10 ms·

I think it would be wise to listen to Nobel Prize-winning journalist Maria Ressa of The Philippines, regarding unchecked social media. "You and I, if we say a

I think it would be wise to listen to Nobel Prize-winning journalist Maria Ressa of The Philippines, regarding unchecked social media. "You and I, if we say a lie we are held responsible for it, so people can trust us. Well, Facebook made a system where the lies repeated so often that people can't tell." "Both United Nations and Meta came to the same conclusion, which is that this platform Facebook actually enabled genocide that happened in Myanmar. Think about it as, when you say it a million times... it is not just the lie but also it is laced with fear, anger and hate. This is what was prioritized in the design and the distribution on Facebook. It keeps us scrolling, but in countries like Myanmar, in countries like Philippines, in countries where institutions are weak, you saw that online violence became real world violence." "Fear, anger, hate, lies, salaciousness, this is the worst of human nature... and I think that's what Big Tech has been able to do through social media... the incentive structure is for the worst of who we are because you keep scrolling, and the longer you keep scrolling the more money the platform makes." "Without a shared reality, without facts, how can you have a democracy that works?" https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/12/us/video/gps0112-meta-scraps-fact-checking-program https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/12/us/video/gps0112-meta-scraps-...

gchamonlive 1y ago
That's the evil genius behind the general movement in the world to discredit democratic institutions and deflate the government. Who would hold Meta accountable for the lies it helps spread and capitalize upon them if not the government. So by crippling democratic institutions and dwarfing the government to the point of virtual non-existence, all in the name of preserving freedom of speech and liberalism -- and in the process subverting both concepts -- elected leaders have managed to neutralize the only check in the way of big corps to ramp up this misinformation machine that the social networks have become.
trhway 1y ago
Censorship works both ways. When i tried speaking against violence and genocide perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine i was shut down on Linkedin. Even here on HN, i was almost banned when i said about children abduction by Russia https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33005062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33005062 - the crime that half year later ICC wrote the order against Putin.
- breadwinner 1y ago
  You know how this used to work in the old days? Instead of publishing allegations yourself, you would take your story to a newspaper reporter. The reporter will then do the investigations then, if there is solid evidence, the story will be published in the newspaper. At that point the newspaper company is standing behind the story, and citizens know the standing of the newspaper in their community, and how much credence to give to the story, based on that. Social media destroyed this process, now anyone can spread allegations at lightning speed on a massive scale without any evidence to back it up. This has to stop. We should return to the old way, it wasn't perfect, but it worked for 100s of years. Repealing Section 230 will accomplish this.
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    There is no way to go back to this. It’s about as feasible as getting rid of vehicles.
    - breadwinner 1y ago
      I am not saying we should go back to physical newspapers printed on paper. News can be published online... but whoever is publishing it has to stand behind it, and be prepared to face lawsuits from citizens harmed by false stories. This is feasible, and it is the only solution to the current mess.
      - nradov 1y ago
        It's horrifying that anyone would believe that censorship and control over news would be a solution to anything. The naivety of your comment is in itself an indictment of our collective failure to properly educate the polity in civics.
      - knome 1y ago
        A determined instigator could easily continue pushing modern yellow journalism with little problem under the system you propose. They simply need choose which negative stories they print, which opinions they run. How do you frame misrepresentation vs a differing point of view? How do you call out mere emphasis on which true stories are run. Truths are still truths, right? It's not infrequent today to see political opinions washed through language to provide reasonable deniability by those using it. Hell, it's not infrequent to see racism, bigotry and hate wrapped up to avoid the key phrases of yesteryear, instead smuggling their foulness through carefully considered phrases, used specifically to shield those repeating them from being called out. 'No no no. Of course it doesn't mean _that_, you're imagining things and making false accusations.'
vachina 1y ago
This is why China bans western social media.
- yupyupyups 1y ago
  Say what you will about the CCP, it's naive to let a foreign nation have this much impact on your subjects. The amount of poison and political manipulation that are imported from these platform is astronomical.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Instead of implementing government information control, why not invest those resources in educating and empowering ones citizenry to recognize disinformation?
    - beepboopboop 1y ago
      That’s hundreds of millions of people in the US, of varying ages and mostly out of school already. Seems like a good thing to try but I’d imagine it doesn’t make a tangible impact for decades.
