7 ms·

Censorship is always abused. Maybe this time or maybe not. But it's always abused. And yes, it's worse than misinformation.

justbored123 5y ago
Buddy Buddy WAKE UP, Facebook is not a public service, it's not there to serve a nobody like you, it's a private company that exist to make money. You can't use their service to trash them and promote their competition, that is not a reasonable business model for them. To finance you by giving you a free platform to promote their competition and trash them is not a good trade for them. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???
- inkblotuniverse 5y ago
  If it serves the public, it's a public service. Utility companies were private companies until people decided they weren't.
  - ribosometronome 5y ago
    What companies would not be public services under that definition?
    - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
      Ones that aren't natural or in-practice monopolies
bashinator 5y ago
Censorship being “worse than misinformation” seems like whataboutism, given that FB has serious problems with both.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  It's not a whataboutism, it's pointing out that with one of the most popular proposed solutions to misinformation, censorship, the cure is worse than the disease.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I like the quote the from the Supreme court on the topic: "If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" However, I think it's also important to recognize that in today's algorithmically driven content presentation, "more speech" is often comically ineffective because it is never consumed in the emergent content bubbles that silo people from contradictory information. Not to mention the fact that misinformation that confirms your preconceptions is a much more powerful influence than actual information that contradicts them. Given this, an important caveat embedded in the above quote is: "If there be time". A recognition of the fact that, in some circumstances, there will not be an opportunity for more speech to prevail. I don't have a solution to this. There may be no good solution to this, except lesser degrees of bad solutions.
    - bashinator 5y ago
      The degree to which social media allows both the amplification, and as you said, siloing of viewpoints to a mass audience, is IMO qualitatively different from the media available pre-Internet.
ineedasername 5y ago
I'm not sure it's worse than misinformation. In my field, bad data often has a more damaging impact than no data. But I suppose it will depend on the circumstances, and I'd honestly be interested to hear your thoughts on why censorship is worse. As for the inevitability of abuse? When it comes to corporate interests, that seems to be nearly axiomatic. The Verge's list of fascinating & horrifying exchange at Apple about app approvals & secret deals makes for a great case-study in this. [0] [0] https://www.theverge.com/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-project-liberty-app-store-schiller-sweeney-cook-jobs https://www.theverge.com/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-projec...
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Bad data vs no data at all? I would think no data would put you out of a job while bad data would require more hires to filter the data.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    I prefer employees who say "I don't know" over confident bullshitters.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Bad data is often taken as good data, because sifting through it incurs 100x more friction than taking it at face value. When you ultimately get bad results you can just blame the bad data, and you still end up with a paycheck for the month(s) you wasted.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Authoritarian countries collapse because everyone is lying about reality. Same thing happens with metric driven management.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    No data clearly indicates that there is no data. A statement of "I don't know' clearly indicates a lack of knowledge. A statemnt of "I have no opinion" clearly indicates that the speaker has not formed an opinion. In each case, a spurious generated response: 1. Is generally accepted as prima facie evidence of what it purports. 2. Must be specifically analysed and assessed. 3. Is itself subject to repetition and/or amplification. With empirical evidence suggesting that falsehoods outcompete truths, particularly on large networks operating at flows which overload rational assessment. 4. Competes for attention with other information, including the no-signal case specifically, which does very poorly against false claims as it is literally nothing competing against an often very loud something. Yes: bad data is much, much, much, much worse than no data.
rgrieselhuber 5y ago
Censorship is the sloppiest possible solution to the epistemological crisis. I thought we figured this out during the Enlightenment.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  New people are being born every day who weren't around for the steps forward made in the past. If only there was an institution that could step up to the task of teaching them. Instead there are institutions for getting them to buy toys and making them do algebra drills.
  - rgrieselhuber 5y ago
    It's a really hard problem to solve. History has shown time and again how easy it is to coopt institutions as well.
- titzer 5y ago
  Censorship, meet Filter Bubble. Filter Bubble, Censorship. And this little tike you've got with you, what's his name? Engagement Metric? Oh, how cute. Nice to meet you. You look innocent. I'm guessing you couldn't do any major societal damage at all. You're certainly not a little problem child.
  - Noumenon72 5y ago
