3 ms·

“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote I believe how Zuckerberg handled a pandem

“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote I believe how Zuckerberg handled a pandemic that killed millions of people around the world was wrong. At some point in time, we have to admit to ourselves that misinformation, including misinformation masquerading as "satire", is deadly and we're going to have to come to terms whether spreading deadly misinformation is a constitutionally protected right.

nilespotter 2y ago
It is.
- LargeWu 2y ago
  Not all speech is, or should be, protected speech.
  - gruez 2y ago
    The current standard is "imminent lawless action", which hardly fits covid misinformation.
    - LargeWu 2y ago
      The thing about standards is they are able to be re-evaluated from time to time. I think it's worth examining what legitimate purpose spreading health misinformation serves, and how that is beneficial to society.
      - gruez 2y ago
        > I think it's worth examining what legitimate purpose spreading health misinformation serves, and how that is beneficial to society. "it's worth examining what legitimate purpose giving due process to criminals serve, and how that is beneficial to society" Nobody is for spreading misinformation. The trouble is determining what "misinformation" is, and who has the power to determine that.
        LargeWu 2y ago
        I don't think it's feasible to address individual users. I think a good place to start is treating the falsification of data in research studies like fraud, potentially with criminal penalties. Another avenue is requiring social media businesses to make reasonable efforts to flag health misinformation. If Facebook et al are making billions in revenue off false information, they should have a responsibility to combat it, at the risk of penalties.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Due to how polarized so many western countries are, do you really want to take the chance of the other side determining what is protected?
yttribium 2y ago
Good thing we came to terms with that in 1789.
- taylodl 2y ago
  Except we didn't. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded public space as a prank nor can you yell "Bomb!" at an airport as a prank. We have determined that's NOT protected speech. Neither is slander nor libel. You're going to have to work a little harder at convincing me why spreading misinformation that can kill people should be regarded as protected speech.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    We first have to understand what the misinformation is in order to understand how to censor it. You're going to say Trust the Scientist, I will point you to the replicability crisis...
    - taylodl 2y ago
      We could resort to the president declaring Marshall Law in response to a pandemic. Do you think that would be a better solution to this problem? Maybe Zuckerberg should be an adult and recognize the power his platform has to misinform, and kill, people. So far, he appears to be content in keeping his head firmly planted up his posterior so long as he's making money. I define that as evil; others may disagree.
bdavisx 2y ago
>spreading deadly misinformation is a constitutionally protected right For the people saying that it is a protected right, then how come you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire? I'm not trying to argue one side or the other - because I don't have a good answer. But it's not as one sided as some people make it out to be - free speech isn't totally free.
- gruez 2y ago
  >For the people saying that it is a protected right, then how come you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire? That's a terrible example, not only because the ruling where it's used was overturned, but it was also used to justify imprisoning anti-draft activists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
  - typeofhuman 2y ago
    Thanks, gruez. I find the "fire in theatre" quote to be one of the most ironically misused arguments.
readthenotes1 2y ago
So you're saying that he should have squelched the idea of 6 ft separation and masking, the latter of which was just made up in the former of which the government had both sides on? Or squelched the official US government position that it couldn't be a lab leak?
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Or squelched the official US government position that it couldn't be a lab leak? That anyone cared if it was or wasn't, continues to surprise me. Either way, the lab is in China and you can't do anything about it. Either way, the virus came from China and you can't do anything about it. Either way, China tried to suppress news initially and this allowed it to spread faster and sooner than it might otherwise have done. Either way, wet markets were and remain a known breeding ground for novel zoonotic diseases that we'd like to not be like that, but we can't do anything about them because they're in China and we have no say in the matter. Either way, the response to it has to be the same — it was out of control and killing people just the same, regardless of origin.
  - freestyle24147 2y ago
    You don't care that your government conspired to hide information that, by your own opinion, didn't have much utility one way or the other?
    - ben_w 2y ago
      a) not my government, see profile b) there's two ways of censoring info: 1) to ban the truth and 2) to bury it under a pile of distractions; IMO during in a medical emergency such as this, allowing people to distract from "this is a deadly pandemic" with "it really matters which of two things we have no control over caused this" is just as deadly as China banning reporting of the fact that people were getting ill. "You can sort out which thing you frenemies did wrong later, right now you need to buck up and resist the disease itself", kinda thing.
      - 2y ago

nilespotter 2y ago

It is.

