Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[Daedalus X]

So media owners are responsible for moderating the content of publications on their websites...... is this true? So any content which encourages, provokes or incite people to break laws should be stopped, really?

Don't forget....you didn't mind a publication advising people to disregard seatbelt laws.

If a website has a specific purpose, then the owner of the web site can set up a team to moderate content. For example, if the website is about fashion design and someone posts a bit about how to better teach algebra to 7th graders, then the moderating team can take it down because the site is not for that content. But, if a site allows political opinion, then they should not take a post down because it makes a good argument for ideas that the owner does not agree with.

As for content that encourages law breaking, the web master can simply put a button on the page that says "report this post" and when the user clicks on it, the user will be asked "if you feel this post is illegal click here" and it will take the user to a page that finds the contact information for law enforcement in her area. If the user doesn't think that law enforcement needs to be involved they can click the "filter out reported content" by percentage of reported posts. Where level 1 will filter out only the people with the highest percentage of reports and 100 will filter out everyone who has ever been reported. Naturally different websites can use AI technology to tailor make the censorship as to the users preference. Example, remove profanity, hate speech, argonaut speech, sexual speech, trolling and memes galore and so on. So if any of these things annoys or triggers a person then they can make the internet experience better for themselves by removing the offensive content, so that big brother will not need to decide for us, as to what we are mature enough to see.

[oldbadger]

If a website has a specific purpose, then the owner of the web site can set up a team to moderate content. For example, if the website is about fashion design and someone posts a bit about how to better teach algebra to 7th graders, then the moderating team can take it down because the site is not for that content. But, if a site allows political opinion, then they should not take a post down because it makes a good argument for ideas that the owner does not agree with.

Easier than that, a fashion website will require email address and ID to enroll and make posts and of somebody wanted to post adverts or innappropriate stuff they would be closed down by moderation on minutes. What's wrong with that?

But imagine somebody claiming that an election was faked and proposes that the council or state centre involved should be occupied by banner holding demonstrators ... what to do about that?

As for content that encourages law breaking, the web master can simply put a button on the page that says "report this post" and when the user clicks on it, the user will be asked "if you feel this post is illegal click here" and it will take the user to a page that finds the contact information for law enforcement in her area. If the user doesn't think that law enforcement needs to be involved they can click the "filter out reported content" by percentage of reported posts. Where level 1 will filter out only the people with the highest percentage of reports and 100 will filter out everyone who has ever been reported. Naturally different websites can use AI technology to tailor make the censorship as to the users preference. Example, remove profanity, hate speech, argonaut speech, sexual speech, trolling and memes galore and so on. So if any of these things annoys or triggers a person then they can make the internet experience better for themselves by removing the offensive content, so that big brother will not need to decide for us, as to what we are mature enough to see.

But that would include a poor person going hungry who is angry, inciting poor folks to raid rich houses for food and money....such a document might stay up for a long time with sad consequences. Why couldn't a site owner remove such content and ban the poster?

[historia]

No, private companies always had the right to restrict speech. We didn't "give" that to Social Media companies in exchange for anything.

You are right, it was not "we", it was the Supreme Court in Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC.

No, private companies have always had the right to restrict speech, the Court has just affirmed that in various rulings over the years.

You keep trying to locate the problem elsewhere, but it is the First Amendment itself that is the obstacle to your suggestion.

That is not true, private companies do not have a right to suppress someone yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the point I'm making.

You acknowledged above that social media companies can legally restrict speech. But claimed it was the Supreme Court ruling in Denver v. FCC that gave them that right.

What I'm pointing out here is that this is simply historically inaccurate.

If you read the Denver ruling -- even just the part I quoted above in post #15 -- you'll see that the Court acknowledged then that private entities had long held the right to restrict speech, and cites numerous earlier cases to that effect.

And this clearly goes all the way back to the founding of the country. When has the government forced publishers, printers, bookstores, or broadcasters (i.e., the pre-Internet analogs to social media companies) to carry content they didn't want to distribute?

