2 ms·

Zuck's video claims Europe has been imposing a lot of censorship lately, which is a nicer way for him to say "we have done a crappy job at stopping misinformati

Zuck's video claims Europe has been imposing a lot of censorship lately, which is a nicer way for him to say "we have done a crappy job at stopping misinformation and abusive material, got fined A LOT by countries who actually care about it, and that's somehow not our fault". Community notes is good news, and something I was expecting to disappear from Twitter since Elon bought it a couple years ago, especially since they have called out his lies more than once. Hearing Facebook/Instagram/Threads are getting them is great. Then he claims "foreign governments are pushing against American companies" like we aren't all subject to the same laws. And actually, it wasn't the EU who prohibited a specific app alleging "security risks" because actually they can't control what's said there; it was the US, censoring TikTok. Perhaps we the europeans should push for a ban of US platforms like Twitter, especially when its owner has actually pledged to weaponise the platform to favour far-right candidates like AfD (Germany) or Reform UK. And definitely push for bigger fines to monopolistic companies like Meta.

zahlman 2y ago
Why should social media operators be responsible for "stopping misinformation" in the first place? That sounds a lot like the logic that was used to justify smashing the printing presses in Gutenberg's day, not to mention by countless villains of dystopian sci-fi (e.g. Fahrenheit 451), in turn based on other real-world concerns. I think I should have a right to let others lie to me, and decide for myself if I believe them. In the alternative where someone prevents me from hearing it, that other person is deciding for me. Why should I accept that other person as more qualified to do my own thinking? It's really strange to me how calls for banning "misinformation" in the US seem to come from the same political direction as complaints about controversial books being taken out of educational curricula.
- arielcostas 2y ago
  > It's really strange to me how calls for banning "misinformation" in the US seem to come from the same political direction as complaints about controversial books being taken out of educational curricula. I'm not in (or from) the US, I'm european and probably "more used to" regulation :). Thing is, banning misinformation isn't the solution, but the artificial algorithm should stop recommending accounts that keep feeding fake news to people, since community notes take a while to appear. Or some indicator like "this account's posts has received a lot of community notes in the last 30 days, please take what this tweet says with a grain of salt". Young people keep getting feed far-right bullshit, which is the reason a party like Se Acabó La Fiesta (Alvise Perez) got to the European parliament in the first place, because he kept posting fake stuff, and until the justice ruled otherwise, people would just believe it. Because unfortunately, many people aren't able to "do their thinking" because of confirmation bias. "They say what I want to hear, so it must be true".
  - zahlman 2y ago
    I think that most people with non-mainstream views understand that their views are not mainstream, and will be quite willing to ignore community notes. But your idea generally has merit; an automated system trying to predict how content will be rated by third parties seems much better than having it try to do the rating itself.
- cakealert 2y ago
  In all cases what they mean is that they want opinions or statements that go against to whatever ideology or political faction they belong to to be censored. Humans tend to strongly identify with such things and motivate their moral reasoning to fit. I would wager Mark and other sharks like him would find this entire thread very amusing. For they have no ideology other than self interest, nothing they do is for any other purpose other than their own.

zahlman 2y ago

Why should social media operators be responsible for "stopping misinformation" in the first place? That sounds a lot like the logic that was used to justify smashing the printing presses in Gutenberg's day, not to mention by countless villains of dystopian sci-fi (e.g. Fahrenheit 451), in turn based on other real-world concerns. I think I should have a right to let others lie to me, and decide for myself if I believe them. In the alternative where someone prevents me from hearing it, that other person is deciding for me. Why should I accept that other person as more qualified to do my own thinking? It's really strange to me how calls for banning "misinformation" in the US seem to come from the same political direction as complaints about controversial books being taken out of educational curricula.

arielcostas 2y ago
> It's really strange to me how calls for banning "misinformation" in the US seem to come from the same political direction as complaints about controversial books being taken out of educational curricula. I'm not in (or from) the US, I'm european and probably "more used to" regulation :). Thing is, banning misinformation isn't the solution, but the artificial algorithm should stop recommending accounts that keep feeding fake news to people, since community notes take a while to appear. Or some indicator like "this account's posts has received a lot of community notes in the last 30 days, please take what this tweet says with a grain of salt". Young people keep getting feed far-right bullshit, which is the reason a party like Se Acabó La Fiesta (Alvise Perez) got to the European parliament in the first place, because he kept posting fake stuff, and until the justice ruled otherwise, people would just believe it. Because unfortunately, many people aren't able to "do their thinking" because of confirmation bias. "They say what I want to hear, so it must be true".
- zahlman 2y ago
  I think that most people with non-mainstream views understand that their views are not mainstream, and will be quite willing to ignore community notes. But your idea generally has merit; an automated system trying to predict how content will be rated by third parties seems much better than having it try to do the rating itself.
cakealert 2y ago
In all cases what they mean is that they want opinions or statements that go against to whatever ideology or political faction they belong to to be censored. Humans tend to strongly identify with such things and motivate their moral reasoning to fit. I would wager Mark and other sharks like him would find this entire thread very amusing. For they have no ideology other than self interest, nothing they do is for any other purpose other than their own.