Censorship

JJ Husker said:
I applaud social media sites for attempting to mitigate disinformation and propaganda. I don't view this as censorship. It's their service and everyone is free to choose if they use it or not. They have every right to ban things they don't want on their lawn (as somebody put it).
Click to expand...
Social media has the right to censor their service. No one is disagreeing with that. But it's still censorship, whether they have that right or not.

My issue is that I think it's the wrong decision for them to censor as it's not going to accomplish what they want, and it invites much worse issues like who decides what should and should not be censored.

Disinformation is a huge and growing problem. We've already lost so many to it's consequences. It is getting harder by the day to tell fact from fiction. There is just way too much bullsh#t being spread. I'd say it's one of our biggest challenges. I think it's of more imminent concern than even global warming or environmental issues. If anyone hasn't seen them, there are a couple shows you need to watch. The Social Dilemma on Netflix and Agents of Chaos on HBO. If you can watch those and not think we have a serious problem...IDK.

I think all we can do is be diligent in vetting our sources and not trust anyone or anything implicitly. Unfortunately there are big chunks of many generations who have already lost the battle. I hate to say it but there probably is no getting them back. They need to be written off. We must do better educating future generations and learn how to deal with the whackos.
Click to expand...
I think disinformation is a serious problem, but I think we need better solutions than letting corporations pick and choose what is and is not censored.

Cdog923 said:
And is a right afforded to private companies by the First Amendment. 
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's not the issue being discussed.

 
RedDenver said:
Social media has the right to censor their service. No one is disagreeing with that. But it's still censorship, whether they have that right or not.

My issue is that I think it's the wrong decision for them to censor as it's not going to accomplish what they want, and it invites much worse issues like who decides what should and should not be censored.

I think disinformation is a serious problem, but I think we need better solutions than letting corporations pick and choose what is and is not censored.
Click to expand...


I agree that corporations making these decisions is not ideal. As we've seen they aren't perfect or blameless. Don't forget, it has been their services responsible for the dissemination of the majority of the disinformation we are concerned about.

I'm curious, what other solutions do you suggest that would not involve social media being proactive in preventing people from spreading lies, falsehoods and disinformation through their services?

And I'm sorry but I disagree about calling this censorship, at least the type that carries a negative connotation. IMO this is not in the same realm as book burning. If they don't stop it or prevent it, who can or will? I don't think allowing it to flourish and continue is a viable option.

George Orwell warned us about this. We're already seeing the Trump administration's version of the  Ministry of Truth. If there is anyone I trust less than corporations, it would be our government. So how do we fix it?

 
In my mind this whole social media censorship thing is akin to yellow journalism. These companies control the medium, but the journalism is now produced by the people; with the companies picking and choosing what we see through algorithms and censorship designed to stir emotion as much as possible. It's the same as it's always been, just in a brand new AI suite.

I don't know what the alternative is to fight disinformation other than my favorite line of an educated population.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod said:
In my mind this whole social media censorship thing is akin to yellow journalism. These companies control the medium, but the journalism is now produced by the people; with the companies picking and choosing what we see through algorithms and censorship designed to stir emotion as much as possible. It's the same as it's always been, just in a brand new AI suite.

I don't know what the alternative is to fight disinformation other than my favorite line of an educated population.
Click to expand...


I agree but that opens up a whole new can of worms. Obviously our education system has failed in this regard. So who is pristine enough to determine how to teach people what they should and shouldn't believe. Everyone has an agenda. Personally I just think we're f#&%ed on this issue. It is just going to be more of the same. This group calling the other group stupid, uninformed, destructive.....until we reach the breaking point, which feels very near.

 
JJ Husker said:
I agree but that opens up a whole new can of worms. Obviously our education system has failed in this regard. So who is pristine enough to determine how to teach people what they should and shouldn't believe. Everyone has an agenda. Personally I just think we're f#&%ed on this issue. It is just going to be more of the same. This group calling the other group stupid, uninformed, destructive.....until we reach the breaking point, which feels very near.
Click to expand...
Honestly, the federal government should dictate what is taught. We've seen what states choosing gets us. Basically whatever Texas does, and don't talk about anything but Anglo history but only the good parts.

