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/

[Jose Fly]

People can do what they like with their property,

Sorry to butt in, but no they can't. As an extreme example, my property sits right above a major aquifer that supplies water to a whole lot of people downstream from me (including 2 cities). Is it my "right" to start a nuclear waste repository, tire burning service, and toxic chemical dump on my property?

I tend to think the government would be pretty quick to put a stop to all of that.

[historia]

So, think about this for a minute: If the government forces Elon Musk to host neo-Nazi content on Twitter (because "free speech") and his advertisers don't want their ads running next to that content, then the advertisers will pull out, and Twitter will go out of business. Should the government then force businesses to advertise on Twitter?

It looks like many of these advertisers are already withdrawing due to his free speech stance. But even Neo-Nazis need the advertisers products. There are more than 150 million Neo-Nazis in America and they are now working on a counter boycott of the companies that withdrew from Twitter advertising. Twitter does not need the advertisements from these companies, but these companies do need the the business generated from these Neo-Nazis.

First of all, there are not 150 million Neo-Nazis in America. That is nonsense.

Second, your comment here sidesteps the thrust of my argument. If the government forces social media companies to include content on their websites that then costs them to lose their advertisers, which would put them out of business, should the government then force companies to advertise on those social media platforms?

[oldbadger]

Do you know who the speaker is, and do you know where he is?

Not much beyond the caption that says he is Andrew James Bridgen speaking in Parliament. He is calling for an investigation to discover the reason for so many excess deaths, which at this point is undeniable.

A bit old for Mr Bridgen in that very fuzzy pic, I thought, and the chairs and wall paneling show that he is not standing in the House of Commons, Parliament UK. Apart from that, all good.

[oldbadger]

Nope. I don't think they need help either. Not unless they ask for it. And even then they don't "need" it. They want it. I've known one depressed person who just needed to be accepted for who they were, even if who they were was sad sometimes. When do you need to change? When you want to change. Period.

It looks as if you do not support government aid/assistance for challenged folks. I highlighted the phrase that suggested that to me.

If there was some drug that cures down syndrome and someone who understood what it would do simply didn't want to take it, I'd support their decision.

If there was an operation to reverse conditions like Downs, or other neurological conditions, would you support your government funding that?

[oldbadger]

Sorry to butt in, but no they can't. As an extreme example, my property sits right above a major aquifer that supplies water to a whole lot of people downstream from me (including 2 cities). Is it my "right" to start a nuclear waste repository, tire burning service, and toxic chemical dump on my property?

I tend to think the government would be pretty quick to put a stop to all of that.

Wow,,,, so that is how you were thinking of heating your place, eh?

You took that phrase of mine out of context, I weas speaking about privately own forums. thus:-

People can do what they like with their property, but if they open it to the public then rules apply here.
Yes.... a shopkeeper can refuse entry to shoppers with dogs, but they cannot refuse entry to medical, care and guide dogs.
We have rules and we have an Equality Act 10' that applies to Great Britain (I'm not sure about Northern Ireland)


......we got rules......

[Jose Fly]

Sorry to butt in, but no they can't. As an extreme example, my property sits right above a major aquifer that supplies water to a whole lot of people downstream from me (including 2 cities). Is it my "right" to start a nuclear waste repository, tire burning service, and toxic chemical dump on my property?

I tend to think the government would be pretty quick to put a stop to all of that.

Wow,,,, so that is how you were thinking of heating your place, eh?

You took that phrase of mine out of context, I weas speaking about privately own forums. thus:-

People can do what they like with their property, but if they open it to the public then rules apply here.
Yes.... a shopkeeper can refuse entry to shoppers with dogs, but they cannot refuse entry to medical, care and guide dogs.
We have rules and we have an Equality Act 10' that applies to Great Britain (I'm not sure about Northern Ireland)


......we got rules......

Ah, I see....mea culpa.

[Purple Knight]

Nope. I don't think they need help either. Not unless they ask for it. And even then they don't "need" it. They want it. I've known one depressed person who just needed to be accepted for who they were, even if who they were was sad sometimes. When do you need to change? When you want to change. Period.

It looks as if you do not support government aid/assistance for challenged folks. I highlighted the phrase that suggested that to me.

I didn't say I (here as the government, because you're asking me what I would do if I were in charge) wouldn't pay for it. I just said I wouldn't force it on people.

I'm not morally opposed to a welfare system and frankly I don't know the answer to whether or not I'd have a robust one. It would depend on the populace I think, and how likely they were to abuse it. I think in places like Switzerland and the UK a welfare system works better but America is so full of cheaters that if I inherited the latter populace I might abolish welfare.

If I did abolish welfare, I would replace it with something less exploitable, such as providing very very low quality food like ramen noodles (you know, the stuff the working poor eat anyway) to anyone who asks for it. And shelter, though it would be small. A lot of Americans are rightly fed up with giving $1000/month plus to welfare queens with 6 kids to splurge on pomegranate juice and fancy cheese when their taxes pay for it and they're eating ramen, and they want kids but can't afford any. And I can't disrespect them the way the current government does because they have a point.

If there was an operation to reverse conditions like Downs, or other neurological conditions, would you support your government funding that?

Yes, even if it was expensive. That's the kind of luck-of-the-draw thing where I feel comfortable defending the policy of taxing one to benefit another, because it could have just as easily been that the latter was born with Downs, and now, with the operation, the former can support himself. So even if he never makes back what the operation costs, the burden he imposed was one-and-done, rather than an as-long-as-he-lives deal where self-interested libertarians are constantly wishing him dead. Those same self-interested libertarians now see a fellow who they think owes them, but that means they want him to stay alive, not die. The only reason a government would fail to provide such an operation is because of those libertarians, so I would select the choice that changes the dynamic between them and the people they see as parasites, to a more positive one. I'm certainly not going to let someone die because of how they were born, which they can't control.

