3 ms·

It is still unclear to me how we expect these platforms to filter "misinformation" given that 1) It's not in Meta's interest 2) who gets to decide what is and i

It is still unclear to me how we expect these platforms to filter "misinformation" given that 1) It's not in Meta's interest 2) who gets to decide what is and is not fake news ie "who watches the watchman"? and 3) the human base desire to gorge on junk, of one form or another.

alamortsubite 2y ago
I agree, but we don't really need platforms to filter misinformation so much as to stop knowingly turbo-charging it.
spinningslate 2y ago
> given that 1) It's not in Meta's interest Somewhat glib answer is it needs to be in their interest. Section 230 means the social media platforms are insulated from liability for the content they publish and promote. It was conceived in a world where those platforms were perceived as (relatively) neutral infrastructure for publishing and sharing content. But it's a long time since they were neutral. The algorithms used to promote content are, in effect, editorial control. The net result is that these platforms get to choose what users see - without any of the accountability that mainstream media has with regards journalistic integrity and veracity of content. Which isn't to suggest mainstream media is a paragon of balance and truth; but at least there are laws that can be used to hold those organisations to account. I'm no lawyer and doubt the answer is as simple as revoking section 230. But something needs to be done. Perhaps the EU's investigations into Meta [1, 2] will inform an answer. -- [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/29/eu-to-investigate-meta-over-election-misinformation-ahead-of-june-polls https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/29/eu-to-inv... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/16/eu-investigates-facebook-owner-meta-over-child-safety-and-mental-health-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/16/e...
- adamwong246 2y ago
  I, too, am not a lawyer but I believe that FB _ought_ to be "insulated from liability for the content they publish and promote" because I don't want them to be arbiters of truth. Humans need to decide for themselves whats true and off-loading this responsibility to Meta through contrivance of law is a Black Mirror episode come to life.
  - spinningslate 2y ago
    that's fair to an extent, and shows why it's difficult. Do we want the platforms to be the sole arbiter of truth? No, definitely not. Equally, editorial control where the sole driver is profit - with no accountability for societal consequence - can't be correct either.
- dustfinger 2y ago
  > without any of the accountability that mainstream media has with regards journalistic integrity and veracity of content. I wouldn't assume that mainstream media has any journalistic integrity or veracity of anything. Watch several mainstream news stations and listen to them use the exact same wording when making politically hot statements. It seems likely to me, that some centralized body is ensuring that. I have never had a FB or any highly popular social media account. I have no reason to believe that they are any better than mainstream. At the moment, I am in a continuous state of disbelief to be honest. All facets of information-flow appear to be politically biased and saturated with half-truths, double-talk and straight-up lies. In my personal opinion, I do not support censorship of social media as our constitutional right to freedom of speech is more important to me. I believe this right should be honored in 100% of cases else the constitutions has no value in this respect. i.e. if it does not apply in all cases, then it cannot be relied on to apply in any scenario, and its purpose is lost. We live in a world now, where we are all going to have to make up our own minds on what the truth is. It was always that way, but society took it for granted that "the news" was the truth. This is why propaganda is so effective by the way. I would rather except this as the one and only truth, and proceed into the future with a healthy dose of skepticism applied to all facets of information-flow.

alamortsubite 2y ago

I agree, but we don't really need platforms to filter misinformation so much as to stop knowingly turbo-charging it.

spinningslate 2y ago

> given that 1) It's not in Meta's interest Somewhat glib answer is it needs to be in their interest. Section 230 means the social media platforms are insulated from liability for the content they publish and promote. It was conceived in a world where those platforms were perceived as (relatively) neutral infrastructure for publishing and sharing content. But it's a long time since they were neutral. The algorithms used to promote content are, in effect, editorial control. The net result is that these platforms get to choose what users see - without any of the accountability that mainstream media has with regards journalistic integrity and veracity of content. Which isn't to suggest mainstream media is a paragon of balance and truth; but at least there are laws that can be used to hold those organisations to account. I'm no lawyer and doubt the answer is as simple as revoking section 230. But something needs to be done. Perhaps the EU's investigations into Meta [1, 2] will inform an answer. -- [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/29/eu-to-investigate-meta-over-election-misinformation-ahead-of-june-polls https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/29/eu-to-inv... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/16/eu-investigates-facebook-owner-meta-over-child-safety-and-mental-health-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/16/e...

adamwong246 2y ago
I, too, am not a lawyer but I believe that FB _ought_ to be "insulated from liability for the content they publish and promote" because I don't want them to be arbiters of truth. Humans need to decide for themselves whats true and off-loading this responsibility to Meta through contrivance of law is a Black Mirror episode come to life.
- spinningslate 2y ago
  that's fair to an extent, and shows why it's difficult. Do we want the platforms to be the sole arbiter of truth? No, definitely not. Equally, editorial control where the sole driver is profit - with no accountability for societal consequence - can't be correct either.
dustfinger 2y ago
> without any of the accountability that mainstream media has with regards journalistic integrity and veracity of content. I wouldn't assume that mainstream media has any journalistic integrity or veracity of anything. Watch several mainstream news stations and listen to them use the exact same wording when making politically hot statements. It seems likely to me, that some centralized body is ensuring that. I have never had a FB or any highly popular social media account. I have no reason to believe that they are any better than mainstream. At the moment, I am in a continuous state of disbelief to be honest. All facets of information-flow appear to be politically biased and saturated with half-truths, double-talk and straight-up lies. In my personal opinion, I do not support censorship of social media as our constitutional right to freedom of speech is more important to me. I believe this right should be honored in 100% of cases else the constitutions has no value in this respect. i.e. if it does not apply in all cases, then it cannot be relied on to apply in any scenario, and its purpose is lost. We live in a world now, where we are all going to have to make up our own minds on what the truth is. It was always that way, but society took it for granted that "the news" was the truth. This is why propaganda is so effective by the way. I would rather except this as the one and only truth, and proceed into the future with a healthy dose of skepticism applied to all facets of information-flow.