this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just make a nonprofit third party that is as not biased as possible that you can search through with article links that can break down misinformation. Kind of like reverse image search but for articles that pulls up the article score.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

third party that is as not biased as possible

First of all, humans inherently have bias. It's literally inevitable. What's more important is what your biases are, how aware of them you are and how they affect your reasoning and openness to new information that might conflict.

Besides, not all biases are created equal and not all biases are completely unreasonable.

Some people are biased against minority groups while others are biased against authority figures. Some are biased in favor of billionaires, others against them. Some will not vote for a candidate that receives corporate PAC money, others will not cosponsor a bill unless the PACs are on board

What a third party needs is to be steeped in bias against corruption and demagoguery and in favor of transparency.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Part of the problem is who decides what is misinformation. As soon as the state gets to decide what is and isn't true, and thus what can and cannot be said, you no longer have free speech.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You do not have free speech on social media today, private platforms decide what they want to have.

The state does not have to be the one to decide these things, nor is it a case of "deciding" what is true, we have a long history of using proofs to solidify something as fact, or propaganda, or somewhere in between. This is functionally what history studies are about.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That brings up another thing. At what point does it become a "public space"?

Theres an old supreme court case on a company town that claimed someone was trespassing on a sidewalk. The supreme court ruled it was a public space, and thus they could pass out leaflets.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/marsh-v-alabama-1946/

Imo, a lot of big sites have gotten to that stage, and should be treated as such.

[–] Lith@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think this is an underrated point. A lot of people are quick to say "private companies aren't covered by free speech", but I'm sure everyone agrees legal ≠ moral. We rely on these platforms so much that they've effectively become our public squares. Our government even uses them in official capacities, e.g. the president announcing things on Twitter.

When being censored on a private platform is effectively social and informational murder, I think it's time for us to revisit our centuries-old definitions. Whether you agree or disagree that these instances should be covered by free speech laws, this is becoming an important discussion that I never see brought up, but instead I keep seeing the same bad faith argument that companies are allowed to do this because they're allowed to do it.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is an argument for a publicly-funded “digital public square”, not an argument for stripping private companies of their rights.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not both?

While I agree that punishing companies for success isn't a good idea, we aren't talking about small startups or local business ran by individual entrepreneurs or members of the community here. We're talking about absurdly huge corporations with reach and influence the likes that few businesses ever reach. I don't think it's unreasonable to apply a different set of rules to them, as they are distinctly different situations.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I fully agree. Small groups have limited resources. But google and facebook have a ton of resources, they can handle more oversight.