4 ms·

> I don't think we should be worried about censorship of misinformation. My parents coming from a communist nation (Yugoslavia) I strongly disagree with this.

> I don't think we should be worried about censorship of misinformation. My parents coming from a communist nation (Yugoslavia) I strongly disagree with this. Who determines what is truth and what is misinformation? One of the major arguments communists used to oppress speech was to prevent panic and the spread of misinformation. (Misinformation being anything that wasn't pro-communist) Imagine that the worst and most corrupt people you can think of are now in charge of controlling truth and misinformation. That is why the freedom of speech is a fundamental human right - no one should have that kind of power. I agree that we need better fundamental education and critical thinking, but not less rights and more power for large entities.

cletus 5y ago
The situations aren't comparable because in your case (the former Yugoslavia) you're talking about state censorship and control of information by threat of criminal prosecution. The US specifically has protections against this via the First Amendment. Instead we have private actors choosing not to be in the misinformation business. Various hate groups and such have been deplatformed by Twitter, Facebook, etc. Those fringe sources still exist. They're just in darker corners of the Internet. They're not entitled to free, mass distribution just to spew lies without recourse. Lastly, it's worth pointing out that we censor things all the time as it is when there is an overriding interest in doing so. Examples: criminal cases involving minors (ie their names), naming certain victims in court cases, courts sealing records, publishing of military secrets, publishing of dangerous information (eg how to make a biological weapon), information to doxx/swat people and so on.
- agentgumshoe 5y ago
  You're missing the point. Who gets to determine what is 'misinformation?' I think you'll find if you look back a year or so it was the government representatives and 'MSM' defining it, not leading scientists (some of which have since been 'discredited' because they supposedly suddenly turned to nuttiness). And little seems said, but I can't help notice the quite communist behaviour to demand the state mandate 'choices' for the populance wholesale 'for the greater good.' Especially knowing the vaccines don't stop the virus or the spread. Protecting information is not censorship, and your example highlights an incredible ignorance of what censorship (which is a government tool the first amendment is specifically designed around) actually is.
  - immibis 5y ago
    Objective reality gets to determine.
    - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      What's the objective reality on the lab leak theory? Effectiveness of cloth masks? Has that objective reality changed? Has the perception of that objective reality changed? Where do you get your objective reality from and how is it infallible?
      - immibis 5y ago
        We don't know, but what we do know is that the truth of the lab leak theory is irrelevant to whether we should stop the virus, and is primarily only mentioned as a distraction from that.
        agentgumshoe 5y ago
        Actually the interesting part of that theory being true or not is Fauci funding gain of function research in those labs through Peter Danszak (i.e. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/nih-took-scientists-word-that-wuhan-research-wasnt-dangerous/ar-AAQkmI2 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/nih-took-scientists... - gets worse the more recent findings you come across) and the unwavering support the NIH have him. Certainly raises strong questions regardless of your starting position.
  - cletus 5y ago
    Oh I understand the point completely. A quick look at your comment history says everything (eg [1][2]). You have, for whatever reason, fallen down the of misinformation and propaganda that turns you into an anti-vaxxer and you've lost any objectivity or any ability to reason about the information you receive the supports or contradicts your view. If it supports your view, it's correct. If it doesn't, it isn't. The reasons for this can vary: they're hiding things, they're lying, they're misunderstanding, they've been bought by Big Pharma, they're trying to control you, whatever. I honestly don't care. But what I do know (as evidenced by your history) that having reached that conclusion you now work backwards. You're against "censorship" of misinformation because that misinformation contradicts your anti-vaxxer beliefs and therefore it's bad. I'd bet money if we were talking about censoring information that showed vaccines are safe and work you'd have a completely different view. Your right to promulgate propaganda isn't being violated here. Platforms just aren't required to distribute it and use their judgement about what they want on their platform. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30144341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30144341 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29612915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29612915

cletus 5y ago

The situations aren't comparable because in your case (the former Yugoslavia) you're talking about state censorship and control of information by threat of criminal prosecution. The US specifically has protections against this via the First Amendment. Instead we have private actors choosing not to be in the misinformation business. Various hate groups and such have been deplatformed by Twitter, Facebook, etc. Those fringe sources still exist. They're just in darker corners of the Internet. They're not entitled to free, mass distribution just to spew lies without recourse. Lastly, it's worth pointing out that we censor things all the time as it is when there is an overriding interest in doing so. Examples: criminal cases involving minors (ie their names), naming certain victims in court cases, courts sealing records, publishing of military secrets, publishing of dangerous information (eg how to make a biological weapon), information to doxx/swat people and so on.

agentgumshoe 5y ago
You're missing the point. Who gets to determine what is 'misinformation?' I think you'll find if you look back a year or so it was the government representatives and 'MSM' defining it, not leading scientists (some of which have since been 'discredited' because they supposedly suddenly turned to nuttiness). And little seems said, but I can't help notice the quite communist behaviour to demand the state mandate 'choices' for the populance wholesale 'for the greater good.' Especially knowing the vaccines don't stop the virus or the spread. Protecting information is not censorship, and your example highlights an incredible ignorance of what censorship (which is a government tool the first amendment is specifically designed around) actually is.
- immibis 5y ago
  Objective reality gets to determine.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    What's the objective reality on the lab leak theory? Effectiveness of cloth masks? Has that objective reality changed? Has the perception of that objective reality changed? Where do you get your objective reality from and how is it infallible?
    - immibis 5y ago
      We don't know, but what we do know is that the truth of the lab leak theory is irrelevant to whether we should stop the virus, and is primarily only mentioned as a distraction from that.
      - agentgumshoe 5y ago
        Actually the interesting part of that theory being true or not is Fauci funding gain of function research in those labs through Peter Danszak (i.e. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/nih-took-scientists-word-that-wuhan-research-wasnt-dangerous/ar-AAQkmI2 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/nih-took-scientists... - gets worse the more recent findings you come across) and the unwavering support the NIH have him. Certainly raises strong questions regardless of your starting position.
- cletus 5y ago
  Oh I understand the point completely. A quick look at your comment history says everything (eg [1][2]). You have, for whatever reason, fallen down the of misinformation and propaganda that turns you into an anti-vaxxer and you've lost any objectivity or any ability to reason about the information you receive the supports or contradicts your view. If it supports your view, it's correct. If it doesn't, it isn't. The reasons for this can vary: they're hiding things, they're lying, they're misunderstanding, they've been bought by Big Pharma, they're trying to control you, whatever. I honestly don't care. But what I do know (as evidenced by your history) that having reached that conclusion you now work backwards. You're against "censorship" of misinformation because that misinformation contradicts your anti-vaxxer beliefs and therefore it's bad. I'd bet money if we were talking about censoring information that showed vaccines are safe and work you'd have a completely different view. Your right to promulgate propaganda isn't being violated here. Platforms just aren't required to distribute it and use their judgement about what they want on their platform. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30144341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30144341 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29612915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29612915