7 ms·

Study shows banning false info traffickers online can improve public discourse

81 points by jdmark 2y ago

mrangle 2y ago
[flagged]
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  Do you feel that there was any content that they could say that should have gotten them banned or do they just get to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us?
  - mrangle 2y ago
    No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy. First amendment law provides an adequate guideline, as enforced everywhere else and as defined by the Supreme Court. But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents. Silencing them is the same as silencing their mass of voters. Which, again, is deeply antidemocratic. Today, too many people believe in the unresolvable paradox that democracy only exists when their views are spoken to and when they win. Continuing with the paradox: at the same time, they believe that those who are too much of a "threat to democracy" to speak (or win) have to keep believing in the system or democracy is also at risk. Censorship "in defense of democracy" has rendered the national discussion to be ridiculous, on its face.
    - kevinh 2y ago
      That's how you get content that's 90% pornography.
      - mrangle 2y ago
        Why? I'm referring to what comprises "good", meaning democratic, policy for political content. Not an autistic implementation of rules or lack thereof. But if you want to plaster a Vote Biden poster on some poor working person, then maybe that's a discussion. But to engage in the nonexistent autistic premise, just because I guess. It's illegal to show pornography to users under 18 years of age. Pornography can be easily blocked on that premise, utilizing a blanket ban and no opt in. 90%+ of users would be fine with that.
      - philipkglass 2y ago
        Or 99% spam. Advertising your legal services [1] or auto body shop is not against the law in the US, and the CAN-SPAM act doesn't apply to social media, so people will use automation to post about their business 100 times per hour if platforms can't prohibit that via terms of service. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Siegel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
    - jasonlotito 2y ago
      > No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. Trump, through policy on Truth Social, disagrees with this statement. > Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy. So just to be clear, you are claiming that Trump, through policy on Truth Social, is harming democracy with this policy. > First amendment law provides an adequate guideline, as enforced everywhere else and as defined by the Supreme Court. First Amendment does not apply to the individual. > But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents. And in that regard, they use that voice to speak within the chambers of congress. That have no extra rights above and beyond that guarantee they can use my personal resources to spread their word. > Silencing them Trump was not silenced. The claim that he was silenced is 100% false, and a lie.
    - tzs 2y ago
      > No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal It is almost essential for the protection of free speech that private entities can and do ban people for content that isn't illegal. When you've only got two categories of speech, (1) legal speech that is allowed everywhere and (2) illegal speech that is banned everywhere, there is going to be a lot of pressure by the majority to expand #2 to cover speech that is currently not illegal but that the majority things is repugnant. By allowing private entities to ban speech that they don't want to have on their platform even if it is legal speech we have a third category between #1 and #2. That reduces the pressure to expand #2.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. That problem is easily solved by making more content illegal. ;p
  - mrangle 2y ago
    Also, "the rest of (you)" are not even beholden to the "same set of rules". Twitter was happy to serve as a platform for actual high level riot incitement and support for nine months prior to the election. That's actual, full throated support of nationwide murderous riots for nine months running up to a national election. No required creative interpretation of phrasing nor intent. The acknowledged SOP has become two sets of rules.
    - anonfordays 2y ago
      In was banned from multiple places on Reddit for spreading "fake news" that the BLM riots caused over a billion dollars in damage [0]. I was called a racist, fascist, White supremacist who was spreading neo-Nazi misinformation. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
  - TheAceOfHearts 2y ago
    I remember reading something about how in old Twitter high profile political figures and representatives were allowed more leniency in how their account were moderated because it was considered more important that their message be seen out in the open. There's still some lines that shouldn't be crossed, but I don't think it's unreasonable to apply different standards for world leaders when their words carry the weight of their country. When a diplomat visits a foreign country they also don't have the same laws applied to them, broadly speaking. Trump in particular was limit testing constantly, and eventually it became clear that he crossed too many lines. We also have the benefit of being able to look back and see that all of his attempts at proving the elections were rigged have failed in the courts.
- throwaway494932 2y ago
  You have it the other way around. Authoritarian is when a sitting president CANNOT be banned, just because he is the presidennt.
  - mrangle 2y ago
    When a sitting President is banned for political speech and at the behest of partisan narrative, that's anti-democratic authoritarianism. Sorry, "anti-authoritarianism" doesn't mean that unelected people with the power to ban have equal democratic mandate with an elected president. In terms of possessing a democratically acceptable ability to restrict a communication channel widely treated as The Commons. Those who banned him were given full political cover, if not a mandate, by POTUS's political opponents and an unelected hostile media. Without which there would have been too much "norm" respecting political pressure to accomplish. I have nothing backwards and your wordplay is overly simplistic and wrong, to be polite about it.