    Filter bubble is not a real problem: https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1261164727486615559?lang=en https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1261164727486615559?lan... https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1067780924014772224 https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1067780924014772224 Whereas censorship is lindy among things that have bad effects on society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect So give the most caution against the proven bad thing and not the one you're in a trendy moral panic about.
    - titzer 5y ago
wussboy 5y ago
If my kids were late coming home from school, and I asked you if you know what has happened, and you either: 1. Don't say anything because my neighbour tapes your mouth shut 2. Lie and say, "They were brutally murdered by your neighbour", resulting in a dead neighbour followed by my kids showing up unharmed from school ...can you explain in this scenario how censorship is worse than misinformation. I'm not trying do be a jerk. I hear your argument a lot (especially on tech-heavy web sites) and I want to understand it.
- rglullis 5y ago
  I think there is a tiny little bit of a jump if you are acting this quickly and this harshly on information without verifying. Concretely to your hypothetical: don't attribute to misinformation the issue that is most like your barbaric reaction. Not to say that the liar should not be punished, it should bear a big responsibility in the consequences of the actions. But at the end of day it was not the liar the one that killed your neighbor, you were.
  - ribosometronome 5y ago
    It would be, but also you showed him pictures to prove it, he just didn't know they were photoshopped. And linked him to a news article on thebostontribune.com that was reporting that his kids were dead. And his family and friends were sharing their condolences. It's not as if folk AREN'T acting on misinformation or showing that they aren't really capable of distinguishing between the two. Tons can. And tons won't realize that The Boston Tribune isn't real. We're having to deal with almost literally shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire, only there's special effects and major campaigns to convince people there's fire, not just taking some guy at their word and stampeding because of it.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      This seems like really stretching the analogy just to remove personal responsibility. If I am the father of the missing children and I see the "family and friends" sharing their condolences, I would go talk to them first. If someone comes with pictures trying to accuse someone of something, no matter how shocking the accusations, there would still be the question of (a) why is someone bothering with taking pictures and not taking to the authorities beforehand and (b) what are the consequences for me if I went on a rampage attack based on bogus evidence. To get a little bit on topic: the reason that censorship is worse than misinformation is that we should always operate on the premise that our information is incomplete, inaccurate or distorted by those controlling the information channels. Without censorship, I can listen to different sources (no matter how crazy or unsound they are) and I can try to discern what makes sense and does not. With censorship, any dissent is silenced, so we get one source of information - who can never get questioned - or worse we get to see many sources of information but only the ones that are aligned with the censors and gives us a false consensus and the illusion of quality in information. Only idiots can walk around in the world of today and confidently repeat whatever they hear from "official" sources as unquestionable truths.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
Any platform where people can speak to an audience needs some kind of 'censorship', otherwise you'll quickly find it's a platform solely for trolls and the like.
tommymachine 5y ago
There's actually no such thing as "misinformation". It's a completely made up concept. There's just information. a la: "Look, this person said this. Here's another person, who said something else." All of this is just regular old information. In publishing, editorial makes some amount of sense because the brand of the publisher is staked behind the claims being made. But in social media, it's the personal(/account) brand that is staked behind the claim, not that of the social media company. For example, ISIS doesn't get an editorial column in the NYT. But they can have their own page on FB & Twitter. These companies are existing in a magical reality where they are able to exercise complete control over what can and can't be said, and garner no liability for when they use that power to promote falsehoods and stifle the truth.
- otterley 5y ago
  Publishing provably false statements or reports with intent to deceive (or even just gross negligence) falls pretty squarely under the definition of misinformation. This isn’t very controversial, except among nut cases.
  - tommymachine 5y ago
    Oh. I see. So when a computer system sends signals over a wire, if it represents "provably false statements", it's actually misinformation, and not information. All those 1s and 0s instantly switch from information to misinformation, the minute their final representative form embodies a "provably false statement". Who decides what's provably false, by the way? Are the novels of Tolkien "misinformation", since it could presumably be easily proved that the events described in them didn't actually happen? And what is the burden of proof for "intent to deceive"? And in which court is this all decided? Who decides? Just people in your group right? What ever your group happens to be. Sure hope we all worship your god then, because the other gods are all "Misinformation".
    - orf 5y ago
      Hitler was an alien from Hawaii. Woah look at that, is it misinformation or just information? We may never know. It's beyond science. If only there was a way to tell. But I guess we should focus on what constitutes information vs the obvious cultural meaning behind "disinformation" and how that applies to data exchanged by any medium regardless of the format. There is such thing as truth, and no it's not decided by the "in group". Failing to understand this might be a sign of mental illness.

