5 ms·

How many people have to die because of misinformation before it's OK to take it down?

hunterb123 5y ago
Big bad "misinformation". The CCP also use that word as an excuse for censorship. You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. > These peasants can't think for themselves, we have to tell them what to think! Especially if they disagree or dissent! First it was "think of the children!" Then it was "think of grandma!" Now it's "think of the gullible!"
- chefkoch 5y ago
  Ah, so how do you do that, because the current approach does not seem to work. And when do you as platform owner think enough people died because of the content you host?
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    The current approach is to ban dissent for sanctioned topics (lab leak, hunter's laptop, vaccinations, etc.) and I agree that it's not working, because you get an echo chamber and force critics into the darkness whether they are right or wrong. The right approach is always more information. People can think for themselves, $5000 of Russian ads didn't do anything more or have any more lies a D or R campaign ad did, so stop pretending it did. If you want to ban foreign actors, that's fine. Targeting citizens with legit concerns and ideas is wrong and violates their rights, even if you launder your tyranny through private companies.
    - chefkoch 5y ago
      > The current approach is to ban dissent for sanctioned topics This is a fairly new approach. >The right approach is always more information. People can think for themselves, This has been tried for many years, i don't know how old you are but the Jenny McCarthy authism stuff is still around.
datavirtue 5y ago
Give me liberty or give me death. Very simple.
- psyc 5y ago
  Much too simple for people so conditioned to crafting rule sets to solve problems.
mdp2021 5y ago
If "misinformation" were easily discriminated, there would be no need to wait for consequences to properly label it.

Big bad "misinformation". The CCP also use that word as an excuse for censorship. You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. > These peasants can't think for themselves, we have to tell them what to think! Especially if they disagree or dissent! First it was "think of the children!" Then it was "think of grandma!" Now it's "think of the gullible!"

chefkoch 5y ago
Ah, so how do you do that, because the current approach does not seem to work. And when do you as platform owner think enough people died because of the content you host?
- hunterb123 5y ago
  The current approach is to ban dissent for sanctioned topics (lab leak, hunter's laptop, vaccinations, etc.) and I agree that it's not working, because you get an echo chamber and force critics into the darkness whether they are right or wrong. The right approach is always more information. People can think for themselves, $5000 of Russian ads didn't do anything more or have any more lies a D or R campaign ad did, so stop pretending it did. If you want to ban foreign actors, that's fine. Targeting citizens with legit concerns and ideas is wrong and violates their rights, even if you launder your tyranny through private companies.
  - chefkoch 5y ago
    > The current approach is to ban dissent for sanctioned topics This is a fairly new approach. >The right approach is always more information. People can think for themselves, This has been tried for many years, i don't know how old you are but the Jenny McCarthy authism stuff is still around.

datavirtue 5y ago

Give me liberty or give me death. Very simple.

psyc 5y ago
Much too simple for people so conditioned to crafting rule sets to solve problems.

mdp2021 5y ago

If "misinformation" were easily discriminated, there would be no need to wait for consequences to properly label it.