4 ms·

I believe misinformation is fast becoming our biggest problem. It makes all other problems so much more difficult to discuss and solve. It undermines democracy

I believe misinformation is fast becoming our biggest problem. It makes all other problems so much more difficult to discuss and solve. It undermines democracy itself. I think we need clearer lines about what is a "carrier" and what is a "publisher". In my view, if you perform any kind of moderation you are a publisher and should be held responsible for any harm caused by misinformation you serve. We then need publicly funded bodies and a functioning judicial system to move quickly to silence things that are said that are just not true. Whether you are reading it on Facebook, Google, or somebodies random website, we have to stamp it out. It's a huge, difficult task. But hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost to covid alone because people don't trust media, they don't trust officials, the don't know what to believe.

wsc981 5y ago
Censorship is horrible and would in fact be the end of democracy.
- Fricken 5y ago
  You can't have a functioning democracy without an informed populace. Censorship and disinformation are 2 sides of the same coin.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Was it misinformation that let you support the war in Iraq? What was the source of the information?
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      People, corporations and, most important of all, government officials should be held liable for the consequences of any misrepresentation made to the public. In fact, the only excuse for a government official to present materially false information is national security, and, even then, they can usually do the "I cannot confirm or deny" or "I have no recollection of" dance. What we have is large organizations that profit from misinforming a large population. This endangers democracy and the very fabric of our societies. The freedom of the press comes from the requirement of an informed population for the functioning of a democracy. When the organization ceases to inform, it should not enjoy the legal protections afforded to the press.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        They should be hold accountable, but that did not happen and can only happen if government is strictly prohibited to influence content, even if it is misinformation. This is why the constitution of the US is pretty good despite its age (I am not from the US). But true, maybe it didn't foresaw companies becoming so influential that they rival states. But the solutions I heard was forcing these companies to moderate content, an approach that is so obviously flawed that I cannot believe how many supporters the idea can mobilize. Still, government misinformation is still a threat. The Russian interference story was a pretty big scandal in my opinion because it was mostly made up and worse media and intelligence agencies corroborated on direct lie. Exactly like they did on Iraq. This has Operation Mockingbird quality at least and people responsible didn't face any repercussions. Frankly, the only people that would let them face consequences are the allegedly stupid flyover rednecks. But if these people really are stupid, what do I call the others? Is there a geopolitical tension with Russia or Putin? Sure. Would Putin try to get people in the US to fight each other? Of course! But I doubt he would have needed to do much to be honest, not because of a lack of trying.
        rbanffy 5y ago
        > Exactly like they did on Iraq. That was very shocking, because it eroded public good will towards the US, making it obvious the government would use whatever falsehoods to justify an illegal war despite the fact international experts on the ground were clearly stating the opposite. That and using its privileged position in the UN Security Council to avoid any repercussions, effectively nullifying the organization and showing it has no teeth against the US. The Russia thing has some interesting facets however. Did Putin actually plan on Trump being elected? I very much doubt so - nobody in their right mind would expect that. Was he pleased? I bet he was. We know Russia has been financing disinformation campaigns in Europe to destabilize the EU, and the far-right has embraced that as a convenient way to reach power. The damage that caused to US politics will take decades to repair, and even if it can heal itself is debatable at this point.