justbored123 5y ago

Buddy Buddy WAKE UP, Facebook is not a public service, it's not there to serve a nobody like you, it's a private company that exist to make money. You can't use their service to trash them and promote their competition, that is not a reasonable business model for them. To finance you by giving you a free platform to promote their competition and trash them is not a good trade for them. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

inkblotuniverse 5y ago
If it serves the public, it's a public service. Utility companies were private companies until people decided they weren't.
- ribosometronome 5y ago
  What companies would not be public services under that definition?
  - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
    Ones that aren't natural or in-practice monopolies

bashinator 5y ago

Censorship being “worse than misinformation” seems like whataboutism, given that FB has serious problems with both.

HideousKojima 5y ago
It's not a whataboutism, it's pointing out that with one of the most popular proposed solutions to misinformation, censorship, the cure is worse than the disease.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I like the quote the from the Supreme court on the topic: "If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" However, I think it's also important to recognize that in today's algorithmically driven content presentation, "more speech" is often comically ineffective because it is never consumed in the emergent content bubbles that silo people from contradictory information. Not to mention the fact that misinformation that confirms your preconceptions is a much more powerful influence than actual information that contradicts them. Given this, an important caveat embedded in the above quote is: "If there be time". A recognition of the fact that, in some circumstances, there will not be an opportunity for more speech to prevail. I don't have a solution to this. There may be no good solution to this, except lesser degrees of bad solutions.
  - bashinator 5y ago
    The degree to which social media allows both the amplification, and as you said, siloing of viewpoints to a mass audience, is IMO qualitatively different from the media available pre-Internet.

ineedasername 5y ago

I'm not sure it's worse than misinformation. In my field, bad data often has a more damaging impact than no data. But I suppose it will depend on the circumstances, and I'd honestly be interested to hear your thoughts on why censorship is worse. As for the inevitability of abuse? When it comes to corporate interests, that seems to be nearly axiomatic. The Verge's list of fascinating & horrifying exchange at Apple about app approvals & secret deals makes for a great case-study in this. [0] [0] https://www.theverge.com/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-project-liberty-app-store-schiller-sweeney-cook-jobs https://www.theverge.com/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-projec...

ipaddr 5y ago
Bad data vs no data at all? I would think no data would put you out of a job while bad data would require more hires to filter the data.
- klyrs 5y ago
  I prefer employees who say "I don't know" over confident bullshitters.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Bad data is often taken as good data, because sifting through it incurs 100x more friction than taking it at face value. When you ultimately get bad results you can just blame the bad data, and you still end up with a paycheck for the month(s) you wasted.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Authoritarian countries collapse because everyone is lying about reality. Same thing happens with metric driven management.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  No data clearly indicates that there is no data. A statement of "I don't know' clearly indicates a lack of knowledge. A statemnt of "I have no opinion" clearly indicates that the speaker has not formed an opinion. In each case, a spurious generated response: 1. Is generally accepted as prima facie evidence of what it purports. 2. Must be specifically analysed and assessed. 3. Is itself subject to repetition and/or amplification. With empirical evidence suggesting that falsehoods outcompete truths, particularly on large networks operating at flows which overload rational assessment. 4. Competes for attention with other information, including the no-signal case specifically, which does very poorly against false claims as it is literally nothing competing against an often very loud something. Yes: bad data is much, much, much, much worse than no data.

rgrieselhuber 5y ago

Censorship is the sloppiest possible solution to the epistemological crisis. I thought we figured this out during the Enlightenment.

whatshisface 5y ago
New people are being born every day who weren't around for the steps forward made in the past. If only there was an institution that could step up to the task of teaching them. Instead there are institutions for getting them to buy toys and making them do algebra drills.
- rgrieselhuber 5y ago
  It's a really hard problem to solve. History has shown time and again how easy it is to coopt institutions as well.
titzer 5y ago
Censorship, meet Filter Bubble. Filter Bubble, Censorship. And this little tike you've got with you, what's his name? Engagement Metric? Oh, how cute. Nice to meet you. You look innocent. I'm guessing you couldn't do any major societal damage at all. You're certainly not a little problem child.
- Noumenon72 5y ago
  Filter bubble is not a real problem: https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1261164727486615559?lang=en https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1261164727486615559?lan... https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1067780924014772224 https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1067780924014772224 Whereas censorship is lindy among things that have bad effects on society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect So give the most caution against the proven bad thing and not the one you're in a trendy moral panic about.
  - titzer 5y ago

wussboy 5y ago

If my kids were late coming home from school, and I asked you if you know what has happened, and you either: 1. Don't say anything because my neighbour tapes your mouth shut 2. Lie and say, "They were brutally murdered by your neighbour", resulting in a dead neighbour followed by my kids showing up unharmed from school ...can you explain in this scenario how censorship is worse than misinformation. I'm not trying do be a jerk. I hear your argument a lot (especially on tech-heavy web sites) and I want to understand it.