    - erxam 1y ago
      Sorry, 'recognizing disinformation'? You must have meant 'indoctrination'. (They don't necessarily exclude each other. You need both positive preemptive and negative repressive actions to keep things working. Liberty is cheap talk when you've got a war on your hands.)
    - idiotsecant 1y ago
      Because you want to use it yourself. You can't vaccinate if you rely on the disease to maintain power. You can't tell people not to be afraid of people different than themselves if your whole party platform is being afraid of people different than yourself.
    - CJefferson 1y ago
      Because no one person can fight against a trillion dollar industry who has decided misinformation makes the biggest profit. How am I supposed to learn what’s going on outside my home town without trusting the media?
StanislavPetrov 1y ago
>"You and I, if we say a lie we are held responsible for it, so people can trust us." I don't know how it works in The Philippines, but in the USA the suggestion that media outlets are held responsible for the lies that they tell is one of the most absurd statements one could possibly make.
- lfpeb8b45ez 1y ago
  How about InfoWars?
  - anonymousiam 1y ago
    A sympathetic jury can be an enemy of justice. I'm not an Alex Jones fan, but I don't understand how a conspiracy theory about the mass shooting could be construed as defamation against the parents of the victims. And the $1.3B judgement does seem excessive to me.
    - AlexandrB 1y ago
      You should read up on some details. The defamation claim is because Alex Jones accused the parents of being actors who are part of staging the false flag. The huge judgement is partly because Alex Jones failed to comply[1][2] with basic court procedure like discovery in a timely way so a default judgement was entered. Despite his resources, Alex Jones completely failed to get competent legal representation and screwed himself. He then portrayed himself as the victim of an unjust legal system. [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055864452/alex-jones-found-liable-for-defamation-in-sandy-hook-hoax-case https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055864452/alex-jones-found-l... > Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis cited the defendants' "willful noncompliance" with the discovery process as the reasoning behind the ruling. Bellis noted that defendants failed to turned over financial and analytics data that were requested multiple times by the Sandy Hook family plaintiffs. [2] https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rips-alex-jones-callous-disregard-in-finding-him-liable-by-default-in-sandy-hook-defamation-cases/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rips-alex-jones-c... > Bellis reportedly said Jones' attorneys "failure to produce critical material information that the plaintiffs needed to prove their claims" was a "callous disregard of their obligation," the Hartford Courant reported.
_dain_ 1y ago
>unchecked social media Passive voice. Who exactly is supposed to do the "checking" and why should we trust them?
- breadwinner 1y ago
  Citizens. Through lawsuits. Currently we can't because of Section 230.
  - trhway 1y ago
    The "editorializing" may possibly be applied i think (not a lawyer) when the platform's manipulation of what a user sees is based on content. And the Youtube's banning of specific Covid and election content may be such an "editorializing", and thus Youtube may not have Section 230 protection at least in those cases.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Have you even read Section 230? Editorializing is irrelevant.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Nonsense. If social media users engage in fraud, slander, or libel then you can still hold them accountable through a civil lawsuit. Section 230 doesn't prevent this.
    - breadwinner 1y ago
      Will/can Facebook tell you the real identity of the user? If no then Facebook has to take responsibility for the fraud/slander/libel. Currently Section 230 means they can't be held responsible.
      - nradov 1y ago
        Yes. A plaintiff can file a civil lawsuit in a US court against a "John Doe" defendant and ask the court to order Facebook (or any online service) to turn over any data they have on the user's real identity. If the court agrees and issues the order then Facebook will comply: this is quite routine and happens all the time. The plaintiff can then amend the lawsuit to name specific defendants. Section 230 is largely irrelevant to this process so I don't know why you'd bring it up. Have you ever even read the Communications Decency Act of 1996?
stinkbeetle 1y ago
I think it would be even wiser to start by holding to account the politicians, corporations, and government institutions regarding their unchecked lies corruption and fraud. But no, yet again the blame is all piled on to the little people. Yes, it's us plebs lying on the internet who are the cause of all these problems and therefore we must be censored. For the greater good. I have an alternative idea, let's first imprison or execute (with due process) politicians, CEOs, generals, heads of intelligence and other agencies and regulators, those found to have engaged in corrupt behavior, lied to the public, committed fraud, insider trading, fabricated evidence to support invading other countries, engage in undeclared wars, ordered extrajudicial executions, colluded with foreign governments to hack elections, tax evasion, etc. Then after we try that out for a while and if it has not improved things, then we could try ratcheting up the censorship of plebs. Now one might argue that would be a violation of the rights of those people to take such measures against them, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Since We Are All In This Together™, they would be willing to make that sacrifice too. And really, if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. When you get people like Zuckerberg lying to congress, it's pretty difficult to swallow the propaganda claiming that it's Joe Smith the unemployed plumber from West Virginia sharing "dangerous memes" with his 12 friends on Facebook that is one of the most pressing concerns.
