8 ms·

Deplatforming is anti-competitive behavior in the marketplace of ideas. We all think some should not be allowed to compete, but we all are impacted negatively b

Deplatforming is anti-competitive behavior in the marketplace of ideas. We all think some should not be allowed to compete, but we all are impacted negatively by the emergent monopoly.

notriddle 5y ago
Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting misinformation. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work. ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or business ( ) Assumes that you can use textual metrics to determine if a claim is true or not ( ) Assumes that pictures can’t be faked (X) Assumes that popularity equals truth ( ) Assumes that you can tell whether something’s true by where the web server hosting it is located ( ) Any social network that tries to adopt it won’t get used ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Requires fake news to opt into additional scrutiny ( ) Requires mind reading ( ) Puts additional strain on already underfunded and understaffed organizations ( ) Big Tech won’t put up with it ( ) ISPs won’t put up with it ( ) By the time you took it down, the damage would already be done ( ) Good luck finding a neutral third party on major political controversies ( ) Would just move the problem from Facebook to Signal (X) “Trust No One” is not a solution ( ) The surveillance state already has more data than they know what to do with — Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Readers failing to notice “this is a joke” disclaimers (X) The existence of Schelling points other than the truth (X) Black Hat SEO tactics ( ) “Residential IP” proxies ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Legitimate disagreement ( ) Context ( ) Bias ( ) Asshats ( ) Dog-whistle politics ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Linguistic drift (X) Asymmetry of information (X) Asymmetry of available resources ( ) The time it takes to verify a claim being far longer than the time it takes to write it ( ) New information coming out after a story has been published ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of fake news (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who literally believe in magic ( ) Technical illiteracy ( ) Hacking (X) Astroturfing (X) People with valuable information, but no capital ( ) Laziness ( ) Dishonesty on the part of fake news pushers — and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) It would violate Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( ) Technically, that’s how it already works ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Fake news was already a problem before Facebook; we called it “chain mail” ( ) Outlawing The Onion would be stupid ( ) Post ranking algorithms should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Any countermeasure that involves outlawing end-to-end encrypted private communication is unacceptable ( ) Any countermeasure that involves spear phishing is not going to work more than a couple of times ( ) We should be able to talk about the letter Q without being censored ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Who gave you the right to decide whether something is true? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem (X) Anonymity does not destroy all class and power differences, and makes bad-faith participation more common ( ) The distinction between “political” and “apolitical” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “private” and “public” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “fact” and “opinion” is not always clear-cut ( ) People who can’t afford lawyers would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) People who can’t afford bodyguards would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) Your scheme would have made it illegal to share a video of police brutality without consulting the very institutions that benefit most from police brutality ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough — Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (X) Sorry, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! — This is a very, very old meme. Here’s a few older versions of it. https://qntm.org/calendar https://qntm.org/calendar https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
- ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
  Your post advocates a (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting misinformation. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work. ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or business ( ) Assumes that you can use textual metrics to determine if a claim is true or not ( ) Assumes that pictures can’t be faked (X) Assumes that popularity equals truth ( ) Assumes that you can tell whether something’s true by where the web server hosting it is located ( ) Any social network that tries to adopt it won’t get used ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Requires fake news to opt into additional scrutiny ( ) Requires mind reading ( ) Puts additional strain on already underfunded and understaffed organizations ( ) Big Tech won’t put up with it ( ) ISPs won’t put up with it ( ) By the time you took it down, the damage would already be done (X) Good luck finding a neutral third party on major political controversies ( ) Would just move the problem from Facebook to Signal ( ) “Trust No One” is not a solution ( ) The surveillance state already has more data than they know what to do with — Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Readers failing to notice “this is a joke” disclaimers ( ) The existence of Schelling points other than the truth ( ) Black Hat SEO tactics ( ) “Residential IP” proxies ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Legitimate disagreement (X) Context ( ) Bias ( ) Asshats ( ) Dog-whistle politics ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Linguistic drift ( ) Asymmetry of information ( ) Asymmetry of available resources ( ) The time it takes to verify a claim being far longer than the time it takes to write it ( ) New information coming out after a story has been published ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of fake news (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who literally believe in magic ( ) Technical illiteracy ( ) Hacking ( ) Astroturfing (X) People with valuable information, but no capital ( ) Laziness ( ) Dishonesty on the part of fake news pushers — and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) It would violate Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( ) Technically, that’s how it already works (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Fake news was already a problem before Facebook; we called it “chain mail” ( ) Outlawing The Onion would be stupid ( ) Post ranking algorithms should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Any countermeasure that involves outlawing end-to-end encrypted private communication is unacceptable ( ) Any countermeasure that involves spear phishing is not going to work more than a couple of times ( ) We should be able to talk about the letter Q without being censored ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Who gave you the right to decide whether something is true? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Anonymity does not destroy all class and power differences, and makes bad-faith participation more common ( ) The distinction between “political” and “apolitical” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “private” and “public” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “fact” and “opinion” is not always clear-cut ( ) People who can’t afford lawyers would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) People who can’t afford bodyguards would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) Your scheme would have made it illegal to share a video of police brutality without consulting the very institutions that benefit most from police brutality ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough — Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (X) Sorry, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! (X) Next time try understanding reading my comment. — Right back at you.

