to govern themselves in a democracy even if they can’t deal with it properly, and that applies to misinformation. The proble
by smaryjerry 5y ago
I think we have to trust the people to govern themselves in a democracy even if they can’t deal with it properly, and that applies to misinformation. The problem has always been that what one person considers misinformation is just something the other hasn’t learned yet. There is no reason to censor misinformation that is already known to be wrong. Also there is no reason to censor truth. We are left with only censoring gray areas where the populist does not have a clear opinion which you don’t want to censor because it’s not clear if it is misinformation and needs to be discussed. The answer is always don’t censor information. Then beyond misinformation we have lying which you do want to censor. News is considered to be the truth and therefore any news outlet presenting misinformation must be censored or sued. YouTube creators and the internet itself used to be assumed to be filled with bad information. Growing up we couldn’t use an internet source in your paper, especially not Wikipedia which was known to be a bad source. It’s gradually earned respect over time but that respect on Wikipedia really only should apply to undisputed topics. You know that little Twitter message that says “this statement is disputed,” well that should be on every single YouTube video, Wikipedia post and more, UNLESS they specially claim that is true, and that should set them up for lawsuits and more. There is no reason “misinformation” should be censored online.. the public either needs to have education to re-learn that I’m the internet is full of bad information, or every single video and post needs to clearly be marked “we don’t claim accuracy to any facts in this (insert format here)” until people do re-learn this.