I feel fortunate to have had teachers who recognized that important aspects of history were missing and created a curriculum to cover African and Native American histories in 6th grade. Plus a World History teacher in highschool who made sure we knew the distinction between Suni and Shia. Then again that's all the opposite of what I proposed above.

So I guess I'm saying  :dunno

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
My issue is that I think it's the wrong decision for them to censor as it's not going to accomplish what they want, and it invites much worse issues like who decides what should and should not be censored.
Click to expand...


This isn't supported by anything other than your opinion.

Pruning trees of dead branches causes new branches to grow. This is the way of the world, and has been since neanderthals crawled out of the primordial soup to create calzones.

What you're questioning is who chooses what to prune. That pruning is considered benevolent guidance or outrageous overstep depending on who's doing the pruning and what's being pruned.

The question you're asking is as important as the pruning. And while I think pruning is at times a necessary step, I think ***at all times*** your question is not just necessary, but vital.

 
ZRod said:
Honestly, the federal government should dictate what is taught. We've seen what states choosing gets us. Basically whatever Texas does, and don't talk about anything but Anglo history but only the good parts.

I feel fortunate to have had teachers who recognized that important aspects of history were missing and created a curriculum to cover African and Native American histories in 6th grade. Plus a World History teacher in highschool who made sure we knew the distinction between Suni and Shia. Then again that's all the opposite of what I proposed above.

Who I guess I'm saying  :dunno
Click to expand...
I think education plays an important role in all of this but it also cannot be expected to solve our dilemma. I too feel I had pretty good teachers and curriculum but I know many many people who I went to school with and who obviously were exposed to the same basic education. These folks today range from the ultra scary far right to batsh#t ridiculous liberal left. Based on things they say and post on social media, many have no clue the difference between truth or whacky conspiracy theory. So there is definitely more at play in our society than just education.

I have another theory of what is contributing, our political system and the relatively recent failures of two sides to negotiate and find common ground. If we could find our way back to this ability and return our government to a functioning entity, then we might stand a chance of addressing misinformation. But that may just be another unsolvable problem. Not sure if it’s the chicken or the egg.

I used to think this was all salvageable up to a threshold of 50% of the population. But I now think the point of no return was passed some time ago. Maybe the magic number was more like 35%-40%. I mean if we’re dealing with the percentage of people who have the ability to do the right things and to recognize truth from falsehood, 50% is just an easy random amount that only appears mathematically important but can easily be dwarfed by a 40% that are stupid and destructive. This is all my incoherent rambling way of saying I think we’re already effed.

 
Scientific American says as little as 25% of the population is needed to foment revolution.  Far lower than what we intuitively feel at 50%.

 
JJ Husker said:
I think education plays an important role in all of this but it also cannot be expected to solve our dilemma. I too feel I had pretty good teachers and curriculum but I know many many people who I went to school with and who obviously were exposed to the same basic education. These folks today range from the ultra scary far right to batsh#t ridiculous liberal left. Based on things they say and post on social media, many have no clue the difference between truth or whacky conspiracy theory. So there is definitely more at play in our society than just education.

I have another theory of what is contributing, our political system and the relatively recent failures of two sides to negotiate and find common ground. If we could find our way back to this ability and return our government to a functioning entity, then we might stand a chance of addressing misinformation. But that may just be another unsolvable problem. Not sure if it’s the chicken or the egg.

I used to think this was all salvageable up to a threshold of 50% of the population. But I now think the point of no return was passed some time ago. Maybe the magic number was more like 35%-40%. I mean if we’re dealing with the percentage of people who have the ability to do the right things and to recognize truth from falsehood, 50% is just an easy random amount that only appears mathematically important but can easily be dwarfed by a 40% that are stupid and destructive. This is all my incoherent rambling way of saying I think we’re already effed.
Click to expand...
You make a compelling argument against education being the silver bullet. Which means it's not the root cause either. So what is the red X that gets us to have two different outcomes from people who are exposed to similar backgrounds? Parenting, media and entertainment, social groups, brain chemistry, bad acid???

 
Back
Top