Deplatforming is anti-competitive behavior in the marketplace of ideas. We all think some should not be allowed to compete, but we all are impacted negatively by the emergent monopoly.

notriddle 5y ago

Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting misinformation. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work. ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or business ( ) Assumes that you can use textual metrics to determine if a claim is true or not ( ) Assumes that pictures can’t be faked (X) Assumes that popularity equals truth ( ) Assumes that you can tell whether something’s true by where the web server hosting it is located ( ) Any social network that tries to adopt it won’t get used ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Requires fake news to opt into additional scrutiny ( ) Requires mind reading ( ) Puts additional strain on already underfunded and understaffed organizations ( ) Big Tech won’t put up with it ( ) ISPs won’t put up with it ( ) By the time you took it down, the damage would already be done ( ) Good luck finding a neutral third party on major political controversies ( ) Would just move the problem from Facebook to Signal (X) “Trust No One” is not a solution ( ) The surveillance state already has more data than they know what to do with — Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Readers failing to notice “this is a joke” disclaimers (X) The existence of Schelling points other than the truth (X) Black Hat SEO tactics ( ) “Residential IP” proxies ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Legitimate disagreement ( ) Context ( ) Bias ( ) Asshats ( ) Dog-whistle politics ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Linguistic drift (X) Asymmetry of information (X) Asymmetry of available resources ( ) The time it takes to verify a claim being far longer than the time it takes to write it ( ) New information coming out after a story has been published ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of fake news (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who literally believe in magic ( ) Technical illiteracy ( ) Hacking (X) Astroturfing (X) People with valuable information, but no capital ( ) Laziness ( ) Dishonesty on the part of fake news pushers — and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) It would violate Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( ) Technically, that’s how it already works ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Fake news was already a problem before Facebook; we called it “chain mail” ( ) Outlawing The Onion would be stupid ( ) Post ranking algorithms should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Any countermeasure that involves outlawing end-to-end encrypted private communication is unacceptable ( ) Any countermeasure that involves spear phishing is not going to work more than a couple of times ( ) We should be able to talk about the letter Q without being censored ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Who gave you the right to decide whether something is true? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem (X) Anonymity does not destroy all class and power differences, and makes bad-faith participation more common ( ) The distinction between “political” and “apolitical” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “private” and “public” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “fact” and “opinion” is not always clear-cut ( ) People who can’t afford lawyers would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) People who can’t afford bodyguards would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) Your scheme would have made it illegal to share a video of police brutality without consulting the very institutions that benefit most from police brutality ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough — Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (X) Sorry, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! — This is a very, very old meme. Here’s a few older versions of it. https://qntm.org/calendar https://qntm.org/calendar https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
Your post advocates a (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting misinformation. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work. ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or business ( ) Assumes that you can use textual metrics to determine if a claim is true or not ( ) Assumes that pictures can’t be faked (X) Assumes that popularity equals truth ( ) Assumes that you can tell whether something’s true by where the web server hosting it is located ( ) Any social network that tries to adopt it won’t get used ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Requires fake news to opt into additional scrutiny ( ) Requires mind reading ( ) Puts additional strain on already underfunded and understaffed organizations ( ) Big Tech won’t put up with it ( ) ISPs won’t put up with it ( ) By the time you took it down, the damage would already be done (X) Good luck finding a neutral third party on major political controversies ( ) Would just move the problem from Facebook to Signal ( ) “Trust No One” is not a solution ( ) The surveillance state already has more data than they know what to do with — Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Readers failing to notice “this is a joke” disclaimers ( ) The existence of Schelling points other than the truth ( ) Black Hat SEO tactics ( ) “Residential IP” proxies ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Legitimate disagreement (X) Context ( ) Bias ( ) Asshats ( ) Dog-whistle politics ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Linguistic drift ( ) Asymmetry of information ( ) Asymmetry of available resources ( ) The time it takes to verify a claim being far longer than the time it takes to write it ( ) New information coming out after a story has been published ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of fake news (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who literally believe in magic ( ) Technical illiteracy ( ) Hacking ( ) Astroturfing (X) People with valuable information, but no capital ( ) Laziness ( ) Dishonesty on the part of fake news pushers — and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) It would violate Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( ) Technically, that’s how it already works (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Fake news was already a problem before Facebook; we called it “chain mail” ( ) Outlawing The Onion would be stupid ( ) Post ranking algorithms should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Any countermeasure that involves outlawing end-to-end encrypted private communication is unacceptable ( ) Any countermeasure that involves spear phishing is not going to work more than a couple of times ( ) We should be able to talk about the letter Q without being censored ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Who gave you the right to decide whether something is true? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Anonymity does not destroy all class and power differences, and makes bad-faith participation more common ( ) The distinction between “political” and “apolitical” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “private” and “public” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “fact” and “opinion” is not always clear-cut ( ) People who can’t afford lawyers would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) People who can’t afford bodyguards would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) Your scheme would have made it illegal to share a video of police brutality without consulting the very institutions that benefit most from police brutality ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough — Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (X) Sorry, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! (X) Next time try understanding reading my comment. — Right back at you.