3 ms·

> Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken: > - Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.

> Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken: > - Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > - Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact. > - Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. > - Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things. Except for the "tools to amplify factual voices", these all seem like pretty reasonable and inarguable improvements? How are these pro-censorship? If anything, calling for more transparency in promoted content is anti-censorship. Or, are we just getting hung up over a shallow interpretation of the heading?

rainonmoon 3y ago
Yeah, these all seem like arguments in favour of transparency and openness, in fact, not censorship. The only other advocacy in this post that lands within a stones throw of "censorship" is condemning hate speech.
cinquemb 3y ago
> Except for the "tools to amplify factual voices" They felt the need to include it, if they didn't I would agree with what they are trying to do. Why do they need to launder that line item with the rest?
- 8bitsrule 3y ago
  Many people prefer facts over the lies, propaganda, misrepresentations, exaggerations, cheats, scams, accusations, and other FUD promulgated by some of the media and many agencies, politicians and advertisers. They're not that hard to discern, for adults at least. This move seems to fit right in with the rest of Mozilla's program.Seems like a good move ... and the majority of people on the Fediverse seem likely to agree.
  - cinquemb 3y ago
    Adults disagree on many things and are willing to kill each over those disagreements in some cases, even when it comes to what the "truth" is. So color me quite skeptical that any tool that anyone uses is going to be free from such biases unless it's solely in the domain of verifying mathematical correctness in some strictly defined ontological system.
    - 8bitsrule 3y ago
      You're so right. The whole idea of universal 'Truth' is a big part of most of our problems, yes. As the pre-Platonic Protagoras tried to assert, we need to temper our judgements by recognizing that different perspectives lead to relatively different conclusions. Facts that all can observe and agree on are the basis of tolerance of interpretations we can't agree on. For millenia, some have insisted that they have been gifted with some ultimate truths. Nonsense. So yes, agreed-on, observed facts are the basis what we need more of, with other sorts of assertions carrying much less weight.

rainonmoon 3y ago

Yeah, these all seem like arguments in favour of transparency and openness, in fact, not censorship. The only other advocacy in this post that lands within a stones throw of "censorship" is condemning hate speech.

cinquemb 3y ago

> Except for the "tools to amplify factual voices" They felt the need to include it, if they didn't I would agree with what they are trying to do. Why do they need to launder that line item with the rest?

8bitsrule 3y ago
Many people prefer facts over the lies, propaganda, misrepresentations, exaggerations, cheats, scams, accusations, and other FUD promulgated by some of the media and many agencies, politicians and advertisers. They're not that hard to discern, for adults at least. This move seems to fit right in with the rest of Mozilla's program.Seems like a good move ... and the majority of people on the Fediverse seem likely to agree.
- cinquemb 3y ago
  Adults disagree on many things and are willing to kill each over those disagreements in some cases, even when it comes to what the "truth" is. So color me quite skeptical that any tool that anyone uses is going to be free from such biases unless it's solely in the domain of verifying mathematical correctness in some strictly defined ontological system.
  - 8bitsrule 3y ago
    You're so right. The whole idea of universal 'Truth' is a big part of most of our problems, yes. As the pre-Platonic Protagoras tried to assert, we need to temper our judgements by recognizing that different perspectives lead to relatively different conclusions. Facts that all can observe and agree on are the basis of tolerance of interpretations we can't agree on. For millenia, some have insisted that they have been gifted with some ultimate truths. Nonsense. So yes, agreed-on, observed facts are the basis what we need more of, with other sorts of assertions carrying much less weight.