4 ms·

I believe he is being honest. I remember him making similar remarks in the past, saying they don't want to be the arbiters of truth. Most tech companies were li

I believe he is being honest. I remember him making similar remarks in the past, saying they don't want to be the arbiters of truth. Most tech companies were like this before, but they were pressured by some other force to censor. Glad to see that's changing.

gedpeck 2y ago
It’s bad for society that peddlers of stupidity can do so at scale and for little cost. We now have millions of people doubting the benefits of the polio vaccine. This disinformation is spread primarily through a few websites. It seems to me that they ought to have some responsibility to restrict destructive disinformation.
- drawkward 2y ago
  Free speech should not include disinformation, which is an attack on society. Of course, the devil is in the details of enforcement: who watches the watchmen?
- TylerLives 2y ago
  When you suppress ideas in this way, they become more attractive to a large number of people. There is a problem with bad ideas spreading quickly on the internet, but censorship hasn't helped with this imo.
  - chimprich 2y ago
    > When you suppress ideas in this way, they become more attractive to a large number of people. That sounds superficially reasonable, but I don't think that it's true. Turn the sentence around: "when you spread ideas more widely, they become more attractive to a large number of people". Repetition works. It's why trillions gets spent on advertising each year.
  - gedpeck 2y ago
    Anti-vaccine sentiment didn’t arise due to suppression. It arose due to the ease of cheaply spreading a message on social media. We ran the experiment and see the results.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- bluenomatterwho 2y ago
  Websites like this? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1383764/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1383764/
  - gedpeck 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bluenomatterwho 2y ago
      I don't know why you assume I'm even on social media. The cutter incident is well known anyway, established in history in many more journals than the JRSM. It's the origin story of VAERS. How rude.
    - bluenomatterwho 2y ago
      Why is it so difficult to be transparent? The cure works, 90% of the time. 10% of the time it causes polio. It's also the source of new polio. I get it. I'm sure you're ready to acknowledge the quandary after 60 years? Surely this is no place for well-rounded, polite and thoughtful conversation...? "14 June 2023 Vaccine-derived polio is undermining the fight to eradicate the virus Wild polio has almost been eradicated, but vaccine-derived strains retain the potential to paralyse. Better vaccines have arrived — but they are only part of the answer." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01953-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01953-7
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
NickC25 2y ago
and why shouldn't they be forced to censor? they are regarded by society as the arbiters of truth, regardless if they wish to be or not. not that i'm a fan of censorship, but if a foreign power's strategy is to sow mass disinformation, it's up to the corporation to stop it. don't like it, Mark? you don't have to have $100 billion either, you could willingly give all of it up.
- Gud 2y ago
  No they aren’t, most people know Facebook is mostly filled with bullshit.
conartist6 2y ago
I have heard this argument directly from Zuck once on a Friday long ago, but a few things: 1. Since then the rise of LLMS has made it easy to accomplish censorship without preventing anyone from speaking. Just drown out voices of moderation with endless engagement bait, or create a network of bots to make it seem like tons of people are reporting a particular community note as inappropriate. 2. The second half of Zuck's thought at the time was that moderation should be more community-oriented -- that communities around the world should have more freedom to make their own decisions around what kind of content was appropriate speech. Unfortunately while I see a gesture in this direction with community notes, it doesn't appear that the community has been given any power to stop a hateful message from being amplified.

gedpeck 2y ago

It’s bad for society that peddlers of stupidity can do so at scale and for little cost. We now have millions of people doubting the benefits of the polio vaccine. This disinformation is spread primarily through a few websites. It seems to me that they ought to have some responsibility to restrict destructive disinformation.

drawkward 2y ago
Free speech should not include disinformation, which is an attack on society. Of course, the devil is in the details of enforcement: who watches the watchmen?
TylerLives 2y ago
When you suppress ideas in this way, they become more attractive to a large number of people. There is a problem with bad ideas spreading quickly on the internet, but censorship hasn't helped with this imo.
- chimprich 2y ago
  > When you suppress ideas in this way, they become more attractive to a large number of people. That sounds superficially reasonable, but I don't think that it's true. Turn the sentence around: "when you spread ideas more widely, they become more attractive to a large number of people". Repetition works. It's why trillions gets spent on advertising each year.
- gedpeck 2y ago
  Anti-vaccine sentiment didn’t arise due to suppression. It arose due to the ease of cheaply spreading a message on social media. We ran the experiment and see the results.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bluenomatterwho 2y ago
Websites like this? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1383764/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1383764/
- gedpeck 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bluenomatterwho 2y ago
    I don't know why you assume I'm even on social media. The cutter incident is well known anyway, established in history in many more journals than the JRSM. It's the origin story of VAERS. How rude.
  - bluenomatterwho 2y ago
    Why is it so difficult to be transparent? The cure works, 90% of the time. 10% of the time it causes polio. It's also the source of new polio. I get it. I'm sure you're ready to acknowledge the quandary after 60 years? Surely this is no place for well-rounded, polite and thoughtful conversation...? "14 June 2023 Vaccine-derived polio is undermining the fight to eradicate the virus Wild polio has almost been eradicated, but vaccine-derived strains retain the potential to paralyse. Better vaccines have arrived — but they are only part of the answer." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01953-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01953-7

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

NickC25 2y ago

and why shouldn't they be forced to censor? they are regarded by society as the arbiters of truth, regardless if they wish to be or not. not that i'm a fan of censorship, but if a foreign power's strategy is to sow mass disinformation, it's up to the corporation to stop it. don't like it, Mark? you don't have to have $100 billion either, you could willingly give all of it up.

Gud 2y ago
No they aren’t, most people know Facebook is mostly filled with bullshit.

conartist6 2y ago

I have heard this argument directly from Zuck once on a Friday long ago, but a few things: 1. Since then the rise of LLMS has made it easy to accomplish censorship without preventing anyone from speaking. Just drown out voices of moderation with endless engagement bait, or create a network of bots to make it seem like tons of people are reporting a particular community note as inappropriate. 2. The second half of Zuck's thought at the time was that moderation should be more community-oriented -- that communities around the world should have more freedom to make their own decisions around what kind of content was appropriate speech. Unfortunately while I see a gesture in this direction with community notes, it doesn't appear that the community has been given any power to stop a hateful message from being amplified.