This is the kind of thing that has to be watched very closely, however, and if I did have medical welfare, I would specifically have medical welfare doctors who were trained by the government and made a wage from the government, not for-profit greedybuses who tend to see government fitting the bill and start pushing operations people may or may not need because they make a million dollars from each.

[Daedalus X]

First of all, there are not 150 million Neo-Nazis in America. That is nonsense.

It depends on who you ask, many on the left think that if you are anywhere to the right of Joseph Stalin, then you are Neo-Nazi. And that is the world we live in, if someone holds viewpoints that I don't like I will simply label them as Neo-Nazi, Neo-Fascist or Racist and then I can marginalize, discriminate or punch them as much as I wish and people will cheer me for it. The central idea of free speech is that we tolerate the people that we lump into the "basket of deplorables" because no mater how sensible our own ideas are, we may one day find ourselves in somebody's basket. (like our political enemies)

There are many groups out there that wish to steer the public discourse in their own way, and they punish dissenters.

Second, your comment here sidesteps the thrust of my argument. If the government forces social media companies to include content on their websites that then costs them to lose their advertisers, which would put them out of business, should the government then force companies to advertise on those social media platforms?

That is a good point. I find it unacceptable that well funded and powerful corporations should be allowed to propagandize the people. I also find it unacceptable for the government to ride shotgun on these corporations. Yet, the people still need a free speech forum where ideas can be freely discussed.

The solution to this maybe to create a new site, funded by the public, where you will see all the vides from other sites. So, when you click on a video, the data will come to you from the corporate sites (where the video will get a click and the advertiser will get his ad seen) and when you are done with the video you will be returned to the public site.

The public site will be run entirely on open source code. The open code will keep track of which videos you like, based on how long you watched it. (if you click away after 30 seconds you probably did not like the video, but if you watch it to the end then you liked it more)
Then based on your preferences the algorithm can find like minded people, and then recommend new videos based on the videos that those people liked and the user should get videos that are of interest to his preferences.

So if you don't like Neo-Nazi content then the algorithm will quickly learn that about you and not recommend Neo-Nazi videos to you. And if you do like cat videos then it will show you cat videos. No publisher would be excluded for the content of their videos, though some may get investigated for illegal content such as child porn.

There are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but the main idea is that it would be a collaborative system where many people can tailor make the system to satisfy each users own preferences.

[Purple Knight]

The solution to this maybe to create a new site, funded by the public, where you will see all the videos from other sites. So, when you click on a video, the data will come to you from the corporate sites (where the video will get a click and the advertiser will get his ad seen) and when you are done with the video you will be returned to the public site.

The public site will be run entirely on open source code. The open code will keep track of which videos you like, based on how long you watched it. (if you click away after 30 seconds you probably did not like the video, but if you watch it to the end then you liked it more)
Then based on your preferences the algorithm can find like minded people, and then recommend new videos based on the videos that those people liked and the user should get videos that are of interest to his preferences.

So if you don't like Neo-Nazi content then the algorithm will quickly learn that about you and not recommend Neo-Nazi videos to you. And if you do like cat videos then it will show you cat videos. No publisher would be excluded for the content of their videos, though some may get investigated for illegal content such as child porn.

There are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but the main idea is that it would be a collaborative system where many people can tailor make the system to satisfy each users own preferences.

This is an exceptionally great idea, and then you can either only host the objectionable content on the public site directly, or force the corporate sites to do it but keep it blind so advertisers don't have the chance to reactionarily pull their ads.

It's still morally wrong and I understand that, I just prefer to live this way because I don't think there's much point to living if you're told what to say and think, and your only other option is ultimately total exclusion from the marketplace, starvation, and death. If how you get to that status quo is moral, oooookay... I guess. Sounds a lot to me like having a special kind of knife where you can stab someone and if they die it's not technically murder. Still I'm acknowleding freedom is moral, but I still want to live where I can say and think what I like and not die because of it. I don't really give a fig whether that's called freedom or tyranny, nor do I give a fig whether it's moral or not.

I'm going to start using "don't give a fig" now because apparently every fig that ever ripened successfully had wasp maggots in it. And yes fig newtons have real figs in them.

Another thing you could do is have the public site, and have it use a built-in adblocker, but have the adblocker only turn against biased platforms. So if the government determines that YouTube is not an open platform, the public site will allow everyone to watch all of YouTube's videos without seeing a single ad.

[oldbadger]

That is a good point. I find it unacceptable that well funded and powerful corporations should be allowed to propagandize the people. I also find it unacceptable for the government to ride shotgun on these corporations. Yet, the people still need a free speech forum where ideas can be freely discussed.

The solution to this maybe to create a new site, funded by the public, where you will see all the vides from other sites. So, when you click on a video, the data will come to you from the corporate sites (where the video will get a click and the advertiser will get his ad seen) and when you are done with the video you will be returned to the public site.

The public site will be run entirely on open source code. The open code will keep track of which videos you like, based on how long you watched it. (if you click away after 30 seconds you probably did not like the video, but if you watch it to the end then you liked it more)
Then based on your preferences the algorithm can find like minded people, and then recommend new videos based on the videos that those people liked and the user should get videos that are of interest to his preferences.

So if you don't like Neo-Nazi content then the algorithm will quickly learn that about you and not recommend Neo-Nazi videos to you. And if you do like cat videos then it will show you cat videos. No publisher would be excluded for the content of their videos, though some may get investigated for illegal content such as child porn.

There are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but the main idea is that it would be a collaborative system where many people can tailor make the system to satisfy each users own preferences.

That's an awful lot of Controls, Rules and Laws you've thought up, right there.

I can't see much freedom in any of the above ideas. ??