  - wsc981 5y ago
    But you can't even trust the government or media to provide honest information most of the time. What you need is a critical press, which in my opinion is mostly gone in my country of origin (The Netherlands), probably many more countries in the Western world. Some examples from US that show the press not operating in a honest way would be the Trump "Russia gate" debacle and the "horse dewormer" coverage of Ivermectin.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      > What you need is a critical press What we need is a press that's dedicated to present the truth. Think of it as something similar to the BBC, but fully independent and impossible to influence without getting exposed.
      - impendingchange 5y ago
        What if press organizations were not allowed to be for-profit?
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  We have censorship everywhere you look. There is no porn on Facebook, not many links to illegal stuff in Google. I've been thinking about it all day, and perhaps it is OK if half the world is walking around thinking the earth is flat. Perhaps it doesn't really matter if our leaders don't believe in science. Does it really matter that 700,000 people died of covid unnecessarily? But does it really matter if your speech is censored if nobody believes what you say anyhow? just another mad voice in a sea of madness? But assuming the whole point of society is to try an improve the lives of people living in it, I think we need a foundation of trust, and we should do out best to suppress things that undermined that trust. Trust in our officials, Trust in our media, Trust in each other.
bigodbiel 5y ago
So social media companies need to abide by Section 230 and stop moderation, returning to their roles as “carriers” only. Yes there are caveats, but mostly they can’t both expect protection of the First and Section 230 simultaneously.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Or they need to be able to demonstrate they did everything they could to suppress the use of their platforms to actively harm the public. When a prominent personality says vaccines cause autism, they are willingly harming society and should be held accountable for the harm they cause.
raxxorrax 5y ago
> responsible for any harm caused by misinformation you serve. That would enable even more political prosecution of subjects and would put extreme chilling effects on everyone including any press outlet.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  The prosecution would need to make a case that the misinformation you published is false and causes harm. If the journalist can prove it's not false, or, if the information is false, that they were quoting a source in good faith, then the source should be on the hook, not the journalist. Remember: you shouldn't lie in public forms, you shouldn't lie to the press, and the government shouldn't have more secrets than what is strictly needed for its operation.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    You should not lie, but it isn't unlawful. Otherwise we would all be in prison. I think that is not enforceable in the slightest and a ridiculously totalitarian approach regarding truth. Public officials lie to the press all the time if you include withholding information. Causing harm is extremely subjective and you don't even find 2 humans that completely agree here.
refurb 5y ago
So was the lab leak theory “disinformation” or not. Because it went from “fully debunked” to “probably true” in the span of 6 months. You’ll have to excuse me when the “Ministry of Truth” tells me what to believe.
- tzs 5y ago
  There is no "the" lab leak theory. There have been a ton of different lab leak theories. And none have went to "probably true".
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  Wouldn't it be nice to have a press that would just tell us that there is not enough information to know one way or the other. Too boring. Won't generate enough clicks.

