4 ms·

> If you merely censor illegal content, you will become a home for disinformation and ultra right-wing conspiracies. See Parler. What do you count as disinform

> If you merely censor illegal content, you will become a home for disinformation and ultra right-wing conspiracies. See Parler. What do you count as disinformation and why is it a problem? If you disagree with something you can ignore it and move on, or engage with it and respond with your own counter-argument. It doesn't seem like a problem that reduces the viability of the entire platform. It is also strange to me that you seem to think a lack of censorship only favors "ultra right-wing" conspiracies. I saw a lot of disinformation about policing being spread throughout 2020 without much evidence. Those who pushed those narratives did not face any moderation for their misinformation. I recall as well when Twitter, Medium, and others banned discussions of the lab leak theory. The pro-moderation crowd unwittingly aided in the CCP's avoidance of accountability and smeared some very rational speculation as disinformation. I don't think I want anyone - whether the government, powerful private companies, or biased moderators - to become the arbiters of permitted opinions. > In either case, and especially the first, you're likely to get kicked off your hosting platform and get a lot of attention from the government. It's also curious to me that you mention Parler, because January 6th was organized more on other platforms than on Parler. Silicon Valley acted in unison against Parler because they share the same political biases among their leaders and employees, and because they share that degree of monopolistic power (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...). The darker part of this saga is that sitting members of the US government pressured private companies (Apple, Google, Amazon) to censor the speech of their political adversaries by banning Parler (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure...), in what can only be called an abuse of power and authority. When tech companies are facing anti-trust scrutiny and regulatory pressure on other issues, why wouldn't they seek favor by doing the incoming government's bidding and deplatforming Parler? I feel like the actions observed in the Parler saga are less about moderation and more about bias and power.

PeterisP 5y ago
It is a problem because you'll get thrown out by your hosting and other service providers if you don't moderate your content; so if you want to keep running your service, not moderating is simply not a practical option. That is why Parler is mentioned, they are a demonstration that it's not practical to keep operating without accepting a duty to moderate (as Parler did eventually) even if you try really, really hard. And while there are a lot of conspiracies, all of which will be on your site if you don't moderate, most of them will be tolerated by others but it's the ultra right-wing conspiracies / nazis / holocaust deniers that will cause your service threats of disconnection; so you'll either start moderating or get your service killed in order to protect them. I understand you don't want anyone - whether the government, powerful private companies, or biased moderators - to become the arbiters of permitted opinions; however, you don't really get to choose (and neither do I); currently there are de facto arbiters in this world.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
> What do you count as disinformation I won't get into the argument of "Well then who is the arbiter of truth?" because honestly, I don't have an answer. It can't be the government for obvious reasons, but it also can't be private corporations, and certainly can't be the general public. That leaves...nobody. Maybe a non-profit organization, but even those could easily be corrupted. > and why is it a problem? Nearly 700,000 US deaths from COVID so far, a number that continues to rise due to anti-vax disinformation convincing people to not vaccinate. Disinformation is literally killing people by contributing to the continued spread of a pandemic. It's absolutely insane to me that you would genuinely ask why disinformation is a problem. Just because I don't have a solution to a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. > If you disagree with something you can ignore it and move on, or engage with it and respond with your own counter-argument. If this was an effective approach, Tucker Carlson would have been off the air ages ago, QAnon would have been dismissed as a crackpot by everybody, and disinformation wouldn't be a problem.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  If you don't mind answering another question, why the hate for Tucker Carlson? I don't follow him but people have complained about him so much that I've now seen a few videos to see what the fuss is about. I didn't see anything wrong within those few clips I saw (maybe an hour's worth) - it didn't seem any different from any other mainstream news in that one side of the argument was being presented, with a lot of conviction. But I did not see misinformation. I am sure there's some non-zero amount of misinformation that can be found from scouring his clips, but that's true for anyone and any source, and I certainly don't think he should be "off air" for it. I can't help but think that a lot of the character attacks against him are simply made because he's a prominent and successful voice on the "other side", and his effectiveness is a risk to political adversaries. As someone who wants to see Tucker Carlson off the air, do you see your position on the matter differently? Are there conservative voices you support being platformed, and what makes them different for you?
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    It's not a good sign when the "News" network you work for has to go to court to argue that no reasonable person would take you seriously.[1] Just over the past year, Carlson has peddled such obvious falsehoods as claiming the COVID-19 vaccines don’t work, the Green New Deal was responsible for Texas’ winter storm power-grid failure, immigrants are making the Potomac River "dirtier and dirtier,” and that there’s no evidence that white supremacists played a role in the violent Jan. 6 Capitol riots. [2] We don't need this guy on the public airwaves. He should get a blog... that is, if he can find a hosting provider who will tolerate his views. 1: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-news-tucker-carlson-not-source-of-news-defamation-suit-mcdougal-trump.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-... 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-admits-i-lie-if-im-really-cornered-or-something https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-admits-i-lie-if...
CamperBob2 5y ago
If you disagree with something you can ignore it and move on, or engage with it and respond with your own counter-argument. I sympathize with a lot of what you wrote (and didn't downvote it), but the Trump era has highlighted a serious problem with your specific point above. The marginal cost of bullshit is zero. It takes basically no effort to post more of it, while it always takes at least a small amount of effort to debunk it. Worse, the bullshitter usually has the first-mover advantage. To claim the initiative, they only have to post a new thread predicated on far-right propaganda or conspiracy theories or hijack an existing one. Once lost, the rhetorical high ground is difficult and time-consuming to reclaim. As soon as you argue with the shitposter, they effortlessly shift their role from aggressor to victim, as some would suggest is happening in this very conversation. I've always maintained that the antidote to bad speech is more speech. A few years ago I would have died on this hill at your side. But principles that don't work in practice are useless... and this one, having been tested, simply doesn't work in practice. The sheer quantity of bullshit has an ironclad quality all its own.
dredmorbius 5y ago
The consequences of a toxic media landscape at scale are felt by those considerably removed from the platform(s) themselves. Twitter cheered the Arab Spring protests. Facebook are attempting to distance themselves from their very active role in the Myanmar genocide. History shows that changes to media landscapes are often very disruptive socially and politically, often at a horrific cost of innocent lives.

