In their terms they already exclude a lot of content. Adding disinformation (I realize that's not an exact term and every story has two sides) isn't a far stretch to their current policies https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use
That said, I don't think it is a good idea. What prompted this change? I would guess PR since that is their business.
Deleted comment
This is true, but it overlooks the fact that it can be used to shut out a lot more than QAnon.
> Which is the responsible thing to do.
That is a matter of opinion, not fact. What QAnon "is", is a matter of opinion, and each individual opinion is based on what the individual knows about QAnon. Based on my experiences, most people's perception of QAnon is derived from reading stories about QAnon in the media, and most every story I've ever read in the media seems far more like propaganda [1] than reporting well researched evidence. This might not be so bad if people realized that this is the case, but from what I read on forums, most people seem to believe that these stories are ~purely factual (I imagine this is what they believe because it seems that way, because each new story is cognitively evaluated within the context of current knowledge, which is of course based on the prior consumption of such stories).
[1] Example: QAnon "is" [X], "QAnoners" "believe(!)" [X, Y, Z, etc], etc. These are estimates, at best, due to the fundamental of the organization/phenomenon (actually, such statements are always estimates, it's just particularly difficult with things like QAnon, conspiracy theorists, supporters of a political party, etc - and also, there is psychological motive (often not even consciously realized) for framing reality in a certain way). What QAnon/QAnoners is/are, precisely/comprehensively, is not known. The human mind often seems to not willingly accept the notion of unknowness, particular on certain classes of topics [2], which makes this sort of propaganda particularly potent.
[2] Replace QAnon in the above with "Jews" or "Black people", and observe whether your mind processes the examples differently. I find thought experiments like this to be quite an effective tool for checking whether one is biased when reading the news - I would think that if politicians and the media really cared about "fake news" as much as they breathlessly proclaim, we would have seen some organized public initiative for actually teaching the critical thinking skills we're constantly told are needed. But what we actually see is the notion of critical thinking being used as a psychological talking point in the overall, unseen meme war. But then, has this not always been more or less the case throughout history?
While true, this technicality can be applied to almost anything. This type of statement tends to shut down discussion instead of encouraging it. We should be striving to come to a consensus on topics and to share perspectives - not to just throw our hands up because we might not have perfect knowledge.
Regarding QAnon, while media stories might be sensationalist, QAnon itself is a disturbing trend. QAnon originated in conspiracy theories (on 4chan) and is still promoting some pretty fringe theories.
In my opinion, the real danger of QAnon is their use of social media to take people further and further into their theories. I was disturbed when the "save the children" campaign was in full force on Facebook/Twitter. I did not need a media story to tell me about QAnon in these moments, I could personally click on stories and follow the rabbit hole back to QAnon. They led to conspiracy theories about politicians trafficking children, the "deep state," etc. These were not hidden - they were only a couple clicks away from the "save the children" posts that were trending. These types of conspiracy theories do not contribute to any sort of rational discourse - they only push people farther into the QAnon group.
I believe Facebook (and Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, etc) has the responsibility to not allow these "rabbit holes" that feed conspiracy theories. Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality.
...
You... do realize TFA is about censorship, that is, a attempt to actively and deliberately shut down discussion, right?
Exactly, and the reason for this is fundamental: reality is largely unknown. Whether we choose to acknowledge that is up to each of us, but it doesn't change the underlying fact.
> We should be striving to come to a consensus on topics
Not me, not if we are lying to ourselves in the process. If something is literally unknown, it should be acknowledged thusly. We're not comfortable relying on pure intuition in science or programming, why do it in the rest of life if it isn't necessary? Shall we think logically and scientifically, as we're told, or shall we not? Pick a side.
> and to share perspectives
Yes, but as it, perspectives are often misperceived (and in turn, mass-broadcast) as facts (distorting the perceptions of reality of unknow numbers of other people). I imagine you can see the harm in the case of conspiracy theories, but can you see the possible harm of it outside of that sphere? Does your thinking methodology change, depending on the scenario? Have you ever spent any serious time thinking about such things?
I suspect people here would prefer that conspiracy theorists tighten up their epistemology levels - but if we refuse to do the same, who are we to be lecturing others?
> not to just throw our hands up because we might not have perfect knowledge.
I've never understood this style of thinking - just because one acknowledges reality as it is, you have to throw up your hands and give up? Why? You can still make decisions, just be honest about the fact that they are based on speculation.
> Regarding QAnon, while media stories might be sensationalist, QAnon itself is a disturbing trend. QAnon originated in conspiracy theories (on 4chan) and is still promoting some pretty fringe theories.