- n4r9 1y ago
  I don't think "breadwinner" is blaming the little people.
  - stinkbeetle 1y ago
    No, the ruling class is. breadwinner I guess has bought into the propaganda, but hasn't made the connection that it's basically putting all the blame on the little people and proposes to put all the burden of "fixing" things onto them, with measures that will absolutely not actually fix anything except handing more power to the ruling class.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      breadwinner is clearly putting the blame on Big Tech for putting perverse incentive structures in place.
themaninthedark 1y ago
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal, U.N. Declaration of Rights
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Full quote: "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master." (Alpha Centauri, 1999, https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/The_Planetary_Datalinks_(SMAC) https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/The_Planetary_Datalinks... )
  - HocusLocus 1y ago
    I sit here in my cubicle, here on the motherworld. When I die, they will put my body in a box and dispose of it in the cold ground. And in the million ages to come, I will never breathe, or laugh, or twitch again. So won't you run and play with me here among the teeming mass of humanity? The universe has spared us this moment." ~Anonymous, Datalinks.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - Yeul 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - kelvinjps 1y ago
        You can watch YouTube without watching any channels from an american person what do you mean
vintermann 1y ago
Exactly what are you trying to say about unbanning YouTubers here?
- afavour 1y ago
  That it could be dangerous to readmit people who broadcast disinformation? The connection seemed pretty clear to me.
  - vintermann 1y ago
    I certainly guessed that was what you wanted to say. Funny how polarization makes everything predictable. But what I just realized is that you don't explicitly say it, and certainly make no real argument for it. Ressa laments algorithmic promotion of inflammatory material, but didn't say "keep out anti-government subversives who spread dangerous misinformation" - which is good, because 1. We can all see how well the deplatforming worked - Trump is president again, and Kennedy is health secretary. 2. In the eyes of her government, she was very much such a person herself, so it would have been pretty bizarre thing of her to say. Ironically, your post is very much an online "go my team!" call, and a good one too (top of the thread!). We all understand what you want and most of us, it seems, agree. But you're not actually arguing for the deplatforming you want, just holding up Ressa as a symbol for it.
    - afavour 1y ago
      You realise I didn’t make the original post, right?
      - vintermann 1y ago
        No, it looked as if you did. Whatever.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      > We can all see how well the deplatforming worked - Trump is president again Not a compelling argument... Jan 2021 - Twitter bans Trump (for clear policy violations) Apr 2022 - Musk buys Twitter Aug 2023 - Twitter reinstates Trump's account Nov 2024 - Trump re-elected, gives Musk cabinet position
refurb 1y ago
The problem is not the content, the problem is people believing things blindly. The idea that we need to protect people from “bad information” is a dark path to go down.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  I don't see it so much as protecting people from bad information as protecting people from bad actors, among whom entities like Facebook are prominent. If people want to disseminate quackery they can do it like in the old days by standing on a street corner and ranting. The point is that the mechanisms of content delivery amplify the bad stuff.
  - refurb 1y ago
    It’s a terrible idea and creates more problems than it solves. You eliminate the good and the bad ideas. You eliminate the good ideas that are simple “bad” because it upsets people with power. You eliminate the good ideas that are “bad” simply because they are deemed too far out the Overton window. And worst of all, it requires some benevolent force to make the call between good and bad, which attracts all sorts of psychopaths hungry for power.
    - thrance 1y ago
      Have you been living under a rock these past few years? The "bad" ideas outnumber the "good" ones ten to one. The current secretary of health lets internet conspiracies dictate its politics, such that vaccines are getting banned, important research is getting defunded, and now they're even going after paracetamol (!!). People will die. Cue the quote that says it takes 30 minutes to debunk 30 seconds of lying.
      - refurb 1y ago
        You chose to ignore all the points I made. Why?
Slava_Propanei 1y ago
[dead]
potato3732842 1y ago
There's a special irony in this being the top comment on a site where everyone has a rightthink score and people routinely and flagrantly engage in "probably bad faith, but there's plausible deniability so you can't pin it on them" communication to crap on whatever the wrongthink on an issue is. As bad as facebook and it's opaque algorithms that favor rage bait are, the kind of stuff you get by keeping score is worse.

