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/

[AgnosticBoy]

Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

Private companies can ban whatever they want.

Personally, I believe misinformation should be banned. Misinformation is false information and we shouldn't have people being led in any way based on false information. The only time I see a problem with "misinformation" is when it comes to judging something to be misinformation. Sometimes, that is politically motivated, and as such, and it's really just a way for the platform to censor information. Information should only be called misinformation when the information is disproven. It should not be called misinformation just for lacking evidence, or just because ONE political side is pushing it, or just because ONE political side wants it banned.

[Daedalus X]

Private companies can ban whatever they want.

Would you be okay with Facebook using AI to rate their users by how effective they are at proselytizing people to the conservative side, and then they begin a campaign to deplatform these people? Sure, these people can go to smaller platforms and their converts will follow and they can live in their own echo chamber, but they will not be able to infect the majority of Facebook users with their conservative virus.

Personally, I believe misinformation should be banned. Misinformation is false information and we shouldn't have people being led in any way based on false information. The only time I see a problem with "misinformation" is when it comes to judging something to be misinformation. Sometimes, that is politically motivated, and as such, and it's really just a way for the platform to censor information. Information should only be called misinformation when the information is disproven. It should not be called misinformation just for lacking evidence, or just because ONE political side is pushing it, or just because ONE political side wants it banned.

This is kind of the way it used to be. Deuteronomy 16-21. Just eliminate what we don't like.

Older Americans were indoctrinated to believe in constitutional rights. In America we will let a criminal go free even if we are 100% certain that he is guilty, if the police violated the law to prove his guilty. This is the sacred, secret sauce of our way of life.



For the same reason, we can't ban misinformation, because that would violate the principles of our way of life.

As an example of misinformation take the "fine people" hoax. Most democrats believe Trump said there were fine Nazis and white supremicists. And Biden launched his campaign for presidency because of it. But it is clearly misinformation, yet most Democrats still believe it to this day. Should we remove it from the internet or deplatform the speaker? No, we should just let the true truthsekers see the true information. Should google be allowed to show the links to the misinformation and bury the links to the truth many pages down in a search?

Here is what Biden said. Notice how the music validates the words. Also notice that the announcement was not made live in front of an audience, but rather it was a slick well rehearsed and edited Madison ave campaign. I just wonder how many times they had to do the speech before they got it right?



Here is what Trump actually said. A true Democrat will only hear one thing "President Donald Trump On Charlottesville: You Had Very Fine People, On Both Sides".



So, can we just assume that people are mature enough to see both sides and make up their own minds, be they right or wrong?

[Daedalus X]

There is a new move based on the book from ROBERT KENNEDY Jr. This is very important.

Now for ten days you can see the MOTHER OF ALL MISINFORMATION for free! Just click the link. But hurry up, because the censors are trying to shut this down as fast as possible.

I admit that this is propaganda, so don't just believe it. Make sure that you fact check it yourself, because it is not going to fact check itself.

Also make sure that you support robust debate in it. The TRUTH can be discovered much better with debate than censorship and information bans.

Also, share this with family and friends. Don't let the government and big business memory hole this.

[historia]

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

Are you asking whether private companies like Youtube & Twitter should ban information? Or are you asking whether the government should ban misinformation?

Because "public policy" is what the government does, not what private companies do. You seem to asking whether the actions of private companies is good public policy, but that question is incoherent, since those are two separate things.

[Daedalus X]

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

Are you asking whether private companies like Youtube & Twitter should ban information? Or are you asking whether the government should ban misinformation?

Because "public policy" is what the government does, not what private companies do. You seem to asking whether the actions of private companies is good public policy, but that question is incoherent, since those are two separate things.

There was a time when Rockefeller could set any price to his gasoline, a private company could set the price of their own product. But the government decided that this could be unfair to the smaller competitors, so they came up with the Sherman anti trust laws. The government could do this because they had the duty to regulate interstate commerce. In a similar way the government can be said to have a duty to protect freedom of speech, if these large corporations are able to de facto restrict the right to freedom of speech then the government should be able to step in to protect that right.

But the opposite is true, the government has colluded and manipulated these companies to ban ideas and users from their platforms, this is bad on a scale of the USSR and Nazi governments, while China and North Korea are current example.

Now that Elon Musk will be running Twitter, the left is in a bit of a bind. They don't want a conservative who promotes conservative free speech. (Musk is hardly a conservative, except for the fact that left has gone so far left that even Stalin would be considered a moderate) The left wants freedom of speech, but only for the people that put out "right think". Anything that they disagree with is "hate speech" and should be banned.

The effect being that any news organization that speaks negatively on government covid policy or the needle are shadow banned away from where the public can see and evaluate the information for truth or not. While the large news organizations will, without evidence, just parrot the government "safe and effective" mantra.

This is in my opinion, dangerous to our democracy.

[historia]

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #6]

Just so I'm clear on the question under consideration, what you're asking is: Should the government force private companies to store and transmit (at significant expense) text, audio, or video that would otherwise violate those companies' terms of service?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #6]

Just so I'm clear on the question under consideration, what you're asking is: Should the government force private companies to store and transmit (at significant expense) text, audio, or video that would otherwise violate those companies' terms of service?

