4 ms·

The benefits of censoring misinformation are obvious if you think about it for even a couple minutes. If you run a community tech support forum and someone sta

The benefits of censoring misinformation are obvious if you think about it for even a couple minutes. If you run a community tech support forum and someone starts suggesting deletion of windows32 directory as a solution to other users issues, do you let them do that? If some neighbor in your bbq party claims to be a doctor and goes on a rant about benefits of microdosing rat poison, do you invite them ever again? Do you disable spam filter in your mail? We now have malicious misinformation multiplied to internet scale by modern tech. Add LLMs in the mix and we will drown in it if no measures are taken. You want to prevent politicians or corporations from abusing or even using censorship at all - good, implement corresponding barriers. Limit scope to clear factual misinfo and not e.g. opinions - yes, sure. Proper transparent process, recourse, rehabilitation, grace of application, oversight - absolutely, implement all of those things. Make censorship good. Denying it is required makes no sense.

poszlem 3y ago
When you first think about it for a bit, it might seem logical, but when you ponder it a bit longer, it doesn't. Censorship essentially comes down to this: some folks believe they know better than others about what those others should want. There's a fitting quote: "A censor is someone who knows more than they think you should." In a world where yesterday's "misinformation" becomes today's fact, you'd have to be pretty clueless to believe that we can determine what is or isn't misinformation. Also, honestly, the spam filter example (and the rest of your examples) is pretty ridiculous. I don't turn it off, but I'd definitely freak out if my email provider decided to censor my messages for my own good without letting me see them. If nothing else then because of how many false positives I constantly see in my spam folder.
- somethingreen 3y ago
  So you are ok with using an automated censor as long as you are able to review (transparency) and revert (recourse) it's results. Like I said, just make it good. And sure, we can't verify factuality of every claim, but I do believe there is a big enough set where we can. If you accept that all information on internet is fundamentally unverifiable, then of what use is the whole thing?

poszlem 3y ago

When you first think about it for a bit, it might seem logical, but when you ponder it a bit longer, it doesn't. Censorship essentially comes down to this: some folks believe they know better than others about what those others should want. There's a fitting quote: "A censor is someone who knows more than they think you should." In a world where yesterday's "misinformation" becomes today's fact, you'd have to be pretty clueless to believe that we can determine what is or isn't misinformation. Also, honestly, the spam filter example (and the rest of your examples) is pretty ridiculous. I don't turn it off, but I'd definitely freak out if my email provider decided to censor my messages for my own good without letting me see them. If nothing else then because of how many false positives I constantly see in my spam folder.

somethingreen 3y ago
So you are ok with using an automated censor as long as you are able to review (transparency) and revert (recourse) it's results. Like I said, just make it good. And sure, we can't verify factuality of every claim, but I do believe there is a big enough set where we can. If you accept that all information on internet is fundamentally unverifiable, then of what use is the whole thing?