5 ms·

Internet fact checkers are merely enforcing their opinions over other opinions. Facebook, for example, makes the claim that their fact checks are just opinion

Internet fact checkers are merely enforcing their opinions over other opinions. Facebook, for example, makes the claim that their fact checks are just opinion in trying to defend themselves in a lawsuit. https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebook-bizarrely-claims-its-misquote-is-opinion/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebook-bizarrely-claims-its-...

triceratops 5y ago
I don't get why that's contradictory or bad. It's FB's website, FB's property. They're quite free to say "In our opinion, this is factual and that is false". They're under no obligation to allow others to say whatever they want. We wouldn't say anything about a restaurant or bar owner kicking out patrons because they offend other patrons or staff. Why is FB any different?
- john_moscow 5y ago
  Because it has become the only bar in town with free booze sponsored by the local hospital handling drunk driving accidents. Make the social media platforms interoperable, and force them to charge the costs directly to consumers (so that the platforms could compete on price/quality) and people will run away from it like rats from a sinking ship.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    So all this "censorship" talk is really an XY problem[1], then. My honest opinion is that most people who cry "censorship" don't care about truth or actual freedom. They just want their shit to go to the widest audience possible. I'll change my opinion when more of the "censorship" crowd acknowledges that while they strongly disagree, FB (or any other website) has every legal and moral right to "censor" them, because that's also what freedom is about. You can't be for freedom only when it favors you. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Even if there is an XY problem, censorship is so inherently evil that it needs to be stopped even if there's a different problem that we should be solving too.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        Is it "censorship" if I throw you out of my Christmas party because you got drunk and insulted my wife? Is it "censorship" if I throw you out of my 2000-person seminar because you keep interrupting? Is it "censorship" if I kick you out for handing out flyers for a competitor on my premises? Are they all "inherently evil" acts? Keep in mind, I'm using the scare quoted version of censorship because all of my examples are censorship by definition. But no reasonable person would find anything objectionable in them, let alone "inherently evil". I can't (and won't) stop you from saying whatever you want. But I don't have to let you be on my property to say it. I respect your freedom to say what you want. Please respect my freedom to enforce codes of conduct on my property.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        > my property This phrase is key. The public square is supposed to be 100% censorship free. Facebook stole the public square from us, and is now censoring it as if it were legitimately private property.
        triceratops 5y ago
        > Facebook stole the public square from us How? Do they control the Internet or the Web somehow? You and I are talking on a non-FB property right now. And even if it were true, I point you back to my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29726412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29726412 All of this "censorship" scare-mongering has the potential to turn into a slippery slope that could seriously erode property rights online. Fix the actual problem, rather than whatever's most convenient for you at the moment.
xwolfi 5y ago
Well let's say you have a certain agenda as a government, to prioritize a risk/reward ratio over pure freedom, and decides that you can afford to make everyone unhappy but alive by maintaining very strict information control. Say like China does but not just for the party, for the country itself. You can then prioritize opinions by their reward if correct vs risk of being incorrect. Even if you're incorrect, it's better to be incorrect saying mask are useful, than being incorrect saying mask are useless. The probability of masks worsening the situation is lower (but not null) than the probability of masks improving it. I don't see the problem with that, it's like saying "veterans fought for our freedom and deserve our respect" instead of "veterans used tax money to oppress foreigners and enforce national policies abroad at the detriment of most people involved, and they did that for money not for the country". There are opinions better not shared by official message to lead the country towards some sort of coherent path no ?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > Say like China does but not just for the party, for the country itself. > I don't see the problem with that You're unironically advocating for us to do one of the more evil things that China does.
  - xwolfi 5y ago
    You re unironically calling "evil" a clearly stated, well defined, historically precedented, very human behaviour China put in place for the specific purpose, like it or not, to position the party before the country. It's not evil, it's maybe short sighted and selfish, or who knows, the only way to transition to something better eventually. But "evil", resist these emotional adjectives, you make Chinese people just handwave any attempt at rational evolution.

triceratops 5y ago

I don't get why that's contradictory or bad. It's FB's website, FB's property. They're quite free to say "In our opinion, this is factual and that is false". They're under no obligation to allow others to say whatever they want. We wouldn't say anything about a restaurant or bar owner kicking out patrons because they offend other patrons or staff. Why is FB any different?

john_moscow 5y ago
Because it has become the only bar in town with free booze sponsored by the local hospital handling drunk driving accidents. Make the social media platforms interoperable, and force them to charge the costs directly to consumers (so that the platforms could compete on price/quality) and people will run away from it like rats from a sinking ship.
- triceratops 5y ago
  So all this "censorship" talk is really an XY problem[1], then. My honest opinion is that most people who cry "censorship" don't care about truth or actual freedom. They just want their shit to go to the widest audience possible. I'll change my opinion when more of the "censorship" crowd acknowledges that while they strongly disagree, FB (or any other website) has every legal and moral right to "censor" them, because that's also what freedom is about. You can't be for freedom only when it favors you. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Even if there is an XY problem, censorship is so inherently evil that it needs to be stopped even if there's a different problem that we should be solving too.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      Is it "censorship" if I throw you out of my Christmas party because you got drunk and insulted my wife? Is it "censorship" if I throw you out of my 2000-person seminar because you keep interrupting? Is it "censorship" if I kick you out for handing out flyers for a competitor on my premises? Are they all "inherently evil" acts? Keep in mind, I'm using the scare quoted version of censorship because all of my examples are censorship by definition. But no reasonable person would find anything objectionable in them, let alone "inherently evil". I can't (and won't) stop you from saying whatever you want. But I don't have to let you be on my property to say it. I respect your freedom to say what you want. Please respect my freedom to enforce codes of conduct on my property.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > my property This phrase is key. The public square is supposed to be 100% censorship free. Facebook stole the public square from us, and is now censoring it as if it were legitimately private property.
        triceratops 5y ago
        > Facebook stole the public square from us How? Do they control the Internet or the Web somehow? You and I are talking on a non-FB property right now. And even if it were true, I point you back to my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29726412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29726412 All of this "censorship" scare-mongering has the potential to turn into a slippery slope that could seriously erode property rights online. Fix the actual problem, rather than whatever's most convenient for you at the moment.

xwolfi 5y ago

Well let's say you have a certain agenda as a government, to prioritize a risk/reward ratio over pure freedom, and decides that you can afford to make everyone unhappy but alive by maintaining very strict information control. Say like China does but not just for the party, for the country itself. You can then prioritize opinions by their reward if correct vs risk of being incorrect. Even if you're incorrect, it's better to be incorrect saying mask are useful, than being incorrect saying mask are useless. The probability of masks worsening the situation is lower (but not null) than the probability of masks improving it. I don't see the problem with that, it's like saying "veterans fought for our freedom and deserve our respect" instead of "veterans used tax money to oppress foreigners and enforce national policies abroad at the detriment of most people involved, and they did that for money not for the country". There are opinions better not shared by official message to lead the country towards some sort of coherent path no ?

josephcsible 5y ago
> Say like China does but not just for the party, for the country itself. > I don't see the problem with that You're unironically advocating for us to do one of the more evil things that China does.
- xwolfi 5y ago
  You re unironically calling "evil" a clearly stated, well defined, historically precedented, very human behaviour China put in place for the specific purpose, like it or not, to position the party before the country. It's not evil, it's maybe short sighted and selfish, or who knows, the only way to transition to something better eventually. But "evil", resist these emotional adjectives, you make Chinese people just handwave any attempt at rational evolution.