gchamonlive 1y ago

That's the evil genius behind the general movement in the world to discredit democratic institutions and deflate the government. Who would hold Meta accountable for the lies it helps spread and capitalize upon them if not the government. So by crippling democratic institutions and dwarfing the government to the point of virtual non-existence, all in the name of preserving freedom of speech and liberalism -- and in the process subverting both concepts -- elected leaders have managed to neutralize the only check in the way of big corps to ramp up this misinformation machine that the social networks have become.

trhway 1y ago

Censorship works both ways. When i tried speaking against violence and genocide perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine i was shut down on Linkedin. Even here on HN, i was almost banned when i said about children abduction by Russia https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33005062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33005062 - the crime that half year later ICC wrote the order against Putin.

breadwinner 1y ago
You know how this used to work in the old days? Instead of publishing allegations yourself, you would take your story to a newspaper reporter. The reporter will then do the investigations then, if there is solid evidence, the story will be published in the newspaper. At that point the newspaper company is standing behind the story, and citizens know the standing of the newspaper in their community, and how much credence to give to the story, based on that. Social media destroyed this process, now anyone can spread allegations at lightning speed on a massive scale without any evidence to back it up. This has to stop. We should return to the old way, it wasn't perfect, but it worked for 100s of years. Repealing Section 230 will accomplish this.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  There is no way to go back to this. It’s about as feasible as getting rid of vehicles.
  - breadwinner 1y ago
    I am not saying we should go back to physical newspapers printed on paper. News can be published online... but whoever is publishing it has to stand behind it, and be prepared to face lawsuits from citizens harmed by false stories. This is feasible, and it is the only solution to the current mess.
    - nradov 1y ago
      It's horrifying that anyone would believe that censorship and control over news would be a solution to anything. The naivety of your comment is in itself an indictment of our collective failure to properly educate the polity in civics.
    - knome 1y ago
      A determined instigator could easily continue pushing modern yellow journalism with little problem under the system you propose. They simply need choose which negative stories they print, which opinions they run. How do you frame misrepresentation vs a differing point of view? How do you call out mere emphasis on which true stories are run. Truths are still truths, right? It's not infrequent today to see political opinions washed through language to provide reasonable deniability by those using it. Hell, it's not infrequent to see racism, bigotry and hate wrapped up to avoid the key phrases of yesteryear, instead smuggling their foulness through carefully considered phrases, used specifically to shield those repeating them from being called out. 'No no no. Of course it doesn't mean _that_, you're imagining things and making false accusations.'

vachina 1y ago

This is why China bans western social media.

yupyupyups 1y ago
Say what you will about the CCP, it's naive to let a foreign nation have this much impact on your subjects. The amount of poison and political manipulation that are imported from these platform is astronomical.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Instead of implementing government information control, why not invest those resources in educating and empowering ones citizenry to recognize disinformation?
  - beepboopboop 1y ago
    That’s hundreds of millions of people in the US, of varying ages and mostly out of school already. Seems like a good thing to try but I’d imagine it doesn’t make a tangible impact for decades.
  - erxam 1y ago
    Sorry, 'recognizing disinformation'? You must have meant 'indoctrination'. (They don't necessarily exclude each other. You need both positive preemptive and negative repressive actions to keep things working. Liberty is cheap talk when you've got a war on your hands.)
  - idiotsecant 1y ago
    Because you want to use it yourself. You can't vaccinate if you rely on the disease to maintain power. You can't tell people not to be afraid of people different than themselves if your whole party platform is being afraid of people different than yourself.
  - CJefferson 1y ago
    Because no one person can fight against a trillion dollar industry who has decided misinformation makes the biggest profit. How am I supposed to learn what’s going on outside my home town without trusting the media?