My position is that we need to expand our first amendment rights to include big monopolies like social media

"Social media" includes a number of competing companies, so cannot be called a monopoly.

The people need to know that big business is in charge of the country (world as well) and government is no longer going to protect our civil rights because the government has been captured and now takes their marching orders from these large companies.

Again, these kind of sweeping assertions make your argument look weak. This sounds more like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion than a serious analysis of the relationship between large corporations and governments.

[Daedalus X]

Easier than that, a fashion website will require email address and ID to enroll and make posts and of somebody wanted to post adverts or innappropriate stuff they would be closed down by moderation on minutes. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. That is why I said " if the website is about fashion design and someone posts a bit about how to better teach algebra to 7th graders, then the moderating team can take it down because the site is not for that content."

But imagine somebody claiming that an election was faked and proposes that the council or state centre involved should be occupied by banner holding demonstrators ... what to do about that?

Nothing needs to be done as long as no laws are violated. If laws are violated, then call the police, they have authority to arrest any alleged lawbreakers.

But that would include a poor person going hungry who is angry, inciting poor folks to raid rich houses for food and money....such a document might stay up for a long time with sad consequences. Why couldn't a site owner remove such content and ban the poster?

I am not concerned with poor, hungry, angry people trying to mind control the population, if someone is inspired to some bad action because of the poor person then they are still responsible for their own actions, as I said before, we do not live in a nanny state, we are responsible for our own actions. But, the CIA, I am worried about them. They have spent decades perfecting mind control methods and I have no idea how good they are at it. I think that Sirhan Sirhan was their handiwork, as well as many other lone gunmen.

[Daedalus X]

You keep trying to locate the problem elsewhere, but it is the First Amendment itself that is the obstacle to your suggestion.

I think that you are right, the First Amendment itself contains a problem that the founding fathers did not anticipate. It never occurred to them that bad actors would be able to control the free press and social media. So today these bad actors can subvert the nation and run a bloodless coup, where the people will willingly vote in the tyranny that they will never be able to vote out.

My position is that we need to expand our first amendment rights to include big monopolies like social media

"Social media" includes a number of competing companies, so cannot be called a monopoly.

Technically they can be called an oligopoly, since they do not compete.

Again, these kind of sweeping assertions make your argument look weak. This sounds more like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion than a serious analysis of the relationship between large corporations and governments.

I am not trying for debater of the year, so I don't worry about my arguments looking weak, as truth is my only goal.

I am also careful about "Those of Whom We Do Not Speak."

[Purple Knight]

It happens to be what I want too.

Let me just quote the treasonous words from the J4 insurrection, and let me speak treason as well, "we need another insurrection".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Well, you and I need it. But we're in an extreme minority because we desire tyranny. We do not want bullies to bully, even if they're in the right, even if they're only using their own things in the exact manner to which their natural rights entitle them to use those things. You think big pharma shouldn't be allowed to simply zip their lips about certain facts? You want them forced to give you anything, including information? It might mean fewer people die but that's not liberty. That is a violation of rights. It is the same if I take all your stuff, sell it, and feed the hungry. Fewer people will die but I have violated your rights. (And I'm not even as moral as the communists who want lives saved. As for me, screw the lives, I want ideas protected. On every level it's disgusting, but I admit what I am.)

And that is not what the United States stands for, no part of it, no how, no way. The United States stands for liberty, and rights, even if the result of those things sucks. The people at the bottom suffering worse than tyranny is not the same as tyranny and it's not morally wrong, as tyranny is morally wrong. I happen to be for something that's morally abhorrent, and I happen to be against rights.

I hold the positions I hold because I think a world where you lose your job because of what you believe, where you must hold certain views to participate in the marketplace of ideas, SUCKS OUT LOUD. I'm an intellectual who desires open debate and I'm selfish. I want a world that makes me personally happy, and the world of liberty and rights and morality is not that world. I don't think I'm alone but I know I'm in an extreme minority.

