Comment by vannevar
8 days ago
>And even then, it doesn't stop harassment and bullying. We already know this from facebook, where people's IDs are known.
It depends on your privacy settings. If people you don't know can comment on your posts, then they're not really verified (ie, you never accepted a friend request from them). In FB communities limited only to friends, I suspect there is much less bullying or harassment. But that kind of community is hard to create on FB, by design.
>So having known actors makes very little difference to misinformations gumming up our information markets.
If a verified actor can be permanently banned from a platform, then of course that will reduce misinformation on that platform by systematically excluding the originators. That includes people who routinely spread misinformation they receive off-platform.
Much less bullying is a matter of degrees. It implcitly acknowledges that harassment occurs without anonymiity.
>If a verified actor can be permanently banned from a platform, then of course that will reduce misinformation on that platform by systematically excluding the originators.
Eh. Yes, in a simplified producer/consumer model of this. I'm personally all for removing people who are not engaging in good faith.
Thing is that misinformation is now firmly linked to political power.
Compared to facts? Misinfo is faster and cheaper to produce, yet perfectly suited to maximize engage amongst the target audience. A key moment in that process, is when a fringe narrative is picked up by a key player in the media ecosystem.
Removing such a node, is to take up arms against the political forces using misinformation to fuel their narratives.
Not saying it shouldn't be done if it can. Just that we need a better set of understandings and tools before we can make this case.