3 ms·

This is just apologism for blatant and inexcusable censorship. "Misinformation" is the new code word for wrong-think. It's none of their business what "incorre

by borplk 5y ago

This is just apologism for blatant and inexcusable censorship. "Misinformation" is the new code word for wrong-think. It's none of their business what "incorrect" information people may or may not choose to consume. It's the people that decide. Saying that the Earth is not flat, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun used to considered "misinformation" too. Nothing just snaps into existence with full consensus of everyone. They start as "misinformation" by people who are ahead of the curve, and slowly gain mainstream attention and acceptance (e.g. "Lab leak theory" used to be "misinformation and disinformation" and people got suspended for mentioning it ... now the loudspeakers talk about it too).

addicted 5y ago
Considering the platforms have to prioritize content based on something (and since pretty much all of them have sworn off timelines) do you really think expertise of the source on the subject matter is a criteria that takes it into censorship.
whateveracct 5y ago
> This is just apologism for blatant and inexcusable censorship. No it's not. It's saying that this stuff has a lot of nuance and you aren't going to have a rule to classify it. Sorry, that's just how the world and its laws and policies have worked for centuries. You aren't making a point by saying "it's impossible to 100% differentiate an expert being wrong from misinformation."
- tekknik 5y ago
  > Sorry, that's just how the world and its laws and policies have worked for centuries. And that's why we created the first amendment, because we found out how bad of an idea is for gov's to censor. How well do you think this is going to go over with the moderates and the right? The only reason you're supporting this atm is because it supports your side's group think. Parent poster is right, in normal discussion you'll have disagreements. Only one side is calling it misinformation.

by borplk 5y ago

addicted 5y ago

Considering the platforms have to prioritize content based on something (and since pretty much all of them have sworn off timelines) do you really think expertise of the source on the subject matter is a criteria that takes it into censorship.

whateveracct 5y ago

> This is just apologism for blatant and inexcusable censorship. No it's not. It's saying that this stuff has a lot of nuance and you aren't going to have a rule to classify it. Sorry, that's just how the world and its laws and policies have worked for centuries. You aren't making a point by saying "it's impossible to 100% differentiate an expert being wrong from misinformation."

tekknik 5y ago
> Sorry, that's just how the world and its laws and policies have worked for centuries. And that's why we created the first amendment, because we found out how bad of an idea is for gov's to censor. How well do you think this is going to go over with the moderates and the right? The only reason you're supporting this atm is because it supports your side's group think. Parent poster is right, in normal discussion you'll have disagreements. Only one side is calling it misinformation.