95% agree, except for the origin. There is a plausible theory that QAnon is actually a state sponsored psy op. You have to admit, the QAnon story (and coverage in the media) has been incredibly effective in shaping widespread public opinion on the epistemic validity of not just QAnon, but conspiracy theories in general. The effects of this can be observed right here on HN, a community with far above average critical thinking skills. Surely you realize that propaganda has always existed, right? Is it impossible(!) that this is a new, more sophisticated form of propaganda? (Here is an example of where not lying to ourselves might be a good idea - or at least, trying to.)
> In my opinion, the real danger of QAnon is their use of social media to take people further and further into their theories.
This will eventually materialize into a (currently unknowable) harm of magnitude X.
The QAnon phenomenon is also being used as a justification for censorship, which will eventually materialize into a harm of magnitude Y.
Which is higher, X or Y? Do we know? Do we care? Or, will we instead assert as "fact" that such concerns are "gish-galloping* (ie: choosing to lie to ourselves, and broadcasting those lies into the minds of others)?
> I was disturbed when the "save the children" campaign was in full force on Facebook/Twitter. I did not need a media story to tell me about QAnon in these moments, I could personally click on stories and follow the rabbit hole back to QAnon. They led to conspiracy theories about politicians trafficking children, the "deep state," etc. These were not hidden - they were only a couple clicks away from the "save the children" posts that were trending. These types of conspiracy theories do not contribute to any sort of rational discourse - they only push people farther into the QAnon group.
I'm disturbed by the percentage of the population that is more concerned about conspiracy theories (with no concern for the actual magnitude of harm such theories cause [1]) about children, than they are about the possibility that children are actually being sexually abused.
Do you believe the whole Epstein thing is a nothingburger? Totally made up by QAnon? Do you perceive that your mind contains the sum total knowledge of all that occurs on planet Earth with respect to the abuse of children? Of course, it seems that way, but if you stop and think, are you able to realize that you are only aware of the subset of knowledge that you have consumed? Maybe you can when thinking directly and abstractly about the notion...but what about when you don't stop and think, and are just going about your day....are you consciously aware at all times that you only have access to a small portion of reality, or do you actually accept as fact that it seems like you have access to the entirety of reality? Have you ever considered in depth the potential consequences of this phenomenon, and how it can be (and historically has been) exploited?
> I believe Facebook (and Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, etc) has the responsibility to not allow these "rabbit holes" that feed conspiracy theories. Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality.
You're not wrong, but don't forget that you are guessing at what the right thing to so is, and that the X vs Y comparison above is very much in play - Mother Nature does not require our agreement when setting the state of reality.
[1] ...in cases where the accusation has had a conspiracy theory label attached to it.
EDIT: I reckon I've hit my comment cap for the day so may not be able to respond to criticism in a timely manner, but I enthusiastically encourage any you may have. These are complicated topics, and I certainly don't have all the answers.
I stated that we should come to a consensus on topics - not rely on intuition. Science is a great example of a field that relies on critical thinking and debunking theories, but also in our ability to build consensus about how the world works. Disagreeing with the consensus should be encouraged, but it needs to be done with the facts (experimental results) - not just stating that something is unknown (a statement that can be applied to 99.9% of science if taken at face value).
> Yes, but as it, perspectives are often misperceived as facts
Agreed.
> You can still make decisions, just be honest about the fact that they are based on speculation
In complicated topics, this should be a given. But agreed in general.
> There is a plausible theory that QAnon is actually a state sponsored psy op
I have heard that, but my point was that QAnon is not a "typical" political group. Regardless of its founders (foreign actors, bored kids, whatever), there should be a heavy dose of skepticism when looking at their theories, especially when many of their theories have been debunked but are continued to be peddled.
> The QAnon phenomenon is also being used as a justification for censorship
It is, and that is a bad thing. Unfortunately, we need to do something to correct the amplification problem of social media. Now we can disagree on the extent of the role that private companies should play in this policing, but it should be illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theory - even virtually.
> I'm disturbed by the percentage of the population that is more concerned about conspiracy theories ... about children, than they are about the possibility that children are actually being sexually abused
The beauty of "save the children" is that it is impossible to call it out as coordinated propaganda without being accused of not caring about children. Of course I care about children. But I am also concerned that the upswell of social media was not natural.
> don't forget that you are guessing at what the right thing to so is
I am, but we as a society have always faced these dilemmas. Before social media, there were libel and slander laws that discouraged outright lies. With social media, however, there is almost nothing to gain from going after someone who posts slander. There is a fundamental problem when any random person can write whatever they dream of as fact and then amplify it to millions of people through social media.
