6 ms·

> Pushbacks on Elon threatening to bring free speech back ... were seemingly orchestrated by incumbent billionaires with their own mainstream media outlets fee

> Pushbacks on Elon threatening to bring free speech back ... were seemingly orchestrated by incumbent billionaires with their own mainstream media outlets feeling threatened The alternative facts and hate speech that dominate Facebook have been incredibly harmful for society, and I think there should be tighter guardrails for online content moderation. There are legitimate reasons to disagree on this issue.

14 4y ago
Wasn’t YouTube deleting content that suggested covid was airborne transmitted? Now we are seeing the scientific community agree it is in fact airborne. We should not have guard rails it only leads to censoring and whenever there is censorship there will be abuse of it.
- op00to 4y ago
  Do you think it’s possible for the understanding of complex scientific phenomena like the type of spread of a novel virus to change as scientists gain more knowledge? Or do you just get one shot, and that’s the final answer forever?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Isn't that supporting their point? If things change then surely differing views should be allowed, if not encouraged.
  - rottencupcakes 4y ago
    Yes, scientific consensus can change, which lends support to the idea that platforms shouldn’t be banning ideas that aren’t the current scientific consensus.
    - dymk 4y ago
      I don't see how that follows. The people saying it was airborne early on were not saying it with scientific backing, they might as well have been saying it was waterborne. Basically, they guessed and got lucky.
      - wtetzner 4y ago
        Just because there wasn't scientific consensus doesn't mean there was no scientific backing. How about just not censoring?
        op00to 4y ago
        Because most people don't have the capability to tell the difference between bullshit and scientific fact.
  - nomel 4y ago
    What's your suggestion for censorship then? How do you know the current understanding is correct? You can censor comments suggesting the current understanding of the science might be flawed, but then what happens when the understanding shifts to that censored understanding? Do you go censor all of the comments, CDC articles, and news clips that communicated the incorrect understanding? Do you remove the censorship for the old comments? Are there any repercussions for unknowingly leading people astray, and perhaps even causing some deaths for those who thought they were protected by flawed guidelines?
- Rapzid 4y ago
  A coronavirus that's not airborne?! When was this exactly that YouTube was banning videos for saying it was airborne? Examples?
avs733 4y ago
The fact that the comment you are responding to seems to represent a mainstream and legitimized perception of twitter and the broader concept of free speech gives me zero confidence that we are headed towards more free speech. I'm considering running for president on a one issue platform: A constitutional amendment to criminalize false claims that a non-governmental actor has violated your free speech.
- leadingthenet 4y ago
  It's a good thing you'll never be elected, then.
switchbak 4y ago
Once you install "guardrails" (ie: limits to acceptable speech), they then immediately become the lever of power that the extremes vie to control. "Unacceptable views" could include: Covid came from a wet market, the Iraq war was about WMD, etc. Pick your controlversial topic, there's going to be a battle over even the limits of rational debate - ones you agree with and ones you definitely don't. You may be happy with the censorship flavour of the month now, but wait until a government comes into power that you dislike. Imagine what G.W. Bush would have done with the censorship powers available now? You're opening the floodgates to massive governmental and corporate control. I want no part of that, and I don't want my democracy to be destroyed by the broader effects that would have. If you're consciously advocating for that, then I disagree with you in the strongest terms. Yes, there's an ocean of trolls out there. And the effects of strong censorship are far worse.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notabee 4y ago
  I think a much better guardrail would be better context. Unfortunately much of the average population may not be interested in that so much as getting their rage or cute animal picture hit, and that's going to be a huge societal challenge going forward as misinformation itself is now its own lever of power. Just muddying the water exerts a powerful influence on societal stability. But a platform designed explicitly to fill in the details surrounding an issue so that simple mistruths lose some of their power could help. Using dark algorithms and UI for light instead, and using all those carefully researched nudges to get people to find facts instead of rage mob.
  - switchbak 4y ago
    That's an interesting proposition. I'm interested in the platforms out there to add in the missing nuance, but I must say I'm sad by what's happened with both Snopes and these 'fact checker' sites. I think a big problem is the short attention span of most people - myself absolutely included. But finding ways to amplify the influence of those who have paid attention and reduce it from those who only read the titles - that could be interesting as well. There's lots of info out there to use ML to discern low quality input, it'd be interesting to see it applied for good instead of evil! Maybe this is OpenAI's next challenge :)
toraway1234 4y ago
colordrops 4y ago
I don't want to live in China, and I don't want the US to become China, so I vehemently disagree. The excuse censors in China use is almost always that the content is harmful for society. This is a tradeoff that was chosen carefully and specifically by those who designed the laws and principles of the US. During difficult times is not when you start throwing out basic principles - in fact quite the opposite. It's easy to stand by your principles during quiet periods.