That seems to be the question, yes. But it would be more accurate, I think, to relate it to anti-discrimination law, which doesn't force private companies to hire any specific person; it just forces them not to discriminate.

Still no. Private companies can do whatever they want. That is the way America has chosen. It does deserve to be tested to the fullest extent. If you chicken out before it becomes a horrible dystopia, just because that's what it looks like might happen, then that wasn't a fair test.

If freedom ends up being worse and more restrictive than any previous tyranny, only difference being that those enslaving us don't have a sash that says, "government" then the ideal that private companies can do whatever they want should be discarded.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea but it's owed a fair shot. Who knows? Maybe people will wise up and actually reject companies with blatant bias. Maybe the free market works. I don't know that unless it gets a fair shot. That means, run it all the way 'til full dystopia and slavery. Don't chicken out when you hit a bump.

Now that Elon Musk will be running Twitter, the left is in a bit of a bind. They don't want a conservative who promotes conservative free speech. (Musk is hardly a conservative, except for the fact that left has gone so far left that even Stalin would be considered a moderate) The left wants freedom of speech, but only for the people that put out "right think". Anything that they disagree with is "hate speech" and should be banned.

The effect being that any news organization that speaks negatively on government covid policy or the needle are shadow banned away from where the public can see and evaluate the information for truth or not. While the large news organizations will, without evidence, just parrot the government "safe and effective" mantra.

This is in my opinion, dangerous to our democracy.

What part about that is dangerous? Seems like democracy working as intended. Conservatives are getting exactly what they deserve. The big bad government is not at fault here, just private companies engaging in private commerce like conservatives think they ought to have absolute total sovereignty to do.

I said in the 90's that free speech was unsustainable. This is when everyone, left and right alike, was into the idea. I was the only dissenter. In fact, I predicted exactly what would happen: That one view would become dominant and without any government action, other views would be crushed like a coyote under a boulder. If this unstable equilibrium where no view has total dominance and you can believe whatever you want while having a job and a life and not being excluded from the marketplace, is desirable, and the way of life people want, then the government must exert positive force to maintain it.

It was largely conservatives saying I was wrong, and I'm so vindicated now that I'm wallowing in it. Conservatives who said, it doesn't matter how big a business is, it doesn't matter if they have more actual power than the government, it doesn't matter if they own the world and all the land and food and can kick someone out of their own house and starve them for saying the wrong thing, it is everyone's absolute right to exercise control over their own property. I didn't predict that it would be conservatives being stomped on, bullied, fired, excluded. But I'm glad it is. This ought to go on until they learn their lesson about unstable equilibrium at very least.

That lesson being, an unstable equilibrium is different than stable equilibrium. Free speech is a marble sitting on top of a hill. Someone will poke it, and it will roll down into a pit where one view is dominant, and there it will sit where things suck for the minority view exactly as much as if the government was censoring you. More, actually, because the government magnanimously limits what it can do to you, where a private company will not.

I don't think conservatives deserve this treatment because no one does. I do think that in order to deserve better, however, they need to understand that they advocated for their own potential mistreatment, just as they advocated for everyone else's potential mistreatment.

I would be a lot happier in a world where all views, even those I disagree with, are protected from mistreatment such as banning, firing, and exclusion from the marketplace. But I'm in the minority.

Should the government force private companies to bake and decorate (at significant expense) cakes and other baked goods that would otherwise violate those companies' terms of service?

No. That would be wrong. I can see that. Forcing people to do things is tantamount to slavery.

But in terms of which world would make me happier, I would move to a "protected ideas" zone if there was such a thing, and accept that sometimes I have to bake a lewd cake that bothers me - if I'm a baker who bakes custom cakes. The tradeoff is that I don't get excluded from the marketplace, fired, or banned because I believe something that bothers somebody. To me that's worth it and if (for example) Delaware became a protected ideas zone, I would move to Delaware. Is it even still wrong if it's voluntary?

[Daedalus X]

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #6]

Just so I'm clear on the question under consideration, what you're asking is: Should the government force private companies to store and transmit (at significant expense) text, audio, or video that would otherwise violate those companies' terms of service?

Should the government force private companies to bake and decorate (at significant expense) cakes and other baked goods that would otherwise violate those companies' terms of service?

Or, should those terms of service be allowed to promote a slow process of national subversion, possibly inspired by a foreign country like China, by way of secret negotiations and bribes?

But, in reality, as far as marginal cost goes, it is far more expensive to host all those darn cat pictures because they do not generate advertising revenue and engagement. While controversial material is much better at generating the engagement that ends up generating ad revenue and the multiplier effect of all that traffic.

[historia]

[Replying to Daedalus X in post #6]

Just so I'm clear on the question under consideration, what you're asking is: Should the government force private companies to store and transmit (at significant expense) text, audio, or video that would otherwise violate those companies' terms of service?

Should the government force private companies to bake and decorate (at significant expense) cakes and other baked goods that would otherwise violate those companies' terms of service?

Again, I'm just trying to clarify the question under consideration. Responding with a different question doesn't clarify things.

Is the question under consideration what I wrote above, or is it something different?