6 ms·

With so many whistle blowers it is now clear that FB does not want to eradicate any political party’s misinformation campaigns. They know they are much better o

With so many whistle blowers it is now clear that FB does not want to eradicate any political party’s misinformation campaigns. They know they are much better off going with the flow, become a valuable tool for the powerful and gain market access and dominate. In a way, I feel the American government also wants FB to do the same as it advances the US centric world order. If there is a global monopoly. American wants it. This is evident in America’s position in negotiating the digital tax with the EU.

nine_k 5y ago
Do you honestly want that entities like FB or Google would filter political speech? Would filter speech in general, weeding out what they'd find wrong? I'm fine with FB or twitter or whatnot adding their epistemic status banners, like "incorrect according to current scientific consensus". Doing more would, to my mind, produce seriously more harm than good. It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to forget that certain parts of it feel unhealthy and hurt, it may lead to much, much worse development of the diseases and far more painful consequences than being open and honest with itself, even when it feels extremely embarrassing.
- kodah 5y ago
  As much as I disagree with large companies who are conduit for every day communication regulating said communication, it does feel like society is a little less off it's rocker lately. It's too premature to tell, but you could be correct.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to forget that certain parts of it feel unhealthy and hurt The problem is, from an European perspective, the US concept of "free speech". Allowing hate (e.g. swastika flags), a putsch attempt or outright lies ("Big Steal") to be shown and supported publicly and not acting against it is only emboldening those who spread this kind of content. I won't deny that Germany has a problem with a tiny but vocal minority that denies vaccinations. But in the US, it's half the country that fell to the propaganda because no one nipped it in the bud while it was still possible!
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Indeed, this is the problem with the European lack of notion of free speech :(
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      European countries have personally experienced, on our own soil, the dangers that unchecked free speech brings. The constitutions of our nations reflected learning what had led to the rise of fascism in the first place, and the need to prevent what happened from 1933-1945 from ever happening again. Meanwhile, the US Constitution hasn't seen a substantial update in decades, much less a true reform taking into account hundreds of years of learning from history. The result is - again, from a Continental European view - a hot mess ranging from eccentrities such as voting on Tuesdays, over massive influence of Christian fundamentalism in politics despite the US being the first state in the world to not have a state religion, to a total inability of democracy to defend itself against demagogues and, in the case of Russian propaganda campaigns, even enemy hostility.
      - nine_k 5y ago
        The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial. I think that the problem of Weimar Germany was not in the unchecked circulation of Völkischer Beobachter or whatever. The problem was that the Nazi propaganda fell on intently listening ears, and that the republic's administration wasn't able to fight back the Hitler's power plays. BTW one of the first things Hitler did when he seized power was curbing the "anti-German" public speech, along with political activity. I don't think it's a coincidence. I see that Germany has had an enormous trauma. I understand the immediate post-war necessity of communication control. But, with all due respect, I think that the current limitations do a disservice to the German democracy, both by creating the notion of thoughtcrime and forbidden speech at all, and by hiding the real amount of problems from the society, which could otherwise more adequately react and help heal them.
        mschuster91 5y ago

nine_k 5y ago

Do you honestly want that entities like FB or Google would filter political speech? Would filter speech in general, weeding out what they'd find wrong? I'm fine with FB or twitter or whatnot adding their epistemic status banners, like "incorrect according to current scientific consensus". Doing more would, to my mind, produce seriously more harm than good. It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to forget that certain parts of it feel unhealthy and hurt, it may lead to much, much worse development of the diseases and far more painful consequences than being open and honest with itself, even when it feels extremely embarrassing.

kodah 5y ago
As much as I disagree with large companies who are conduit for every day communication regulating said communication, it does feel like society is a little less off it's rocker lately. It's too premature to tell, but you could be correct.
mschuster91 5y ago
> It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to forget that certain parts of it feel unhealthy and hurt The problem is, from an European perspective, the US concept of "free speech". Allowing hate (e.g. swastika flags), a putsch attempt or outright lies ("Big Steal") to be shown and supported publicly and not acting against it is only emboldening those who spread this kind of content. I won't deny that Germany has a problem with a tiny but vocal minority that denies vaccinations. But in the US, it's half the country that fell to the propaganda because no one nipped it in the bud while it was still possible!
- nine_k 5y ago
  Indeed, this is the problem with the European lack of notion of free speech :(
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    European countries have personally experienced, on our own soil, the dangers that unchecked free speech brings. The constitutions of our nations reflected learning what had led to the rise of fascism in the first place, and the need to prevent what happened from 1933-1945 from ever happening again. Meanwhile, the US Constitution hasn't seen a substantial update in decades, much less a true reform taking into account hundreds of years of learning from history. The result is - again, from a Continental European view - a hot mess ranging from eccentrities such as voting on Tuesdays, over massive influence of Christian fundamentalism in politics despite the US being the first state in the world to not have a state religion, to a total inability of democracy to defend itself against demagogues and, in the case of Russian propaganda campaigns, even enemy hostility.
    - nine_k 5y ago
      The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial. I think that the problem of Weimar Germany was not in the unchecked circulation of Völkischer Beobachter or whatever. The problem was that the Nazi propaganda fell on intently listening ears, and that the republic's administration wasn't able to fight back the Hitler's power plays. BTW one of the first things Hitler did when he seized power was curbing the "anti-German" public speech, along with political activity. I don't think it's a coincidence. I see that Germany has had an enormous trauma. I understand the immediate post-war necessity of communication control. But, with all due respect, I think that the current limitations do a disservice to the German democracy, both by creating the notion of thoughtcrime and forbidden speech at all, and by hiding the real amount of problems from the society, which could otherwise more adequately react and help heal them.
      - mschuster91 5y ago