    - coolbreezetft24 2y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by banned or censorship, but Twitter isn't the government and I'm not sure how this example is "anti-democratic authoritarianism". Seems like they should be allowed to ban people from their platform who violate the terms of service. There are tons of platform/content providers that don't allow specific types of content even though it is legal. If people disagree with Twitter they can leave the platform for another one or shareholders can act and have the firm change course. Trump still daily says whatever he wants on other platforms without the government censoring him.
      - mrangle 2y ago
        What I mean is the undeniable integration of government agencies with Twitter Trust and Safety, at the time. Right here, this ends our discussion. But also the partisan support for the ban, on partisan grounds, from Congress and the government agency integrated Media. Which is government interference with the ability to speak via that channel. All of this "should be able to do what they want" is a nonexistent reality. It's fantasy. The Terms of Service, itself, was crafted under agency pressure. Though, this is a minor detail compared to the more ham fisted integration. You can be willfully or otherwise oblivious. However, no one owes that type of conversation much engagement. It's your job to become aware of the facts and broken norms surrounding the event if you want to have further discussion.
- swayvil 2y ago
  [flagged]
daft_pink 2y ago
We just want to see how and what is defined as “false info”. As any one who’s read snopes or fact check, while the fact checks often point out actually incorrect information, some of the time, they reframe the question/narrative, assume an inaccurate scope or apply semantics in a convenient way and label something that isn’t necessarily false as not false that reflects the bias of the author. It leads to a basic mistrust of what’s “false info” and what is not “false info” and so some people have a hard time trusting these types of studies and the basic premise that platforms should ban “false info”. I feel Twitter’s community notes function is actually pretty good at combatting false info without creating a centralized source with the above issues.
- pfisch 2y ago
  Community notes seems to get stalemated as soon as any demagogue starts saying things that aren't true. The demagogues followers make it so the community note never appears.(Just look at all the false stuff elon musk has tweeted.) Our entire current system of spreading information seems to allow liars who get popular on basically false outrage bait to have a huge megaphone. I'm not sure how to stop this without a centralized authority shutting it down.
  - Jimmc414 2y ago
    > Our entire current system of spreading information seems to allow liars who get popular on basically false outrage bait to have a huge megaphone. I'm not sure how to stop this without a centralized authority shutting it down. Centralized authorities are immune from demagoguery? You would throw out the first amendment to protect us from liars getting megaphones?
    - pfisch 2y ago
      This isn't a 1st amendment issue. Before social media things were generally better and we didn't have big groups like qanon or people storming the capital trying to end democracy. Back then we did have centralized authorities doing quality control on the airwaves.
GauntletWizard 2y ago
Yeah, no thanks. Many things were misinformation until they were true. Don't forget the lesson of Li Wenliang[1], who was formally censured for "publishing untrue statements". We now know him as one of the first to document COVID-19. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang
- DFHippie 2y ago
  Yes, this happens. But giving up and letting the lies fly willy-nilly has a still worse record. Every measure to combat disinformation is imperfect. Many are better than failing to combat disinformation in any way. And lumping the Chinese state together with fact checking organizations is not a good argument.
  - svieira 2y ago
    The Chinese state is a fact-checking organization, with all the foibles and follies that are associated with letting people (e. g. free-willed beings) fact-check other people. Fortunately, reality allows for multiple inheritance, the Chinese state doesn't have to only be a fact-checking organization.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      Multiple inheritance is a bad metaphor to invoke here, since that is when a class can have multiple parents, not when a class can have multiple instances.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      > The Chinese state is a fact-checking organization Easier for them, because they also have the authority to declare what is fact.
  - j_walter 2y ago
    > And lumping the Chinese state together with fact checking organizations is not a good argument. This was not just the Chinese state. Fauci said from day 1 that this was not a lab leak and anyone saying that should be discredited.
sonburn 2y ago
[flagged]
- fmbb 2y ago
  Which news do you mean were deemed false info? The correct ones or the false “news” that were promulgated at the time? A laptop probably maybe belonging to Hunter Biden was not the interesting piece of news. Nude pics were not disclaimed as “false info”, were they?
  - gotoeleven 2y ago
    You really don't remember the the fake "russian disinfo" nonsense? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-...
- astrange 2y ago
  It has not been verified. There was testimony today where someone said "I have not seen evidence of inauthenticity"; this was reported as "it is authentic", but in fact she meant "I haven't checked if it is authentic".
  - sonburn 2y ago
    The serial number was confirmed to be one associated with Hunter Bidens iCloud account.
    - astrange 2y ago
      That only indicates someone had access to his iCloud account at some point.
incomingpain 2y ago
Censorship folks always claim their censorship won't target innocents and that it will make things better. Every single time it's attempted, it fails.
- Spivak 2y ago