PeterisP 5y ago

It is a problem because you'll get thrown out by your hosting and other service providers if you don't moderate your content; so if you want to keep running your service, not moderating is simply not a practical option. That is why Parler is mentioned, they are a demonstration that it's not practical to keep operating without accepting a duty to moderate (as Parler did eventually) even if you try really, really hard. And while there are a lot of conspiracies, all of which will be on your site if you don't moderate, most of them will be tolerated by others but it's the ultra right-wing conspiracies / nazis / holocaust deniers that will cause your service threats of disconnection; so you'll either start moderating or get your service killed in order to protect them. I understand you don't want anyone - whether the government, powerful private companies, or biased moderators - to become the arbiters of permitted opinions; however, you don't really get to choose (and neither do I); currently there are de facto arbiters in this world.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

> What do you count as disinformation I won't get into the argument of "Well then who is the arbiter of truth?" because honestly, I don't have an answer. It can't be the government for obvious reasons, but it also can't be private corporations, and certainly can't be the general public. That leaves...nobody. Maybe a non-profit organization, but even those could easily be corrupted. > and why is it a problem? Nearly 700,000 US deaths from COVID so far, a number that continues to rise due to anti-vax disinformation convincing people to not vaccinate. Disinformation is literally killing people by contributing to the continued spread of a pandemic. It's absolutely insane to me that you would genuinely ask why disinformation is a problem. Just because I don't have a solution to a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. > If you disagree with something you can ignore it and move on, or engage with it and respond with your own counter-argument. If this was an effective approach, Tucker Carlson would have been off the air ages ago, QAnon would have been dismissed as a crackpot by everybody, and disinformation wouldn't be a problem.

throwawaysea 5y ago
If you don't mind answering another question, why the hate for Tucker Carlson? I don't follow him but people have complained about him so much that I've now seen a few videos to see what the fuss is about. I didn't see anything wrong within those few clips I saw (maybe an hour's worth) - it didn't seem any different from any other mainstream news in that one side of the argument was being presented, with a lot of conviction. But I did not see misinformation. I am sure there's some non-zero amount of misinformation that can be found from scouring his clips, but that's true for anyone and any source, and I certainly don't think he should be "off air" for it. I can't help but think that a lot of the character attacks against him are simply made because he's a prominent and successful voice on the "other side", and his effectiveness is a risk to political adversaries. As someone who wants to see Tucker Carlson off the air, do you see your position on the matter differently? Are there conservative voices you support being platformed, and what makes them different for you?
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  It's not a good sign when the "News" network you work for has to go to court to argue that no reasonable person would take you seriously.[1] Just over the past year, Carlson has peddled such obvious falsehoods as claiming the COVID-19 vaccines don’t work, the Green New Deal was responsible for Texas’ winter storm power-grid failure, immigrants are making the Potomac River "dirtier and dirtier,” and that there’s no evidence that white supremacists played a role in the violent Jan. 6 Capitol riots. [2] We don't need this guy on the public airwaves. He should get a blog... that is, if he can find a hosting provider who will tolerate his views. 1: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-news-tucker-carlson-not-source-of-news-defamation-suit-mcdougal-trump.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-... 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-admits-i-lie-if-im-really-cornered-or-something https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-admits-i-lie-if...

CamperBob2 5y ago

If you disagree with something you can ignore it and move on, or engage with it and respond with your own counter-argument. I sympathize with a lot of what you wrote (and didn't downvote it), but the Trump era has highlighted a serious problem with your specific point above. The marginal cost of bullshit is zero. It takes basically no effort to post more of it, while it always takes at least a small amount of effort to debunk it. Worse, the bullshitter usually has the first-mover advantage. To claim the initiative, they only have to post a new thread predicated on far-right propaganda or conspiracy theories or hijack an existing one. Once lost, the rhetorical high ground is difficult and time-consuming to reclaim. As soon as you argue with the shitposter, they effortlessly shift their role from aggressor to victim, as some would suggest is happening in this very conversation. I've always maintained that the antidote to bad speech is more speech. A few years ago I would have died on this hill at your side. But principles that don't work in practice are useless... and this one, having been tested, simply doesn't work in practice. The sheer quantity of bullshit has an ironclad quality all its own.

dredmorbius 5y ago

The consequences of a toxic media landscape at scale are felt by those considerably removed from the platform(s) themselves. Twitter cheered the Arab Spring protests. Facebook are attempting to distance themselves from their very active role in the Myanmar genocide. History shows that changes to media landscapes are often very disruptive socially and politically, often at a horrific cost of innocent lives.