StanislavPetrov 1y ago

>"You and I, if we say a lie we are held responsible for it, so people can trust us." I don't know how it works in The Philippines, but in the USA the suggestion that media outlets are held responsible for the lies that they tell is one of the most absurd statements one could possibly make.

lfpeb8b45ez 1y ago
How about InfoWars?
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  A sympathetic jury can be an enemy of justice. I'm not an Alex Jones fan, but I don't understand how a conspiracy theory about the mass shooting could be construed as defamation against the parents of the victims. And the $1.3B judgement does seem excessive to me.
  - AlexandrB 1y ago
    You should read up on some details. The defamation claim is because Alex Jones accused the parents of being actors who are part of staging the false flag. The huge judgement is partly because Alex Jones failed to comply[1][2] with basic court procedure like discovery in a timely way so a default judgement was entered. Despite his resources, Alex Jones completely failed to get competent legal representation and screwed himself. He then portrayed himself as the victim of an unjust legal system. [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055864452/alex-jones-found-liable-for-defamation-in-sandy-hook-hoax-case https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055864452/alex-jones-found-l... > Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis cited the defendants' "willful noncompliance" with the discovery process as the reasoning behind the ruling. Bellis noted that defendants failed to turned over financial and analytics data that were requested multiple times by the Sandy Hook family plaintiffs. [2] https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rips-alex-jones-callous-disregard-in-finding-him-liable-by-default-in-sandy-hook-defamation-cases/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rips-alex-jones-c... > Bellis reportedly said Jones' attorneys "failure to produce critical material information that the plaintiffs needed to prove their claims" was a "callous disregard of their obligation," the Hartford Courant reported.

_dain_ 1y ago

>unchecked social media Passive voice. Who exactly is supposed to do the "checking" and why should we trust them?

breadwinner 1y ago
Citizens. Through lawsuits. Currently we can't because of Section 230.
- trhway 1y ago
  The "editorializing" may possibly be applied i think (not a lawyer) when the platform's manipulation of what a user sees is based on content. And the Youtube's banning of specific Covid and election content may be such an "editorializing", and thus Youtube may not have Section 230 protection at least in those cases.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Have you even read Section 230? Editorializing is irrelevant.
- nradov 1y ago
  Nonsense. If social media users engage in fraud, slander, or libel then you can still hold them accountable through a civil lawsuit. Section 230 doesn't prevent this.
  - breadwinner 1y ago
    Will/can Facebook tell you the real identity of the user? If no then Facebook has to take responsibility for the fraud/slander/libel. Currently Section 230 means they can't be held responsible.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Yes. A plaintiff can file a civil lawsuit in a US court against a "John Doe" defendant and ask the court to order Facebook (or any online service) to turn over any data they have on the user's real identity. If the court agrees and issues the order then Facebook will comply: this is quite routine and happens all the time. The plaintiff can then amend the lawsuit to name specific defendants. Section 230 is largely irrelevant to this process so I don't know why you'd bring it up. Have you ever even read the Communications Decency Act of 1996?

stinkbeetle 1y ago

I think it would be even wiser to start by holding to account the politicians, corporations, and government institutions regarding their unchecked lies corruption and fraud. But no, yet again the blame is all piled on to the little people. Yes, it's us plebs lying on the internet who are the cause of all these problems and therefore we must be censored. For the greater good. I have an alternative idea, let's first imprison or execute (with due process) politicians, CEOs, generals, heads of intelligence and other agencies and regulators, those found to have engaged in corrupt behavior, lied to the public, committed fraud, insider trading, fabricated evidence to support invading other countries, engage in undeclared wars, ordered extrajudicial executions, colluded with foreign governments to hack elections, tax evasion, etc. Then after we try that out for a while and if it has not improved things, then we could try ratcheting up the censorship of plebs. Now one might argue that would be a violation of the rights of those people to take such measures against them, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Since We Are All In This Together™, they would be willing to make that sacrifice too. And really, if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. When you get people like Zuckerberg lying to congress, it's pretty difficult to swallow the propaganda claiming that it's Joe Smith the unemployed plumber from West Virginia sharing "dangerous memes" with his 12 friends on Facebook that is one of the most pressing concerns.