  Who claims that? I explicitly want censorship to target innocents. There is no single person's speech (even my own) that we can't live without. I would much rather the banhammer come down a few feet over the fence so that people can't get too close to it. I say this as someone who both wields and has been hit with the banhammer. You store your hammer in the freezer specifically for the chilling effect. Strong moderation in communities does make those communities better. We're in one of them. Your workplace is likely one of them. Your social sphere is one too hand curated by you. IRL we call this social norms and boundaries, but when it's online or in print people get weird about it.
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  Censorship works great. That’s why we’ve been doing it for so long. It’s just that censorship is good for the censors not for the censored or the general population. Occasionally a censor will be benevolent and effective but one can’t count on such things.
- mcguire 2y ago
  ...incomingpain writes, on one of the more heavily moderated of the current internet forums.
balozi 2y ago
Call it what it is: censorship. Also, there is an interesting recent study from a group at Vanderbilt University that looked at the effect that European speech regulations have in muzzling of online speech. Featured in Reason Mag. Preventing “Torrents of Hate” or Stifling Free Expression Online? https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-stifling-free-expression-online/ https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-...
- pstuart 2y ago
  But you're ok with censorship here, right?
- imiric 2y ago
  They're two sides of the same coin. But, frankly, criticizing this as censorship and stifling of free speech ignores the very real dangers of online {m,d}isinformation, and prevents adoption of efforts to mitigate it. The reality is that we're flooded with false information, which can be generated by anyone with enough resources and motivation to change how a group of people think and act. We've seen how this can corrupt democratic processes and influence the outcome of elections with the Cambridge Analytica scandal (which still continues today), and how it can be used to rally people and cause social unrest in many countries. Social media is the most effective tool for spreading political propaganda, astroturfing campaigns, and conducting any other kind of mass psychological manipulation, starting with advertising, of course. The current state of online services is an existential threat to modern civilization, which will only grow larger with the increase of AI-generated content. Governments and companies should be doing _more_ to control this, not less. I'm not saying that I agree with mass censorship and total government control over public discourse, but surely there's some middle ground between that and the current situation.
  - largbae 2y ago
    There is absolutely a middle ground: have multiple choices of user-selectable filters on open platforms. Subreddits are the closest thing to an implementation of what I want today. Let me go to moderated subsets of the content on a platform without taking away my right to expand my view at any time I wish. Twitter et al allow you to do some moderation with blocking and follows. But opaque recommendation engines and new accounts present challenges for both.
swayvil 2y ago
"False info" is a matter for debate. "Improve public discourse" too. Are we saying that the conversation is less angry when everybody basically agrees?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  It's not a debate, they used clear definitions.
- mardef 2y ago
  No, nowhere is the article stating that only one viewpoint is allowed. For example, if there were several scientists that were debating more precise ways of calculating the circumference of Earth, the discourse would improve if flat Earth information was excluded.
  - faeriechangling 2y ago
    Framing people as “false info traffickers” sort of reveals to me that these researchers sort of do believe only one viewpoint should be allowed? They talk like military censors do during wartime, or political commissars.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      People spreading lies is bad, yes. Most of us learned this when we were 5 years old.
- adolph 2y ago
  > Are we saying that the conversation is less angry when everybody basically agrees? diversity attractive until polarized Claims: Anger is firstly a masking emotion for the immature sadness that others' values are not the same as one's own. Anger is secondly an emotional manipulation strategy to enjoin others.
pessimizer 2y ago
Can someone do us the favor of exfiltrating the definition of "misinformation" used in this paper? Does it include things that are true?
- adolph 2y ago
  For each domain, we determine whether or not it is a fake-news domain by referring to a predefined list of fake-news domains. Our list of fake-news domains is defined by combining data from Grinberg et al.8 and the proprietary list from the journalism company NewsGuard (https://www.newsguardtech.com/newsguard-for-researchers https://www.newsguardtech.com/newsguard-for-researchers), using the 29 March 2021 snapshot. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07524-8#Sec9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07524-8#Sec9
largbae 2y ago
"There was a spillover effect," said Kevin M. Esterling, a UCR professor of political science and public policy and a co-author of the study. "It wasn't just a reduction from the de-platformed users themselves, but it reduced circulation on the platform as a whole." I believe the term that you're looking for is "chilling" not "spillover" effect. This not a novel effect of censorship by deplatforming.
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  > it reduced circulation on the platform as a whole So it also doesn't take into account the potential long term toxicity of driving everyone with certain views to other platforms, where those views will be reinforced. With those platforms having the appeal of their "taboo" helping to market them.
faeriechangling 2y ago
When I read through all the subjective moral judgements I simply find that censoring users that promote a URL/person/view reduces its popularity.
RecycledEle 2y ago
Censoring people who tell the truth does tend to aide liars in guiding the discussion.
baq 2y ago
Free speech doesn’t survive contact with AI slop guided by disinformation prompts. It isn’t that it isn’t worth protecting or caring for, it’s that it disappears under the noise floor. The bad actor doesn’t have to silence the free speakers, he just needs to amplify the bullshit so nobody can hear anything that makes sense.