I also recognise that liberty, especially coupled with capitalism, will mean that eventually, even if there is no malice involved (which there almost certainly is, but, argument for another day...) the less dominant ideas will settle into a position of being less profitable, resulting in those who own the public square removing them. That's saying nothing of offensive ideas, which will cause actual losses to anyone hosting them.

Think of it in terms of this forum. Should Osteng have to allow racists to overrun it? Should there be no rules, no one banned for any reason? This forum is nice because of private control of private property, and it's an example that works well. Most times, in terms of the kind of freedom of speech that allows open debate to flourish... I have to admit... it does not work well. This forum does work well is entirely because it happens to be run by someone who happens to like open debate. If the country were run this way I'd be happier than a gorged pig in mud. But that's just us. And the country shouldn't be run that way.

And people will eventually come for this forum, because someone will say something offensive in a way that does not break this forum's rules. Someone will want to argue the pro side of racism, for example, saying, perhaps racism is not wrong, here is my evidence. And Osteng will want to protect it, and then the people who actually own this bandwidth will take it away from him. My heart goes out to people who want to let people explore all ideas. My heart is breaking. But the Age of Reason is over, because it is fundamentally incompatible with freedom, and the bottom dollar.

[oldbadger]

I am not concerned with poor, hungry, angry people trying to mind control the population, if someone is inspired to some bad action because of the poor person then they are still responsible for their own actions, as I said before, we do not live in a nanny state, we are responsible for our own actions.

You are saddened that media companies could stop two doctors speaking out against either covid vax or covid restrictions, but you don't want to speak out for the poor and hungry? That doesn't seem to make sense.

But, the CIA, I am worried about them. They have spent decades perfecting mind control methods and I have no idea how good they are at it. I think that Sirhan Sirhan was their handiwork, as well as many other lone gunmen.

I don't think that you would be very happy where I live, Daedalus. I live on the edge of a small seaside town in the UK, and if I would travel from one side of town to the other I would have been recorded on tv data in almost every street on that journey. On the perimeters of my journey I would be recorded passing countless domestic driveways. Every buss and train carriage is covered by tv, and I would guess that every tenth vehicle is recording tv scenes as well. Further to that our newspapers are very closely regulated by the information commissioner's office although most follow a strict protocol in any case.

During Covid our hopitals and nursing homes eventually got locked to all but essential visitors and any media communications suggesting to folks that they should ignore such measures would not have survived for very long. Even our shops insisted on face masks as a condition of entry, although I did see some folks without, they mostly seemed to have trouble in breathing but my wife thought that such ill people should not have been venturing out at all. My wife and I had our (fourth) Covid vax boosters only last weekend, and everybody still wore masks in to that medical centre.

We live in totally different worlds, it seems.

[Daedalus X]

But that would include a poor person going hungry who is angry, inciting poor folks to raid rich houses for food and money....

I am not concerned with poor, hungry, angry people trying to mind control the population

You are saddened that media companies could stop two doctors speaking out against either covid vax or covid restrictions, but you don't want to speak out for the poor and hungry? That doesn't seem to make sense.

That is what is known as a non sequitur in the biz.

I don't think that you would be very happy where I live, Daedalus. I live on the edge of a small seaside town in the UK, and if I would travel from one side of town to the other I would have been recorded on tv data in almost every street on that journey. On the perimeters of my journey I would be recorded passing countless domestic driveways. Every buss and train carriage is covered by tv, and I would guess that every tenth vehicle is recording tv scenes as well. Further to that our newspapers are very closely regulated by the information commissioner's office although most follow a strict protocol in any case.