n4r9 1y ago
I don't think "breadwinner" is blaming the little people.
- stinkbeetle 1y ago
  No, the ruling class is. breadwinner I guess has bought into the propaganda, but hasn't made the connection that it's basically putting all the blame on the little people and proposes to put all the burden of "fixing" things onto them, with measures that will absolutely not actually fix anything except handing more power to the ruling class.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    breadwinner is clearly putting the blame on Big Tech for putting perverse incentive structures in place.

themaninthedark 1y ago

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal, U.N. Declaration of Rights

ethbr1 1y ago
Full quote: "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master." (Alpha Centauri, 1999, https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/The_Planetary_Datalinks_(SMAC) https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/The_Planetary_Datalinks... )
- HocusLocus 1y ago
  I sit here in my cubicle, here on the motherworld. When I die, they will put my body in a box and dispose of it in the cold ground. And in the million ages to come, I will never breathe, or laugh, or twitch again. So won't you run and play with me here among the teeming mass of humanity? The universe has spared us this moment." ~Anonymous, Datalinks.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Yeul 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - kelvinjps 1y ago
      You can watch YouTube without watching any channels from an american person what do you mean

vintermann 1y ago

Exactly what are you trying to say about unbanning YouTubers here?

afavour 1y ago
That it could be dangerous to readmit people who broadcast disinformation? The connection seemed pretty clear to me.
- vintermann 1y ago
  I certainly guessed that was what you wanted to say. Funny how polarization makes everything predictable. But what I just realized is that you don't explicitly say it, and certainly make no real argument for it. Ressa laments algorithmic promotion of inflammatory material, but didn't say "keep out anti-government subversives who spread dangerous misinformation" - which is good, because 1. We can all see how well the deplatforming worked - Trump is president again, and Kennedy is health secretary. 2. In the eyes of her government, she was very much such a person herself, so it would have been pretty bizarre thing of her to say. Ironically, your post is very much an online "go my team!" call, and a good one too (top of the thread!). We all understand what you want and most of us, it seems, agree. But you're not actually arguing for the deplatforming you want, just holding up Ressa as a symbol for it.
  - afavour 1y ago
    You realise I didn’t make the original post, right?
    - vintermann 1y ago
      No, it looked as if you did. Whatever.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    > We can all see how well the deplatforming worked - Trump is president again Not a compelling argument... Jan 2021 - Twitter bans Trump (for clear policy violations) Apr 2022 - Musk buys Twitter Aug 2023 - Twitter reinstates Trump's account Nov 2024 - Trump re-elected, gives Musk cabinet position

refurb 1y ago

The problem is not the content, the problem is people believing things blindly. The idea that we need to protect people from “bad information” is a dark path to go down.

BrenBarn 1y ago
I don't see it so much as protecting people from bad information as protecting people from bad actors, among whom entities like Facebook are prominent. If people want to disseminate quackery they can do it like in the old days by standing on a street corner and ranting. The point is that the mechanisms of content delivery amplify the bad stuff.
- refurb 1y ago
  It’s a terrible idea and creates more problems than it solves. You eliminate the good and the bad ideas. You eliminate the good ideas that are simple “bad” because it upsets people with power. You eliminate the good ideas that are “bad” simply because they are deemed too far out the Overton window. And worst of all, it requires some benevolent force to make the call between good and bad, which attracts all sorts of psychopaths hungry for power.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Have you been living under a rock these past few years? The "bad" ideas outnumber the "good" ones ten to one. The current secretary of health lets internet conspiracies dictate its politics, such that vaccines are getting banned, important research is getting defunded, and now they're even going after paracetamol (!!). People will die. Cue the quote that says it takes 30 minutes to debunk 30 seconds of lying.
    - refurb 1y ago
      You chose to ignore all the points I made. Why?

Slava_Propanei 1y ago

[dead]

potato3732842 1y ago

There's a special irony in this being the top comment on a site where everyone has a rightthink score and people routinely and flagrantly engage in "probably bad faith, but there's plausible deniability so you can't pin it on them" communication to crap on whatever the wrongthink on an issue is. As bad as facebook and it's opaque algorithms that favor rage bait are, the kind of stuff you get by keeping score is worse.