81 points by jdmark 2y ago

mrangle 2y ago

[flagged]

nickthegreek 2y ago
Do you feel that there was any content that they could say that should have gotten them banned or do they just get to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us?
- mrangle 2y ago
  No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy. First amendment law provides an adequate guideline, as enforced everywhere else and as defined by the Supreme Court. But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents. Silencing them is the same as silencing their mass of voters. Which, again, is deeply antidemocratic. Today, too many people believe in the unresolvable paradox that democracy only exists when their views are spoken to and when they win. Continuing with the paradox: at the same time, they believe that those who are too much of a "threat to democracy" to speak (or win) have to keep believing in the system or democracy is also at risk. Censorship "in defense of democracy" has rendered the national discussion to be ridiculous, on its face.
  - kevinh 2y ago
    That's how you get content that's 90% pornography.
    - mrangle 2y ago
      Why? I'm referring to what comprises "good", meaning democratic, policy for political content. Not an autistic implementation of rules or lack thereof. But if you want to plaster a Vote Biden poster on some poor working person, then maybe that's a discussion. But to engage in the nonexistent autistic premise, just because I guess. It's illegal to show pornography to users under 18 years of age. Pornography can be easily blocked on that premise, utilizing a blanket ban and no opt in. 90%+ of users would be fine with that.
    - philipkglass 2y ago
      Or 99% spam. Advertising your legal services [1] or auto body shop is not against the law in the US, and the CAN-SPAM act doesn't apply to social media, so people will use automation to post about their business 100 times per hour if platforms can't prohibit that via terms of service. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Siegel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
  - jasonlotito 2y ago
    > No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. Trump, through policy on Truth Social, disagrees with this statement. > Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy. So just to be clear, you are claiming that Trump, through policy on Truth Social, is harming democracy with this policy. > First amendment law provides an adequate guideline, as enforced everywhere else and as defined by the Supreme Court. First Amendment does not apply to the individual. > But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents. And in that regard, they use that voice to speak within the chambers of congress. That have no extra rights above and beyond that guarantee they can use my personal resources to spread their word. > Silencing them Trump was not silenced. The claim that he was silenced is 100% false, and a lie.
  - tzs 2y ago
    > No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal It is almost essential for the protection of free speech that private entities can and do ban people for content that isn't illegal. When you've only got two categories of speech, (1) legal speech that is allowed everywhere and (2) illegal speech that is banned everywhere, there is going to be a lot of pressure by the majority to expand #2 to cover speech that is currently not illegal but that the majority things is repugnant. By allowing private entities to ban speech that they don't want to have on their platform even if it is legal speech we have a third category between #1 and #2. That reduces the pressure to expand #2.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. That problem is easily solved by making more content illegal. ;p
- mrangle 2y ago
  Also, "the rest of (you)" are not even beholden to the "same set of rules". Twitter was happy to serve as a platform for actual high level riot incitement and support for nine months prior to the election. That's actual, full throated support of nationwide murderous riots for nine months running up to a national election. No required creative interpretation of phrasing nor intent. The acknowledged SOP has become two sets of rules.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    In was banned from multiple places on Reddit for spreading "fake news" that the BLM riots caused over a billion dollars in damage [0]. I was called a racist, fascist, White supremacist who was spreading neo-Nazi misinformation. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