LargeWu 2y ago
Not all speech is, or should be, protected speech.
- gruez 2y ago
  The current standard is "imminent lawless action", which hardly fits covid misinformation.
  - LargeWu 2y ago
    The thing about standards is they are able to be re-evaluated from time to time. I think it's worth examining what legitimate purpose spreading health misinformation serves, and how that is beneficial to society.
    - gruez 2y ago
      > I think it's worth examining what legitimate purpose spreading health misinformation serves, and how that is beneficial to society. "it's worth examining what legitimate purpose giving due process to criminals serve, and how that is beneficial to society" Nobody is for spreading misinformation. The trouble is determining what "misinformation" is, and who has the power to determine that.
      - LargeWu 2y ago
        I don't think it's feasible to address individual users. I think a good place to start is treating the falsification of data in research studies like fraud, potentially with criminal penalties. Another avenue is requiring social media businesses to make reasonable efforts to flag health misinformation. If Facebook et al are making billions in revenue off false information, they should have a responsibility to combat it, at the risk of penalties.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Due to how polarized so many western countries are, do you really want to take the chance of the other side determining what is protected?

yttribium 2y ago

Good thing we came to terms with that in 1789.

taylodl 2y ago
Except we didn't. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded public space as a prank nor can you yell "Bomb!" at an airport as a prank. We have determined that's NOT protected speech. Neither is slander nor libel. You're going to have to work a little harder at convincing me why spreading misinformation that can kill people should be regarded as protected speech.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  We first have to understand what the misinformation is in order to understand how to censor it. You're going to say Trust the Scientist, I will point you to the replicability crisis...
  - taylodl 2y ago
    We could resort to the president declaring Marshall Law in response to a pandemic. Do you think that would be a better solution to this problem? Maybe Zuckerberg should be an adult and recognize the power his platform has to misinform, and kill, people. So far, he appears to be content in keeping his head firmly planted up his posterior so long as he's making money. I define that as evil; others may disagree.

bdavisx 2y ago

>spreading deadly misinformation is a constitutionally protected right For the people saying that it is a protected right, then how come you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire? I'm not trying to argue one side or the other - because I don't have a good answer. But it's not as one sided as some people make it out to be - free speech isn't totally free.

gruez 2y ago
>For the people saying that it is a protected right, then how come you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire? That's a terrible example, not only because the ruling where it's used was overturned, but it was also used to justify imprisoning anti-draft activists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- typeofhuman 2y ago
  Thanks, gruez. I find the "fire in theatre" quote to be one of the most ironically misused arguments.

readthenotes1 2y ago

So you're saying that he should have squelched the idea of 6 ft separation and masking, the latter of which was just made up in the former of which the government had both sides on? Or squelched the official US government position that it couldn't be a lab leak?

ben_w 2y ago
> Or squelched the official US government position that it couldn't be a lab leak? That anyone cared if it was or wasn't, continues to surprise me. Either way, the lab is in China and you can't do anything about it. Either way, the virus came from China and you can't do anything about it. Either way, China tried to suppress news initially and this allowed it to spread faster and sooner than it might otherwise have done. Either way, wet markets were and remain a known breeding ground for novel zoonotic diseases that we'd like to not be like that, but we can't do anything about them because they're in China and we have no say in the matter. Either way, the response to it has to be the same — it was out of control and killing people just the same, regardless of origin.
- freestyle24147 2y ago
  You don't care that your government conspired to hide information that, by your own opinion, didn't have much utility one way or the other?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    a) not my government, see profile b) there's two ways of censoring info: 1) to ban the truth and 2) to bury it under a pile of distractions; IMO during in a medical emergency such as this, allowing people to distract from "this is a deadly pandemic" with "it really matters which of two things we have no control over caused this" is just as deadly as China banning reporting of the fact that people were getting ill. "You can sort out which thing you frenemies did wrong later, right now you need to buck up and resist the disease itself", kinda thing.
    - 2y ago