2 ms·

There are really 2 options here: 1. Live with the first amendment at section 230 as. That means things stay mostly the same. Big tech will continue to censor

There are really 2 options here: 1. Live with the first amendment at section 230 as. That means things stay mostly the same. Big tech will continue to censor too many of the things I like and too few of the things I don't like. And we wait for the pre-internet generation to die off and be replaced so society can progress. 2. Restrict the 1st and force fact checking, fairness, neutrality, etc. This would get us back to a functional media/societal/democratic state a lot faster. But it would require pretty radical change. Also, the biggest losers wouldn't be big tech. They would be Fox news and similar orgs. I don't see any other option here. I don't see that "regulating" (wtf that means, different things to different people for sure) Facebook but not Fox is productive or fair or possible even really. Personally, I don't trust the current system to do anything other than beat tech companies with a stick for no reason but that they exist and don't pay enough in "lobbying". I don't see Fox or similar, much bigger propaganda/censorship orgs being touched. Certainly not on a bipartisan basis (and that's what's needed to do more than sneeze in Washington). So here we are, and I am glad the right and left and (stupidly) fighting each other... Thanks for reading, you may now downvote these inconvenient truths...

version_five 5y ago
I didn't downvote but I read twice and I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you could try and rephrase to make your point clearer?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  * Problems with fake news, censorship etc are much bigger outside of big tech than inside (media monopolies and propoganda like fox news for a start). * so if you actually care about those issues (rather than just hating big tech) you need to fix things beyond big tech * that means reform of the 1st amendment * I suspect that no one actually wants that, they just don't like Facebook etc but they're used to Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan Is that any better :)
  - version_five 5y ago
    Yes I understand now thanks!
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      No worries. I was pretty wordy the first time so it was good for me to summarise. :)
AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
> force fact checking Just remember that less than a year ago it would have been your worst enemy appointing the fact checkers.
duemti 5y ago
Nothing is "inconvenient truths" from what you said, you've just showed yourself as an ignorant fool, that's all. At least try and read half the article next time before engaging in conversation.
colordrops 5y ago
Option 2 implies that there is some truly unbiased entity without conflict of interest that could both be able to handle speech vetting and also be allowed to do it. This is extreme fantasy.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  Such a vetting would be (1) extremely expensive and (2) in most cases the decision would "well... We don't know for sure"
  - noxer 5y ago
    The worst part is that people will be told "You don't know for sure" rather than people using their brain and come to the conclusion that they dont know for sure. Which is actually the default for any critical thinking person. And it helps a lot to not fall for extremist views or ideas which are usually presented oversimplified and thus fool people who usually quickly pick sides rather than accepting the default of not know for sure. Rather than a fact checker maybe an algorithm could find opposing content and present this. That would force the user to make some "fact"-checks aka to think. needed to say that such an algorithms could/would be biased as well.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > Rather than a fact checker maybe an algorithm could find opposing content and present this. That would force the user to make some "fact"-checks aka to think. needed to say that such an algorithms could/would be biased as well. What do you think of a small social network composed of vetted (and always subject to review) reasonably trustworthy and fairly unbiased but definitely open minded users who decompose, fact check, and deeply debate very small volumes of stories, using a platform more sophisticated than nested discussions with voting? Something with structures like a "points for" and "points against" format, among many other novel (as far as social media goes) features, where "it is not really known for sure" is a perfectly acceptable conclusion, subject to review as new information becomes available?
noxer 5y ago
>force fact checking Its not possible, period. You can remove this option. FB/Twitter/YT all have "fact checkers" and they are neither neutral nor do they get it right. Even if outsourced it still fails miserably. On top of that people should not be told what the "facts" are for complex thinks. It removes the need to think and build an opinion. This is essential because for almost everything controversial there is no way to find the absolute truth. People need to learn what it means to accept that we dont know something and likely never will know what the truth is.

version_five 5y ago

I didn't downvote but I read twice and I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you could try and rephrase to make your point clearer?

LatteLazy 5y ago
* Problems with fake news, censorship etc are much bigger outside of big tech than inside (media monopolies and propoganda like fox news for a start). * so if you actually care about those issues (rather than just hating big tech) you need to fix things beyond big tech * that means reform of the 1st amendment * I suspect that no one actually wants that, they just don't like Facebook etc but they're used to Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan Is that any better :)
- version_five 5y ago
  Yes I understand now thanks!
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    No worries. I was pretty wordy the first time so it was good for me to summarise. :)

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

> force fact checking Just remember that less than a year ago it would have been your worst enemy appointing the fact checkers.

duemti 5y ago

Nothing is "inconvenient truths" from what you said, you've just showed yourself as an ignorant fool, that's all. At least try and read half the article next time before engaging in conversation.

colordrops 5y ago

Option 2 implies that there is some truly unbiased entity without conflict of interest that could both be able to handle speech vetting and also be allowed to do it. This is extreme fantasy.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
Such a vetting would be (1) extremely expensive and (2) in most cases the decision would "well... We don't know for sure"
- noxer 5y ago
  The worst part is that people will be told "You don't know for sure" rather than people using their brain and come to the conclusion that they dont know for sure. Which is actually the default for any critical thinking person. And it helps a lot to not fall for extremist views or ideas which are usually presented oversimplified and thus fool people who usually quickly pick sides rather than accepting the default of not know for sure. Rather than a fact checker maybe an algorithm could find opposing content and present this. That would force the user to make some "fact"-checks aka to think. needed to say that such an algorithms could/would be biased as well.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > Rather than a fact checker maybe an algorithm could find opposing content and present this. That would force the user to make some "fact"-checks aka to think. needed to say that such an algorithms could/would be biased as well. What do you think of a small social network composed of vetted (and always subject to review) reasonably trustworthy and fairly unbiased but definitely open minded users who decompose, fact check, and deeply debate very small volumes of stories, using a platform more sophisticated than nested discussions with voting? Something with structures like a "points for" and "points against" format, among many other novel (as far as social media goes) features, where "it is not really known for sure" is a perfectly acceptable conclusion, subject to review as new information becomes available?

noxer 5y ago

>force fact checking Its not possible, period. You can remove this option. FB/Twitter/YT all have "fact checkers" and they are neither neutral nor do they get it right. Even if outsourced it still fails miserably. On top of that people should not be told what the "facts" are for complex thinks. It removes the need to think and build an opinion. This is essential because for almost everything controversial there is no way to find the absolute truth. People need to learn what it means to accept that we dont know something and likely never will know what the truth is.