- TheAceOfHearts 2y ago
  I remember reading something about how in old Twitter high profile political figures and representatives were allowed more leniency in how their account were moderated because it was considered more important that their message be seen out in the open. There's still some lines that shouldn't be crossed, but I don't think it's unreasonable to apply different standards for world leaders when their words carry the weight of their country. When a diplomat visits a foreign country they also don't have the same laws applied to them, broadly speaking. Trump in particular was limit testing constantly, and eventually it became clear that he crossed too many lines. We also have the benefit of being able to look back and see that all of his attempts at proving the elections were rigged have failed in the courts.
throwaway494932 2y ago
You have it the other way around. Authoritarian is when a sitting president CANNOT be banned, just because he is the presidennt.
- mrangle 2y ago
  When a sitting President is banned for political speech and at the behest of partisan narrative, that's anti-democratic authoritarianism. Sorry, "anti-authoritarianism" doesn't mean that unelected people with the power to ban have equal democratic mandate with an elected president. In terms of possessing a democratically acceptable ability to restrict a communication channel widely treated as The Commons. Those who banned him were given full political cover, if not a mandate, by POTUS's political opponents and an unelected hostile media. Without which there would have been too much "norm" respecting political pressure to accomplish. I have nothing backwards and your wordplay is overly simplistic and wrong, to be polite about it.
  - coolbreezetft24 2y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by banned or censorship, but Twitter isn't the government and I'm not sure how this example is "anti-democratic authoritarianism". Seems like they should be allowed to ban people from their platform who violate the terms of service. There are tons of platform/content providers that don't allow specific types of content even though it is legal. If people disagree with Twitter they can leave the platform for another one or shareholders can act and have the firm change course. Trump still daily says whatever he wants on other platforms without the government censoring him.
    - mrangle 2y ago
      What I mean is the undeniable integration of government agencies with Twitter Trust and Safety, at the time. Right here, this ends our discussion. But also the partisan support for the ban, on partisan grounds, from Congress and the government agency integrated Media. Which is government interference with the ability to speak via that channel. All of this "should be able to do what they want" is a nonexistent reality. It's fantasy. The Terms of Service, itself, was crafted under agency pressure. Though, this is a minor detail compared to the more ham fisted integration. You can be willfully or otherwise oblivious. However, no one owes that type of conversation much engagement. It's your job to become aware of the facts and broken norms surrounding the event if you want to have further discussion.
swayvil 2y ago
[flagged]

daft_pink 2y ago

We just want to see how and what is defined as “false info”. As any one who’s read snopes or fact check, while the fact checks often point out actually incorrect information, some of the time, they reframe the question/narrative, assume an inaccurate scope or apply semantics in a convenient way and label something that isn’t necessarily false as not false that reflects the bias of the author. It leads to a basic mistrust of what’s “false info” and what is not “false info” and so some people have a hard time trusting these types of studies and the basic premise that platforms should ban “false info”. I feel Twitter’s community notes function is actually pretty good at combatting false info without creating a centralized source with the above issues.