rglullis 5y ago
I think there is a tiny little bit of a jump if you are acting this quickly and this harshly on information without verifying. Concretely to your hypothetical: don't attribute to misinformation the issue that is most like your barbaric reaction. Not to say that the liar should not be punished, it should bear a big responsibility in the consequences of the actions. But at the end of day it was not the liar the one that killed your neighbor, you were.
- ribosometronome 5y ago
  It would be, but also you showed him pictures to prove it, he just didn't know they were photoshopped. And linked him to a news article on thebostontribune.com that was reporting that his kids were dead. And his family and friends were sharing their condolences. It's not as if folk AREN'T acting on misinformation or showing that they aren't really capable of distinguishing between the two. Tons can. And tons won't realize that The Boston Tribune isn't real. We're having to deal with almost literally shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire, only there's special effects and major campaigns to convince people there's fire, not just taking some guy at their word and stampeding because of it.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    This seems like really stretching the analogy just to remove personal responsibility. If I am the father of the missing children and I see the "family and friends" sharing their condolences, I would go talk to them first. If someone comes with pictures trying to accuse someone of something, no matter how shocking the accusations, there would still be the question of (a) why is someone bothering with taking pictures and not taking to the authorities beforehand and (b) what are the consequences for me if I went on a rampage attack based on bogus evidence. To get a little bit on topic: the reason that censorship is worse than misinformation is that we should always operate on the premise that our information is incomplete, inaccurate or distorted by those controlling the information channels. Without censorship, I can listen to different sources (no matter how crazy or unsound they are) and I can try to discern what makes sense and does not. With censorship, any dissent is silenced, so we get one source of information - who can never get questioned - or worse we get to see many sources of information but only the ones that are aligned with the censors and gives us a false consensus and the illusion of quality in information. Only idiots can walk around in the world of today and confidently repeat whatever they hear from "official" sources as unquestionable truths.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

Any platform where people can speak to an audience needs some kind of 'censorship', otherwise you'll quickly find it's a platform solely for trolls and the like.

tommymachine 5y ago

There's actually no such thing as "misinformation". It's a completely made up concept. There's just information. a la: "Look, this person said this. Here's another person, who said something else." All of this is just regular old information. In publishing, editorial makes some amount of sense because the brand of the publisher is staked behind the claims being made. But in social media, it's the personal(/account) brand that is staked behind the claim, not that of the social media company. For example, ISIS doesn't get an editorial column in the NYT. But they can have their own page on FB & Twitter. These companies are existing in a magical reality where they are able to exercise complete control over what can and can't be said, and garner no liability for when they use that power to promote falsehoods and stifle the truth.

otterley 5y ago
Publishing provably false statements or reports with intent to deceive (or even just gross negligence) falls pretty squarely under the definition of misinformation. This isn’t very controversial, except among nut cases.
- tommymachine 5y ago
  Oh. I see. So when a computer system sends signals over a wire, if it represents "provably false statements", it's actually misinformation, and not information. All those 1s and 0s instantly switch from information to misinformation, the minute their final representative form embodies a "provably false statement". Who decides what's provably false, by the way? Are the novels of Tolkien "misinformation", since it could presumably be easily proved that the events described in them didn't actually happen? And what is the burden of proof for "intent to deceive"? And in which court is this all decided? Who decides? Just people in your group right? What ever your group happens to be. Sure hope we all worship your god then, because the other gods are all "Misinformation".
  - orf 5y ago
    Hitler was an alien from Hawaii. Woah look at that, is it misinformation or just information? We may never know. It's beyond science. If only there was a way to tell. But I guess we should focus on what constitutes information vs the obvious cultural meaning behind "disinformation" and how that applies to data exchanged by any medium regardless of the format. There is such thing as truth, and no it's not decided by the "in group". Failing to understand this might be a sign of mental illness.