During Covid our hopitals and nursing homes eventually got locked to all but essential visitors and any media communications suggesting to folks that they should ignore such measures would not have survived for very long. Even our shops insisted on face masks as a condition of entry, although I did see some folks without, they mostly seemed to have trouble in breathing but my wife thought that such ill people should not have been venturing out at all. My wife and I had our (fourth) Covid vax boosters only last weekend, and everybody still wore masks in to that medical centre.

We live in totally different worlds, it seems.

It sounds like George Orwell had your town in mind when he wrote 1984. I don't ask what do we do if our government becomes a tyranny, I ask what do we do when our government becomes a tyranny. Here we have the 1st and 2nd amendments.

We also have a 4th amendment that says the government is not allowed to spy on us. Behind all those cameras and computers there could be an AI logging everything we do. After 911 our government passed the "temporary" Patriot Act, which gave the government special power to surveil the population to find terrorists. They said to us "if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about". The surveillance is still going on, now they are looking for patriots that are a threat to their corrupt governance, and them being able to read all our electronic communications makes it very difficult for us to organize an insurrection in the event that our government becomes a tyranny and needs to be overthrown. It would be very easy for the government to pick off all the leaders and do what King George III would have done with them. So, we are in the same situation that you are in. And we may have already gone past the point of no return.

[oldbadger]

It sounds like George Orwell had your town in mind when he wrote 1984. I don't ask what do we do if our government becomes a tyranny, I ask what do we do when our government becomes a tyranny. Here we have the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Here were have our constitution which seems to work well. Our first minister cannot become Prime Minister unless invited to do so by our Monarch, and can be required to resign and hold elections if unfit for office.

We also have a 4th amendment that says the government is not allowed to spy on us. Behind all those cameras and computers there could be an AI logging everything we do. After 911 our government passed the "temporary" Patriot Act, which gave the government special power to surveil the population to find terrorists. They said to us "if you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about". The surveillance is still going on, now they are looking for patriots that are a threat to their corrupt governance, and them being able to read all our electronic communications makes it very difficult for us to organize an insurrection in the event that our government becomes a tyranny and needs to be overthrown. It would be very easy for the government to pick off all the leaders and do what King George III would have done with them. So, we are in the same situation that you are in. And we may have already gone past the point of no return.

I don't think you will ever get what you want, Daedalus. The internet will be even more controlled than ever, soon.
Before the Jan 6th invasion of your government building a woman was campaigning for attendance at that event on a forum about theology, ranting about dishonest elections and showing the buses that would transport folks to that event and getting really excited about it all. A real wind up.

And she was left free to do that. That kind of free speech will come to an end, I'm guessing. It certainly has where I live (UK).

[Daedalus X]

Here were have our constitution which seems to work well. Our first minister cannot become Prime Minister unless invited to do so by our Monarch, and can be required to resign and hold elections if unfit for office.

Your King is the last resort to your freedom, but what if your King becomes the tyranny or the tyranny is able to overcome the power of the King, then what is left for you?

The patriots (traitors from your POV) envisioned this possibility in the government that they established, by including the 2nd amendment.

They wrote in the Federalist paper # 46 about the purpose of the militia, that was not under the control of the government, being easily able to counter the government troops, but this is now illegal and will invite persecution from the government and being called an illegal insurrection.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

The internet will be even more controlled than ever, soon.
Before the Jan 6th invasion of your government building a woman was campaigning for attendance at that event on a forum about theology, ranting about dishonest elections and showing the buses that would transport folks to that event and getting really excited about it all. A real wind up.

And she was left free to do that. That kind of free speech will come to an end, I'm guessing. It certainly has where I live (UK).

If patriots, like you alluded to, can no longer speak freely in the pubic square then they will be forced into the insurrection that our founding fathers envisioned in writing the 2nd amendment. That is why the 1st amendment is so important.

The people of any nation are free, if and only if the ultimate veto power resides in the people and not some King or Parliament. The peoples of all free nations need to organize, so that they will be able to resist the tyranny when it becomes necessary, nobody is going to do that for them.