pfisch 2y ago
Community notes seems to get stalemated as soon as any demagogue starts saying things that aren't true. The demagogues followers make it so the community note never appears.(Just look at all the false stuff elon musk has tweeted.) Our entire current system of spreading information seems to allow liars who get popular on basically false outrage bait to have a huge megaphone. I'm not sure how to stop this without a centralized authority shutting it down.
- Jimmc414 2y ago
  > Our entire current system of spreading information seems to allow liars who get popular on basically false outrage bait to have a huge megaphone. I'm not sure how to stop this without a centralized authority shutting it down. Centralized authorities are immune from demagoguery? You would throw out the first amendment to protect us from liars getting megaphones?
  - pfisch 2y ago
    This isn't a 1st amendment issue. Before social media things were generally better and we didn't have big groups like qanon or people storming the capital trying to end democracy. Back then we did have centralized authorities doing quality control on the airwaves.

GauntletWizard 2y ago

Yeah, no thanks. Many things were misinformation until they were true. Don't forget the lesson of Li Wenliang[1], who was formally censured for "publishing untrue statements". We now know him as one of the first to document COVID-19. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang

DFHippie 2y ago
Yes, this happens. But giving up and letting the lies fly willy-nilly has a still worse record. Every measure to combat disinformation is imperfect. Many are better than failing to combat disinformation in any way. And lumping the Chinese state together with fact checking organizations is not a good argument.
- svieira 2y ago
  The Chinese state is a fact-checking organization, with all the foibles and follies that are associated with letting people (e. g. free-willed beings) fact-check other people. Fortunately, reality allows for multiple inheritance, the Chinese state doesn't have to only be a fact-checking organization.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    Multiple inheritance is a bad metaphor to invoke here, since that is when a class can have multiple parents, not when a class can have multiple instances.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    > The Chinese state is a fact-checking organization Easier for them, because they also have the authority to declare what is fact.
- j_walter 2y ago
  > And lumping the Chinese state together with fact checking organizations is not a good argument. This was not just the Chinese state. Fauci said from day 1 that this was not a lab leak and anyone saying that should be discredited.

sonburn 2y ago

[flagged]

fmbb 2y ago
Which news do you mean were deemed false info? The correct ones or the false “news” that were promulgated at the time? A laptop probably maybe belonging to Hunter Biden was not the interesting piece of news. Nude pics were not disclaimed as “false info”, were they?
- gotoeleven 2y ago
  You really don't remember the the fake "russian disinfo" nonsense? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-...
astrange 2y ago
It has not been verified. There was testimony today where someone said "I have not seen evidence of inauthenticity"; this was reported as "it is authentic", but in fact she meant "I haven't checked if it is authentic".
- sonburn 2y ago
  The serial number was confirmed to be one associated with Hunter Bidens iCloud account.
  - astrange 2y ago
    That only indicates someone had access to his iCloud account at some point.

incomingpain 2y ago

Censorship folks always claim their censorship won't target innocents and that it will make things better. Every single time it's attempted, it fails.

Spivak 2y ago
Who claims that? I explicitly want censorship to target innocents. There is no single person's speech (even my own) that we can't live without. I would much rather the banhammer come down a few feet over the fence so that people can't get too close to it. I say this as someone who both wields and has been hit with the banhammer. You store your hammer in the freezer specifically for the chilling effect. Strong moderation in communities does make those communities better. We're in one of them. Your workplace is likely one of them. Your social sphere is one too hand curated by you. IRL we call this social norms and boundaries, but when it's online or in print people get weird about it.
faeriechangling 2y ago
Censorship works great. That’s why we’ve been doing it for so long. It’s just that censorship is good for the censors not for the censored or the general population. Occasionally a censor will be benevolent and effective but one can’t count on such things.
mcguire 2y ago
...incomingpain writes, on one of the more heavily moderated of the current internet forums.

