5 ms·

> Seems to me in my experience after decades of watching and participating in online discussion extremism really only became more problematic when fact checking

> Seems to me in my experience after decades of watching and participating in online discussion extremism really only became more problematic when fact checking and active efforts to suppress took hold. Whatever the good intentions may have been, the results were worse. Seems like the opposite. Traditionally we only had siloed forums which were often heavily moderated by volunteers who considered the forums their personal fiefdom, read every single thread and deleted stuff for being "off topic" never mind objectionable, plus the odd place like /b/ which revelled in being unmoderated. Then you ended up with more people on big platforms that were comparatively-speaking, pretty lightly and reactively moderated. Then you ended up with politicians weighing in against moderation with the suggestion even annotating content published on their platform was a free speech violation, let alone refraining from continuing to publish it. The difference between antivax sentiment now and circa 2005 isn't that nobody ever determined that they weren't having that nonsense on their forums or closed threads with links to Snopes back then or that it's become difficult to find any references to it outside antivaxxer communities since then. Quite the opposite, the difference is that it's now coming from the mouth of a presumptive Health Secretary, amplified on allied news networks and now we have corporations running scared that labelling it a hoax might run the risk of offending the people in charge. Turns out sunlight is a catalyst for growth

kcplate 2y ago
> The difference between antivax sentiment now and circa 2005 The antivax movement literally grew exponentially when vaccine information started to be actively censored on the largest social media platforms and you think that is because there wasn’t enough censorship? People were literally driven into antivax information silos because a bunch of idiots decided that vaccine criticism should be forbidden in the public square Wow.
- notahacker 2y ago
  Sorry, but I live in a country using exactly the same social media providers as you, subject to exactly the same (actually pretty limited) censorship and without widespread, committed and politically-aligned antivax sentiment People in the US didn't need to be "driven into antivax information silos", because those antivax information silos were their favourite talk show hosts and some of the country's most prominent politicians. Turns out that promotion of antivax sentiment as an important issue that must be discussed and constant attacks on public health officials doesn't "disinfect" people against the belief that there might be some truth to it...
  - kcplate 2y ago
    So you are arguing for exactly what? You don’t want freedom of speech? You don’t want body autonomy? You want authoritarian control of the populace? Not sure where you live, but if those are the things that are important to your leaders and people, I wouldn’t want to live there or even visit. Sounds awful.
    - notahacker 2y ago
      I don't recall expressing any of those sentiments you've attributed to me, but I'll note it's quite a shift on your side from "sunlight is the best disinfectant" to "your country's mainstream media and politicians didn't encourage antivax sentiment enough to reduce vaccination levels or increase death rates to US levels? Sounds horrible" I note that the original topic was about Zuckerberg being so afraid of his corporation being censured by the incoming government that he's pledged to move his moderation team to a state which voted for them and refrain from publishing any "fact checking" notes in Facebook's name lest they conflict with the government and its supporters. That doesn't sound like a libertarian paradise either
      - kcplate 2y ago
        > I don't recall expressing any of those sentiments you've attributed to me Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions then. If you believe that antivax debate was in the mainstream in the US and there wasn’t an active attempt to suppress just because some voices bled through the censorship, you are simply wrong. Zuckerberg even noted in this announcement that pressure from the Biden administration to censor speech was significant. My consistent point here is that censorship drives extremism because it suppresses the debate where the debate wants to take place and pushes the conversation to those interested in the topic to siloed echo chambers. That definitely happened around vaccines in the US over the last 4-5 years. I know that happens for a fact and have personally tried to gently encourage people I know that felt the censorship frustrations and leapt to other platforms to still read all sides before making decsions. Whatever Zuckerberg’s internal motivations are on this change of policy, I don’t care. Community notes seems to be a better way than suppression. Others may have a different opinion and thats ok. I encourage them to freely express it and would never support any one trying to shut that debate down.

kcplate 2y ago

> The difference between antivax sentiment now and circa 2005 The antivax movement literally grew exponentially when vaccine information started to be actively censored on the largest social media platforms and you think that is because there wasn’t enough censorship? People were literally driven into antivax information silos because a bunch of idiots decided that vaccine criticism should be forbidden in the public square Wow.

notahacker 2y ago
Sorry, but I live in a country using exactly the same social media providers as you, subject to exactly the same (actually pretty limited) censorship and without widespread, committed and politically-aligned antivax sentiment People in the US didn't need to be "driven into antivax information silos", because those antivax information silos were their favourite talk show hosts and some of the country's most prominent politicians. Turns out that promotion of antivax sentiment as an important issue that must be discussed and constant attacks on public health officials doesn't "disinfect" people against the belief that there might be some truth to it...
- kcplate 2y ago
  So you are arguing for exactly what? You don’t want freedom of speech? You don’t want body autonomy? You want authoritarian control of the populace? Not sure where you live, but if those are the things that are important to your leaders and people, I wouldn’t want to live there or even visit. Sounds awful.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    I don't recall expressing any of those sentiments you've attributed to me, but I'll note it's quite a shift on your side from "sunlight is the best disinfectant" to "your country's mainstream media and politicians didn't encourage antivax sentiment enough to reduce vaccination levels or increase death rates to US levels? Sounds horrible" I note that the original topic was about Zuckerberg being so afraid of his corporation being censured by the incoming government that he's pledged to move his moderation team to a state which voted for them and refrain from publishing any "fact checking" notes in Facebook's name lest they conflict with the government and its supporters. That doesn't sound like a libertarian paradise either
    - kcplate 2y ago
      > I don't recall expressing any of those sentiments you've attributed to me Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions then. If you believe that antivax debate was in the mainstream in the US and there wasn’t an active attempt to suppress just because some voices bled through the censorship, you are simply wrong. Zuckerberg even noted in this announcement that pressure from the Biden administration to censor speech was significant. My consistent point here is that censorship drives extremism because it suppresses the debate where the debate wants to take place and pushes the conversation to those interested in the topic to siloed echo chambers. That definitely happened around vaccines in the US over the last 4-5 years. I know that happens for a fact and have personally tried to gently encourage people I know that felt the censorship frustrations and leapt to other platforms to still read all sides before making decsions. Whatever Zuckerberg’s internal motivations are on this change of policy, I don’t care. Community notes seems to be a better way than suppression. Others may have a different opinion and thats ok. I encourage them to freely express it and would never support any one trying to shut that debate down.