I understand why it's harmful to spread anti-vax memes, but 99% of "misinformation" is harmless. It's often difficult to separate theory and conspiracy from harmful information, a dubious concept.
Misinformation and the hole that leads into it are not harmless, and lead to mental degradation and emotional trauma.
Some of them have been burning down 5G towers here in the UK.
That's a part of it!
I mean, that's part of the problem with all the scaremongering pseudoscience bullshit out there - people act on it.
And that’s TOTALLY FINE. But the issue surrounding the whole “should these monopolies be the free speech overlords?” Is that if they say this guy can’t be allowed speech, they should have to take responsibility for the speech they do allow. Publisher vs Platform.
“Hate speech” is a very loose term. Do you mean actual calls to incite violence? Which are illegal and no one has any problem with their removal? Or do you mean “things I just don’t like”? Because HN already has a strong bubble mechanic to remove wrong-think (in practice right now!)
“I disagree with you” or “I’m wildly wrong” isn’t typically against a website’s terms of service. Is this looney guy being wrong about 5G calling for violence? Is his opinion illegal in anyway? Can you see no scenario (past your own nose) that your opinion ever winds up on the “wrong side” of corporate judgment?
Furthermore, if you’re just going to kick people off your platform because they’re wrong, you had better not selectively enforce that. Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be. Except they do it while enjoying PUBLISHER convenience of removing things they just don’t like but are otherwise within the rules and terms.
No. It really isn't. Normal people know it when they see it, and the people who claim not to know it are usually the ones using it, along with the bad faith contrarians.
> Seems like it’s best to just be a PLATFORM. Which is exactly what they all claim to be.
Most sites refer to themselves as communities, and I have no problem with a community kicking bad actors (which they're free to define on their own terms) out while not being held legally responsible if they fail to do that perfectly.
Wow. That’s an argument I didn’t expect to see. Do you know we’ve already been over this for pornography? It’s a pretty famous argument that didn’t go the way you might want if you’re using it too.
If you can’t tell me what hate speech is, but prove my point saying “people know what it is”... that’s exactly the definition of “loosely defined”. I’m not even saying it shouldn’t be loosely defined, there is nuance per context.
>Communities
Would you please be so kind as to tell me where that definition is in Section 230?
You can refer to yourself however you like. In this context the LEGAL terms are platform and publisher.
Well, Sounds like a good plan you have there. That it’s entirely ethical to hide wrong-think. Yes, I hope you never think the wrong things! Surely that could never happen right? Do you think it is coincidence that your opinion largely agrees with Silicon Valley’s “taste makers”?
I know exactly the context I'm lifting that line from (fun fact: Hacker News is not The Government). The great thing about Section 230 is that what is 'offensive' is up to the interactive service provider to judge. We're free to host our own web sites, let others publish to them, and we're free to tell them to get lost if they post repugnant things we don't like. It's perfectly in the spirit of the 1st Amendment.
You're free to start your own web site and allow hate speech to be posted there. Many have tried. This site doesn't do that, and you're still spending time here and not on the hate speech-friendly sites. Why is that?
And we’re done.
That’s two strawmen in two posts.
To your other point, they are responsible for content on their platform in many cases (violent threats, illegal adult content, allowing access to adult content to minors, copyright violations, dissemination of classified information, and so on) so I don't see a problem.
edit: please don't downvote the parent poster? This is a perfectly fine response and good faith dialogue. We don't downvote something because we disagree with it.
Should thinking there is correlation between 5G and viral sensitivity be illegal? Of course not.
The examples you listed are illegal and no one has any issue with those being removed.
Public forum or not, these companies should not ethically be engaging in the policing of things they consider “wrong think”. It does nothing but distort reality for both sides. Look at HN, this is an extremely strong bubble mechanic here. I’ve lost 50-some “points” on this site in the last two days and prevented from replying for saying true, first hand, or on-topic things people don’t want to see, certainly nothing that breaks rules or should be hidden because one disagrees... but that’s what it is - people trying to hide the thing that makes them upset. Same issue in micro scale.
No one should celebrate this mechanism. You should defend lizard man’s wrong think as “allowed speech” - because at some point no matter how smart or “Correct” you think you are, you will eventually find yourself on the “wrong side” of a corporate opinion, and when that happens, you will want to have supported protections for everyone the whole time.
No one ever thinks the pendulum will swing. What child-like naively would be needed so just always assume the monopolies will “just happen” to agree with one’s sensibilities on who should get a voice or not?
Wow.
Is this a "misinformation control" issue or is it more a "monitor mental health of employees in high trust positions" issue?