14 4y ago

Wasn’t YouTube deleting content that suggested covid was airborne transmitted? Now we are seeing the scientific community agree it is in fact airborne. We should not have guard rails it only leads to censoring and whenever there is censorship there will be abuse of it.

op00to 4y ago
Do you think it’s possible for the understanding of complex scientific phenomena like the type of spread of a novel virus to change as scientists gain more knowledge? Or do you just get one shot, and that’s the final answer forever?
- brigandish 4y ago
  Isn't that supporting their point? If things change then surely differing views should be allowed, if not encouraged.
- rottencupcakes 4y ago
  Yes, scientific consensus can change, which lends support to the idea that platforms shouldn’t be banning ideas that aren’t the current scientific consensus.
  - dymk 4y ago
    I don't see how that follows. The people saying it was airborne early on were not saying it with scientific backing, they might as well have been saying it was waterborne. Basically, they guessed and got lucky.
    - wtetzner 4y ago
      Just because there wasn't scientific consensus doesn't mean there was no scientific backing. How about just not censoring?
      - op00to 4y ago
        Because most people don't have the capability to tell the difference between bullshit and scientific fact.
- nomel 4y ago
  What's your suggestion for censorship then? How do you know the current understanding is correct? You can censor comments suggesting the current understanding of the science might be flawed, but then what happens when the understanding shifts to that censored understanding? Do you go censor all of the comments, CDC articles, and news clips that communicated the incorrect understanding? Do you remove the censorship for the old comments? Are there any repercussions for unknowingly leading people astray, and perhaps even causing some deaths for those who thought they were protected by flawed guidelines?
Rapzid 4y ago
A coronavirus that's not airborne?! When was this exactly that YouTube was banning videos for saying it was airborne? Examples?

avs733 4y ago

The fact that the comment you are responding to seems to represent a mainstream and legitimized perception of twitter and the broader concept of free speech gives me zero confidence that we are headed towards more free speech. I'm considering running for president on a one issue platform: A constitutional amendment to criminalize false claims that a non-governmental actor has violated your free speech.

leadingthenet 4y ago
It's a good thing you'll never be elected, then.

switchbak 4y ago

Once you install "guardrails" (ie: limits to acceptable speech), they then immediately become the lever of power that the extremes vie to control. "Unacceptable views" could include: Covid came from a wet market, the Iraq war was about WMD, etc. Pick your controlversial topic, there's going to be a battle over even the limits of rational debate - ones you agree with and ones you definitely don't. You may be happy with the censorship flavour of the month now, but wait until a government comes into power that you dislike. Imagine what G.W. Bush would have done with the censorship powers available now? You're opening the floodgates to massive governmental and corporate control. I want no part of that, and I don't want my democracy to be destroyed by the broader effects that would have. If you're consciously advocating for that, then I disagree with you in the strongest terms. Yes, there's an ocean of trolls out there. And the effects of strong censorship are far worse.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notabee 4y ago
I think a much better guardrail would be better context. Unfortunately much of the average population may not be interested in that so much as getting their rage or cute animal picture hit, and that's going to be a huge societal challenge going forward as misinformation itself is now its own lever of power. Just muddying the water exerts a powerful influence on societal stability. But a platform designed explicitly to fill in the details surrounding an issue so that simple mistruths lose some of their power could help. Using dark algorithms and UI for light instead, and using all those carefully researched nudges to get people to find facts instead of rage mob.
- switchbak 4y ago
  That's an interesting proposition. I'm interested in the platforms out there to add in the missing nuance, but I must say I'm sad by what's happened with both Snopes and these 'fact checker' sites. I think a big problem is the short attention span of most people - myself absolutely included. But finding ways to amplify the influence of those who have paid attention and reduce it from those who only read the titles - that could be interesting as well. There's lots of info out there to use ML to discern low quality input, it'd be interesting to see it applied for good instead of evil! Maybe this is OpenAI's next challenge :)

toraway1234 4y ago

colordrops 4y ago

I don't want to live in China, and I don't want the US to become China, so I vehemently disagree. The excuse censors in China use is almost always that the content is harmful for society. This is a tradeoff that was chosen carefully and specifically by those who designed the laws and principles of the US. During difficult times is not when you start throwing out basic principles - in fact quite the opposite. It's easy to stand by your principles during quiet periods.