3 ms·

On the other hand, a company providing the service can ban users for spreading harmful information. Imagine a situation where, say, the president of the US was

On the other hand, a company providing the service can ban users for spreading harmful information. Imagine a situation where, say, the president of the US was spreading misinformation regarding a pandemic for example. To me it sounds good that there is some control to it.

nradov 5y ago
There is no such thing as harmful information. Only actions can cause harm. Do you think we should trust unaccountable corporate managers more than elected leaders to determine what is misinformation?
- ineedasername 5y ago
  >only actions can cause harm Disseminating information is an action. Also misinformation does not always contain information: Many times it's just a more polite way of calling something a lie, or simply wrong. Even when there is information, cherry picking which information to share can give the opposite impression of what more robust information would show. The question of who to trust is a good one. The issue I have with the viewpoint that platforms shouldn't be allowed to make these decisions for their own platforms is that it takes away property rights by having the government mandate what can or cannot be done with privately owned property. Should people have the right to decide what people can do on their privately owned property? Businesses are allowed to make all kinds of rules about this, from dress codes to what they consider disruptive conduct. Limiting that ability seems problematic to me. I don't have anything that I would consider a solution to finding the right answers or balance here, but I don't think we can ignore these issues.
- karmakurtisaani 5y ago
  > There is no such thing as harmful information. Only actions can cause harm. Perhaps in some idealistic model of society this is true. However, in reality people cannot process and evaluate the factual basis of all information that is pushed on them. Otherwise we would not be seeing so wide-spread misinformation campaigning, fake news and conspiracy theories. Harmful information tends to transform into harmful actions (harmful here being subjective - there's often someone benefiting as well). I don't have a clear-cut answer who should be determining what is misinformation. Also, I don't believe one bit that a free-for-all model is a good one, quite the opposite. Currently it seems that when someone clearly crosses the line, public opinion or perception forces the company to reconsider allowing the violator to remain on their platform. It might not be the most elegant model, but possibly the best we have.
ineedasername 5y ago
I think this touches on the heart of such issues. Many people see a big difference between censorship and an obligation to follow certain rules. Others seem to view any rules as a defacto form of censorship. I don't think these positions can be fully reconciled with each other.

nradov 5y ago

There is no such thing as harmful information. Only actions can cause harm. Do you think we should trust unaccountable corporate managers more than elected leaders to determine what is misinformation?

ineedasername 5y ago
>only actions can cause harm Disseminating information is an action. Also misinformation does not always contain information: Many times it's just a more polite way of calling something a lie, or simply wrong. Even when there is information, cherry picking which information to share can give the opposite impression of what more robust information would show. The question of who to trust is a good one. The issue I have with the viewpoint that platforms shouldn't be allowed to make these decisions for their own platforms is that it takes away property rights by having the government mandate what can or cannot be done with privately owned property. Should people have the right to decide what people can do on their privately owned property? Businesses are allowed to make all kinds of rules about this, from dress codes to what they consider disruptive conduct. Limiting that ability seems problematic to me. I don't have anything that I would consider a solution to finding the right answers or balance here, but I don't think we can ignore these issues.
karmakurtisaani 5y ago
> There is no such thing as harmful information. Only actions can cause harm. Perhaps in some idealistic model of society this is true. However, in reality people cannot process and evaluate the factual basis of all information that is pushed on them. Otherwise we would not be seeing so wide-spread misinformation campaigning, fake news and conspiracy theories. Harmful information tends to transform into harmful actions (harmful here being subjective - there's often someone benefiting as well). I don't have a clear-cut answer who should be determining what is misinformation. Also, I don't believe one bit that a free-for-all model is a good one, quite the opposite. Currently it seems that when someone clearly crosses the line, public opinion or perception forces the company to reconsider allowing the violator to remain on their platform. It might not be the most elegant model, but possibly the best we have.

ineedasername 5y ago

I think this touches on the heart of such issues. Many people see a big difference between censorship and an obligation to follow certain rules. Others seem to view any rules as a defacto form of censorship. I don't think these positions can be fully reconciled with each other.