Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My only bias is against those who tell me I cannot do something, I will then go out of my way to do it

F*^K yes. We need to have a beer together

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by JPK

The converse is also true:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...7213R320110302

Freedom of expression is analogous to pregnancy, there's no half measures and it has evolved in primarily protestant western thought that the benefit to society of freedom of expression far outweighs the damage of contrary opinions being expressed. Post the massive infringements of human rights of WW2 it was enshrined as article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The whole point of these calls for social media accountability is because of the harm they are causing others, and to society in general. So I guess this means you're in favour of actions to increase their accountability...?

I find it hard to equate criticisms of the state of Israel with telling outright lies about the US elections, or calling for the death of certain American politicians.

So Ted Cruz did try to get Cortez assassinated your saying..

No.. I am against them having the ability to censor members content..
Let's face it ISIS being blacklisted has not led to its collapse, if anything it's made it more mysterious, glamorous and inviting to the fringe.. instead of blood thirsty nut jobs akin to AL Shabab..
Let it all hang out and let people decide for themselves what they choose to view and respond to.. let's face it, it matters not whether you agree or not with something your government will conscript you to go and die for their beliefs if they decide to.
Prohibition, Porn Laws, Drug Laws.. all failures and Censorship will go the same way..
Leave it on the surface where it's visible, don't drive it underground.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

No.. I am against them having the ability to censor members content..

Let me say at the top I generally agree with you. As long as an action does no harm to others, I let-er-rip. But that's the easy case. The tricky part is when there is harm to others.

I do recognize there are limits to free speech. In fact, every functioning society does, including the USA. That said, I think it is only something that should happen in extreme and clear cases. And for the record, I don't think they should have kicked a certain ex-leader off Twitter. As you say, it just drives the craziness underground. I'd rather have it up front and clear for all to see.

But the problem you face with your demand is that you would have to turn these social media companies into some sort of utility with government oversight. Currently, they are independent companies that operate as they deem best for themselves. That apparently means removing some of their users. The only way to stop them from censoring a member would be to have the government exert some sort of control over them.

As you know, there is no such thing as freedom of speech in the private sector. I'm reminded of this fact every time I get my knuckles wrapped by the mods here . Your plan would have Facebook, and presumbly CF, placed under some sort of government control that would restrict these private companies from doing as they deem best for them.

That's far too nanny-statish for me. I'm not nearly as lefty as all that.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Let me say at the top I generally agree with you. As long as an action does no harm to others, I let-er-rip. But that's the easy case. The tricky part is when there is harm to others.

I do recognize there are limits to free speech. In fact, every functioning society does, including the USA. That said, I think it is only something that should happen in extreme and clear cases. And for the record, I don't think they should have kicked a certain ex-leader off Twitter. As you say, it just drives the craziness underground. I'd rather have it up front and clear for all to see.

But the problem you face with your demand is that you would have to turn these social media companies into some sort of utility with government oversight. Currently, they are independent companies that operate as they deem best for themselves. That apparently means removing some of their users. The only way to stop them from censoring a member would be to have the government exert some sort of control over them.

As you know, there is no such thing as freedom of speech in the private sector. I'm reminded of this fact every time I get my knuckles wrapped by the mods here . Your plan would have Facebook, and presumbly CF, placed under some sort of government control that would restrict these private companies from doing as they deem best for them.

That's far too nanny-statish for me. I'm not nearly as lefty as all that.

That's not necessarily true.. my feeling is 'the former leader' got banned as it was politically expedient to do so and he had to little time left in office to do anything.. else they'd have done it much sooner but they feared the backlash.
As I said, there's plenty of crazies out there including politico's in both parties but better to let them vent their spleen then the voters can judge them come election day.. if anti semites get voted back in you know you live in an anti semetic state.
As for demanding.. Never, I just state my opinions and leave it to others to decide be they rednecks or pseudo intellectuals..
For the record.. in the '60's I was pro Israel and cheered their achievement in the 6 day war..
Today I am anti Ghettoisation of a people the same way I detested how the indigenous peoples of N America were placed in reservations when I was a kid reading about Cochise, Chief Joseph, Sitting Bull and various other First Nation legends.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by JPK

They are actually one and the same problem. Inflammatory content (conspiracy theories, extreme political views, etc.) generate MUCH more interest (and therefore clicks, time spent online, etc.) than rational truth-based content. Algorithms, by their very definition, will spot what content generates the most engagement and push that to as many users as possible. The net result is massive propagation of nonsense like QAnon to anyone susceptible to that sort of content, regardless of whether they searched for it or not. Once the "base" has fully bought into this nonsense, politicians and biased news outlets then have to choose between speaking out against the lies and losing the support of the base or perpetuating the lies in their own self-interest. Fox News pushed back on the election lie and saw massive ratings drops as people fled to NewsMax. Liz Cheney stood up against the lies and got censured by her own party. All the while Marjorie Taylor Greene actively supports QAnon and calls the GOP "Trump's party" and gets a standing ovation in Congress.

Don't take my word for it. I hate to repeat myself, and I have no personal financial interest in this documentary but everyone should watch "The Social Dilemma." There are several prominent current and former high-level executives of Twitter, FB, Insta, etc. (for example, the guy that invented the "Like" button at FB) that are all appalled by what social media has turned into and pretty universally agree that they are out of control and bear much of the responsibility for the current polarized political climate.

I accept that social media have had an amplifying effect, but they're not the root cause. Your very good example of the flight to Newsmax and One America (... because FAUX was no longer biased enough ) underscores the extent to which truth and intellectual honesty are no longer fashionable in the US. But other jurisdictions (eg European countries), with the same access to social media, are not as deeply divided as the US, so it's hard to pin it mainly on social media. Also, much of that content is not on what we'd consider mainstream social media; they've found or set-up their own little echo-chambers.