balozi 2y ago

Call it what it is: censorship. Also, there is an interesting recent study from a group at Vanderbilt University that looked at the effect that European speech regulations have in muzzling of online speech. Featured in Reason Mag. Preventing “Torrents of Hate” or Stifling Free Expression Online? https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-stifling-free-expression-online/ https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-...

pstuart 2y ago
But you're ok with censorship here, right?
imiric 2y ago
They're two sides of the same coin. But, frankly, criticizing this as censorship and stifling of free speech ignores the very real dangers of online {m,d}isinformation, and prevents adoption of efforts to mitigate it. The reality is that we're flooded with false information, which can be generated by anyone with enough resources and motivation to change how a group of people think and act. We've seen how this can corrupt democratic processes and influence the outcome of elections with the Cambridge Analytica scandal (which still continues today), and how it can be used to rally people and cause social unrest in many countries. Social media is the most effective tool for spreading political propaganda, astroturfing campaigns, and conducting any other kind of mass psychological manipulation, starting with advertising, of course. The current state of online services is an existential threat to modern civilization, which will only grow larger with the increase of AI-generated content. Governments and companies should be doing _more_ to control this, not less. I'm not saying that I agree with mass censorship and total government control over public discourse, but surely there's some middle ground between that and the current situation.
- largbae 2y ago
  There is absolutely a middle ground: have multiple choices of user-selectable filters on open platforms. Subreddits are the closest thing to an implementation of what I want today. Let me go to moderated subsets of the content on a platform without taking away my right to expand my view at any time I wish. Twitter et al allow you to do some moderation with blocking and follows. But opaque recommendation engines and new accounts present challenges for both.

swayvil 2y ago

"False info" is a matter for debate. "Improve public discourse" too. Are we saying that the conversation is less angry when everybody basically agrees?

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
It's not a debate, they used clear definitions.
mardef 2y ago
No, nowhere is the article stating that only one viewpoint is allowed. For example, if there were several scientists that were debating more precise ways of calculating the circumference of Earth, the discourse would improve if flat Earth information was excluded.
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  Framing people as “false info traffickers” sort of reveals to me that these researchers sort of do believe only one viewpoint should be allowed? They talk like military censors do during wartime, or political commissars.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    People spreading lies is bad, yes. Most of us learned this when we were 5 years old.
adolph 2y ago
> Are we saying that the conversation is less angry when everybody basically agrees? diversity attractive until polarized Claims: Anger is firstly a masking emotion for the immature sadness that others' values are not the same as one's own. Anger is secondly an emotional manipulation strategy to enjoin others.

pessimizer 2y ago

Can someone do us the favor of exfiltrating the definition of "misinformation" used in this paper? Does it include things that are true?

adolph 2y ago
For each domain, we determine whether or not it is a fake-news domain by referring to a predefined list of fake-news domains. Our list of fake-news domains is defined by combining data from Grinberg et al.8 and the proprietary list from the journalism company NewsGuard (https://www.newsguardtech.com/newsguard-for-researchers https://www.newsguardtech.com/newsguard-for-researchers), using the 29 March 2021 snapshot. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07524-8#Sec9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07524-8#Sec9

largbae 2y ago

"There was a spillover effect," said Kevin M. Esterling, a UCR professor of political science and public policy and a co-author of the study. "It wasn't just a reduction from the de-platformed users themselves, but it reduced circulation on the platform as a whole." I believe the term that you're looking for is "chilling" not "spillover" effect. This not a novel effect of censorship by deplatforming.

RobotToaster 2y ago
> it reduced circulation on the platform as a whole So it also doesn't take into account the potential long term toxicity of driving everyone with certain views to other platforms, where those views will be reinforced. With those platforms having the appeal of their "taboo" helping to market them.

faeriechangling 2y ago

When I read through all the subjective moral judgements I simply find that censoring users that promote a URL/person/view reduces its popularity.

RecycledEle 2y ago

Censoring people who tell the truth does tend to aide liars in guiding the discussion.

baq 2y ago

Free speech doesn’t survive contact with AI slop guided by disinformation prompts. It isn’t that it isn’t worth protecting or caring for, it’s that it disappears under the noise floor. The bad actor doesn’t have to silence the free speakers, he just needs to amplify the bullshit so nobody can hear anything that makes sense.