wsc981 5y ago

Censorship is horrible and would in fact be the end of democracy.

Fricken 5y ago
You can't have a functioning democracy without an informed populace. Censorship and disinformation are 2 sides of the same coin.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Was it misinformation that let you support the war in Iraq? What was the source of the information?
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    People, corporations and, most important of all, government officials should be held liable for the consequences of any misrepresentation made to the public. In fact, the only excuse for a government official to present materially false information is national security, and, even then, they can usually do the "I cannot confirm or deny" or "I have no recollection of" dance. What we have is large organizations that profit from misinforming a large population. This endangers democracy and the very fabric of our societies. The freedom of the press comes from the requirement of an informed population for the functioning of a democracy. When the organization ceases to inform, it should not enjoy the legal protections afforded to the press.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      They should be hold accountable, but that did not happen and can only happen if government is strictly prohibited to influence content, even if it is misinformation. This is why the constitution of the US is pretty good despite its age (I am not from the US). But true, maybe it didn't foresaw companies becoming so influential that they rival states. But the solutions I heard was forcing these companies to moderate content, an approach that is so obviously flawed that I cannot believe how many supporters the idea can mobilize. Still, government misinformation is still a threat. The Russian interference story was a pretty big scandal in my opinion because it was mostly made up and worse media and intelligence agencies corroborated on direct lie. Exactly like they did on Iraq. This has Operation Mockingbird quality at least and people responsible didn't face any repercussions. Frankly, the only people that would let them face consequences are the allegedly stupid flyover rednecks. But if these people really are stupid, what do I call the others? Is there a geopolitical tension with Russia or Putin? Sure. Would Putin try to get people in the US to fight each other? Of course! But I doubt he would have needed to do much to be honest, not because of a lack of trying.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        > Exactly like they did on Iraq. That was very shocking, because it eroded public good will towards the US, making it obvious the government would use whatever falsehoods to justify an illegal war despite the fact international experts on the ground were clearly stating the opposite. That and using its privileged position in the UN Security Council to avoid any repercussions, effectively nullifying the organization and showing it has no teeth against the US. The Russia thing has some interesting facets however. Did Putin actually plan on Trump being elected? I very much doubt so - nobody in their right mind would expect that. Was he pleased? I bet he was. We know Russia has been financing disinformation campaigns in Europe to destabilize the EU, and the far-right has embraced that as a convenient way to reach power. The damage that caused to US politics will take decades to repair, and even if it can heal itself is debatable at this point.
- wsc981 5y ago
  But you can't even trust the government or media to provide honest information most of the time. What you need is a critical press, which in my opinion is mostly gone in my country of origin (The Netherlands), probably many more countries in the Western world. Some examples from US that show the press not operating in a honest way would be the Trump "Russia gate" debacle and the "horse dewormer" coverage of Ivermectin.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > What you need is a critical press What we need is a press that's dedicated to present the truth. Think of it as something similar to the BBC, but fully independent and impossible to influence without getting exposed.
    - impendingchange 5y ago
      What if press organizations were not allowed to be for-profit?
jay_kyburz 5y ago
We have censorship everywhere you look. There is no porn on Facebook, not many links to illegal stuff in Google. I've been thinking about it all day, and perhaps it is OK if half the world is walking around thinking the earth is flat. Perhaps it doesn't really matter if our leaders don't believe in science. Does it really matter that 700,000 people died of covid unnecessarily? But does it really matter if your speech is censored if nobody believes what you say anyhow? just another mad voice in a sea of madness? But assuming the whole point of society is to try an improve the lives of people living in it, I think we need a foundation of trust, and we should do out best to suppress things that undermined that trust. Trust in our officials, Trust in our media, Trust in each other.

bigodbiel 5y ago

So social media companies need to abide by Section 230 and stop moderation, returning to their roles as “carriers” only. Yes there are caveats, but mostly they can’t both expect protection of the First and Section 230 simultaneously.

rbanffy 5y ago
Or they need to be able to demonstrate they did everything they could to suppress the use of their platforms to actively harm the public. When a prominent personality says vaccines cause autism, they are willingly harming society and should be held accountable for the harm they cause.

raxxorrax 5y ago

> responsible for any harm caused by misinformation you serve. That would enable even more political prosecution of subjects and would put extreme chilling effects on everyone including any press outlet.

rbanffy 5y ago
The prosecution would need to make a case that the misinformation you published is false and causes harm. If the journalist can prove it's not false, or, if the information is false, that they were quoting a source in good faith, then the source should be on the hook, not the journalist. Remember: you shouldn't lie in public forms, you shouldn't lie to the press, and the government shouldn't have more secrets than what is strictly needed for its operation.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  You should not lie, but it isn't unlawful. Otherwise we would all be in prison. I think that is not enforceable in the slightest and a ridiculously totalitarian approach regarding truth. Public officials lie to the press all the time if you include withholding information. Causing harm is extremely subjective and you don't even find 2 humans that completely agree here.

refurb 5y ago

So was the lab leak theory “disinformation” or not. Because it went from “fully debunked” to “probably true” in the span of 6 months. You’ll have to excuse me when the “Ministry of Truth” tells me what to believe.

tzs 5y ago
There is no "the" lab leak theory. There have been a ton of different lab leak theories. And none have went to "probably true".
jay_kyburz 5y ago
Wouldn't it be nice to have a press that would just tell us that there is not enough information to know one way or the other. Too boring. Won't generate enough clicks.