It's interesting that those current and past internet execs have expressed dismay at the not-niceness of the current US polarization, but did they point to their own advertising/content targeting as the main problem? I'm betting they didn't.

[JPK]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I accept that social media have had an amplifying effect, but they're not the root cause. Your very good example of the flight to Newsmax and One America (... because FAUX was no longer biased enough ) underscores the extent to which truth and intellectual honesty are no longer fashionable in the US. But other jurisdictions (eg European countries), with the same access to social media, are not as deeply divided as the US, so it's hard to pin it mainly on social media. Also, much of that content is not on what we'd consider mainstream social media; they've found or set-up their own little echo-chambers.

It's interesting that those current and past internet execs have expressed dismay at the not-niceness of the current US polarization, but did they point to their own advertising/content targeting as the main problem? I'm betting they didn't.

They actually did. All of them.

[mjscottinnc]

Once the courts affirmed that lying is a part of free speech there are no rules, no common morality, no absolutes. If I feel like calling myself a female today, we’ll ok have at it. Now truth is what each of us say it is, no matter if we are a company, a government, someone calling him or herself a scientist. If we don’t like what you are saying, XXXXX you out. You cancelled! That’s the world we have created either actively by our participation and support to the insanity or inactivity by our silence.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

Once the courts affirmed that lying is a part of free speech there are no rules, no common morality, no absolutes. If I feel like calling myself a female today, we’ll ok have at it. Now truth is what each of us say it is, no matter if we are a company, a government, someone calling him or herself a scientist. If we don’t like what you are saying, XXXXX you out. You cancelled! That’s the world we have created either actively by our participation and support to the insanity or inactivity by our silence.

Interesting thoughts MJ. Did the largely right-wing world of "alternative facts" arise from the largely left-wing world of postmodernism-merged-with-identity-politics. Certainly plausible.

Postmodernism directly questions the notion of objective reality. Since everything is subjective, my beliefs are as valid as the next person. So if I say I identify as a 12-year-old girl, that's enough. Just like someone can say an election was stolen, even though no evidence exists.

Social media is like rocket fuel to this kind of world view. People now surround themselves with their own truths. They sit in their echo chambers and only hear affirmations of their chosen reality.

Without a shared reality, how can any society stand?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

Once the courts affirmed that lying is a part of free speech there are no rules, no common morality, no absolutes. If I feel like calling myself a female today, we’ll ok have at it. Now truth is what each of us say it is, no matter if we are a company, a government, someone calling him or herself a scientist. If we don’t like what you are saying, XXXXX you out. You cancelled! That’s the world we have created either actively by our participation and support to the insanity or inactivity by our silence.

But lying is an accepted part of Free Speech.. we lie to our children from their earliest comprehension.. the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Nativity, the Easter Bunny and on it goes.. so a child as they grow come to understand lying is normal.. its predates the Internet and Social Media by centuries so enough already with the 'Shock, Horror'
Little White Lies you say, but lying is lying and misinformation is just that.
You reap what you sow.

[mjscottinnc]

Mike, In my world we all have the inalienable right to have an opinion. I spoke what was on my mind, agree or disagree that’s your choice. I’ve learned the hard way not to engage in conversation here, It’s like watching the pet purines I had as a young boy at feeding time. Cheers

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

Mike, In my world we all have the inalienable right to have an opinion. I spoke what was on my mind, agree or disagree that’s your choice. I’ve learned the hard way not to engage in conversation here, It’s like watching the pet purines I had as a young boy at feeding time. Cheers

Hmmm, I thought I was agreeing with you. But your response suggests otherwise. Confused .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

Once the courts affirmed that lying is a part of free speech there are no rules, no common morality, no absolutes...

Does the U.S. First Amendment protect lying?

Depending upon the context, the answer is either "no," "yes," or "maybe."

It is beyond question that some lies (e.g., perjury, consumer fraud, filing a false police report, forgery) are not protected by the First Amendment.
18 U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crime to "knowingly ... make any materially false, ficticious or fraudulent statement" to a federal agent. This provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Lies to get money (consumer fraud, etc.) are generally punishable. Are lies to get votes substantially less harmful and, therefore, less deserving of punishment?

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ~ Aldous Huxley

BTW: We do have a constitutional law scholar aboard.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Does the U.S. First Amendment protect lying?

Depending upon the context, the answer is either "no," "yes," or "maybe."

It is beyond question that some lies (e.g., perjury, consumer fraud, filing a false police report, forgery) are not protected by the First Amendment.
18 U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crime to "knowingly ... make any materially false, ficticious or fraudulent statement" to a federal agent. This provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Lies to get money (consumer fraud, etc.) are generally punishable. Are lies to get votes substantially less harmful and, therefore, less deserving of punishment?

Another category of unprotected lies have to do with defamation. Speech that slanders (or libels, in print) a person is not protected. This is something a number of individuals and so-called news outlets are finding out with regard to the lies spread around voting machines in the USA.

So, as I said, no society -- not even the USA -- treats freedom of speech as an unlimited or unconstrained right.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

In my world we all have the inalienable right to have an opinion.

Of course. But opinion is not fact. And if an opinion is given, it's every other person's right to discuss that opinion, even to challenge it, especially if it's represented as 'fact'. And challenging is not "cancelling", as some here have sometimes maintained.

I spoke what was on my mind, agree or disagree that’s your choice. I’ve learned the hard way not to engage in conversation here, It’s like watching the pet purines I had as a young boy at feeding time.

You had some pet proteins?

Most forums are set up to facilitate conversation. Just sayin'