Comment by breadwinner
5 months ago
> silencing people doesn't work
I agree, but how do you combat propaganda from Putin? Do you match him dollar for dollar? I am sure YouTube would like that, but who has deep enough pockets to counter the disinformation campaigns?
Similar issue with Covid... when you are in the middle of a pandemic, and dead bodies are piling up, and hospitals are running out of room, how do you handle misinformation spreading on social media?
Slow down our algorithmic hell hole. Particularly around elections.
>Slow down our algorithmic hell hole.
What are your suggestions on accomplishing this while also bent compatible with the idea that government and big tech should not control ideas and speech?
> What are your suggestions on accomplishing this while also bent compatible with the idea that government and big tech should not control ideas and speech?
Time delay. No content based restrictions. Just, like, a 2- to 24-hour delay between when a post or comment is submitted and when it becomes visible, with the user free to delete or change (in this case, the timer resets) their content.
I’d also argue for demonetising political content, but idk if that would fly.
2 replies →
Easy solution: Repeal Section 230.
Allow citizens to sue social media companies for the harm caused to them by misinformation and disinformation. The government can stay out of this.
2 replies →
If the government asks private companies to do that, then that's a violation of 1st amendment, isn't it?
This is the conundrum social media has created. In the past only the press, who were at least semi-responsible, had the ability to spread information on a massive scale. Social media changed that. Now anyone can spread information instantly on a massive scale, and often it is the conspiracy theories and incorrect information that people seek out.
"We were a bit naive: we thought the internet, with the availability of information, would make us all a lot more factual. The fact that people would seek out—kind of a niche of misinformation—we were a bit naive." -- Bill Gates to Oprah, on "AI and the Future of us".
> If the government asks private companies to do that, then that's a violation of 1st amendment, isn't it?
Yes. An unfortunate conclusion I’m approaching (but have not reached, and frankly don’t want to reach) is the First Amendment doesn’t work in a country that’s increasingly illiterate and addicted to ad-powered algorithmic social media.
1 reply →
Have you heard about Tik Tok? And you think governments' intelligence agencies are not inserting their agents in key positions at bit tech companies?
Censorship is a tool to combat misinformation.
It's taking a sword to the surgery room where no scalpel has been invented yet.
We need better tools to combat dis/mis-information.
I wish I knew what that tool was.
Maybe 'inoculating information' that's specifically stickier than the dis/mis-info?
Easy solution: Repeal Section 230.
Social media platforms in the United States rely heavily on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides them immunity from liability for most user-generated content.
This would cause widespread censorship of anything remotely controversial, including the truth. We'd be in a "censor first, ask questions later" society. Somehow that doesn't seem healthy either.
2 replies →