4 ms·

Yeah I'm going to have to categorically disagree with that. You can totally police misinformation in a fair means by requiring that it presents credible evidenc

Yeah I'm going to have to categorically disagree with that. You can totally police misinformation in a fair means by requiring that it presents credible evidence of weight commensurate with the impact of what it argues, and explain to those who are policed in a transparent manner why and how they can appeal it. There is no one on earth who can form a credible argument that 5G spreads SARS because it's fucking lunacy. The evidence for ivermectin improving severe covid outcomes also clearly showed it was only noticeable in regions where untreated parasitic worm infections are common, so yeah, getting rid of multiple other infections led to better outcomes. Various counter-arguments against anthropogenic global warming (even the honest ones) have been thoroughly invalidated for decades. It's like raising the required work to send spam or spray malware at random internet hosts. It doesn't fix everything, but it evens the playing field between trolls and agents of discord vs people having real discussions. We know this works because high-value discussion forums like the heavily moderated science subreddits do it and there is no mass hysteria -- and reddit should probably be compensating those mods, but that's another issue. If your commercial platform does not put in the bare minimum content moderation to keep dangerous horseshit out of the common discourse where gullible and naïve people with no ability to serious discern credible statements from well-practiced lies, there should be penalties scaled to the revenue of the business. Just because Facebook or whomever clearly didn't give a damn and phoned in some half-assed keyword flagging system doesn't mean it's impossible. It means Facebook doesn't care and needs to get fined until they do. If you can't link some credible evidence because of stupid limits on Twitter, maybe Twitter is just a terrible discussion platform.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
<< You can totally police misinformation in a fair means by requiring that it presents credible evidence of weight commensurate with the impact of what it argues, and explain to those who are policed in a transparent manner why and how they can appeal it. If, and I do mean if, you can consistently define misinformation. The issue is that, not unlike porn, 'i know it, when i see it' approach to identification is not a great way to gather trust of people you want to impose that upon.
- reincarnate0x14 5y ago
  > by requiring that it presents credible evidence of weight commensurate with the impact of what it argues The people saying various vaccines result in significantly better outcomes and shorter infections from SARS have millions of man-hours of testing and evidence backing that up. Anyone can watch a boat come up over the horizon with the top visible and reproducibly verify the earth is, at the very least, curved. That's the opposite of "I know it when I see it." Arguing over favorite colors has no material impact on anyone. Loudly proclaiming incendiary medical statements on public forums very obviously has had massive impact, and if you can't back it up, that's misinformation even if by astronomical luck it's accidentally correct. This is exactly why professionals and other serious people give measured, complex answers to questions that don't translate well to in-group signaling grifter gear, and exactly why we need some sort of brakes on the countervailing screeching of slogans on the other side because that train zooms out of the station and picks up idiot passengers left and right before the people who know what they're talking about can finish a sentence. This isn't hypothetical. We've been watching it happen for decades.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

<< You can totally police misinformation in a fair means by requiring that it presents credible evidence of weight commensurate with the impact of what it argues, and explain to those who are policed in a transparent manner why and how they can appeal it. If, and I do mean if, you can consistently define misinformation. The issue is that, not unlike porn, 'i know it, when i see it' approach to identification is not a great way to gather trust of people you want to impose that upon.

reincarnate0x14 5y ago
> by requiring that it presents credible evidence of weight commensurate with the impact of what it argues The people saying various vaccines result in significantly better outcomes and shorter infections from SARS have millions of man-hours of testing and evidence backing that up. Anyone can watch a boat come up over the horizon with the top visible and reproducibly verify the earth is, at the very least, curved. That's the opposite of "I know it when I see it." Arguing over favorite colors has no material impact on anyone. Loudly proclaiming incendiary medical statements on public forums very obviously has had massive impact, and if you can't back it up, that's misinformation even if by astronomical luck it's accidentally correct. This is exactly why professionals and other serious people give measured, complex answers to questions that don't translate well to in-group signaling grifter gear, and exactly why we need some sort of brakes on the countervailing screeching of slogans on the other side because that train zooms out of the station and picks up idiot passengers left and right before the people who know what they're talking about can finish a sentence. This isn't hypothetical. We've been watching it happen for decades.