I don't have all the right answers. But I think we need to agree that something should be done to prevent this amplification of propaganda. And then let's figure out how to fix it together.
> These are complicated topics, and I certainly don't have all the answers.
Same. This site is one of the only places where these topics can still be discussed without devolving into flame wars. So thank you for that.
You did indeed, and I responded:
>> We should be striving to come to a consensus on topics
> Not me, not if we are lying to ourselves in the process. If something is literally unknown, it should be acknowledged thusly. We're not comfortable relying on pure intuition in science or programming, why do it in the rest of life if it isn't necessary? Shall we think logically and scientifically, as we're told, or shall we not? Pick a side.
> Disagreeing with the consensus should be encouraged, but it needs to be done with the facts (experimental results) - not just stating that something is unknown (a statement that can be applied to 99.9% of science if taken at face value).
Oh? Things that have had(!) a "conspiracy theory" label attached (by the media, the experts, etc) are regularly asserted to be False, here and elsewhere, with absolutely no requirement for facts or evidence. But asserting that something is unknown, which is the actual state of affairs, needs to be done with facts (which are not known, hence the epistemic status of unknown)?
> I have heard that, but my point was that QAnon is not a "typical" political group. Regardless of its founders (foreign actors, bored kids, whatever), there should be a heavy dose of skepticism when looking at their theories, especially when many of their theories have been debunked but are continued to be peddled.
I agree 100% with skepticism - but that's not my complaint. My complaint is that skepticism towards those who say (without evidence) that it "is X", or "its followers believe Y" seems to be ~not allowed, that they are accepted enthusiastically as False, just because they have had a label attached. This seems not too unlike how members of ethnic minority classes were described in the media in the not too distant past, also without appropriate accompanying evidence.
> It is, and that is a bad thing. Unfortunately, we need to do something to correct the amplification problem of social media. Now we can disagree on the extent of the role that private companies should play in this policing, but it should be illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theory - even virtually.
Agreed. But what do you think about two adjacent ideas:
1. Does it seem optimal that journalists seem to have an odd lack of interest in certain stories?
2. If "fake news" is really such a massive societal risk, does it seem at all odd that there is no initiative whatsoever to investigate some of the more pervasive stories and prove(!) then False, once and for all? Or, that there is no bi-partisan effort (or even discussion of such a thing in the mainstream) to develop a plan for teaching critical thinking and epistemology skills to the public? If this problem is genuinely so dangerous, why do we do nothing about it other than censorship (which can be used for both good and evil, which is not true of the other approaches)?
> The beauty of "save the children" is that it is impossible to call it out as coordinated propaganda without being accused of not caring about children. Of course I care about children. But I am also concerned that the upswell of social media was not natural.
The degree to which the public truly cares about children compared to how much they care about implementing broad censorship, and fast, seems a bit misbalanced to me. I suspect that there may actually be the possibility that the general public doesn't even think about such philosophical ideas, similar to how they don't seem to think much about other things like quantum mechanics, yak-herding, or 18th century art.
Does this seem possible?
> I am, but we as a society have always faced these dilemmas. Before social media, there were libel and slander laws that discouraged outright lies. With social media, however, there is almost nothing to gain from going after someone who posts slander. There is a fundamental problem when any random person can write whatever they dream of as fact and then amplify it to millions of people through social media.
Agreed. And it seems like the general consensus (in the general public and here on HN) of what we should do about this problem has arrived at censorship, as much as is required. And this consensus has been reached with no serious/honest debate, here or elsewhere. Each to his own, but I am very much "not cool" with this. But then perhaps I put too much faith in wisdom from times past - maybe censorship of non-sanctioned ideas, with no reasoned public debate, really is the optimum approach. I mean, who am I to disagree, right? Who do I even think I am!
> This site is one of the only places where these topics can still be discussed without devolving into flame wars. So thank you for that.
Likewise...a willingness to engage in dialogue on such matters is quite rare, so I do appreciate your efforts despite our (likely minor) differences, which is probably not at all reflected in my tone.
Oh no. The horror. Lets shut everything down. Won't you think of the poor politicians? We must do everything possible to protect the reputation of politicians? Are you a journalist because you sound like one. So what about all the nasty things said about putin, xi, erdogan, etc? Should we also censor those? Or are you just talking about protecting politicians of your preferred political party?
> Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality.
So should facebook, youtube, twitter, instagram, etc also shutdown every news organization on their site? For all the talk about "Qanon", the biggest conspiracies peddled are by traditional media. And why stop at social media? Should telephone companies, ISPs, Office Depot, CDNs, etc censor "disinformation"?
It's amazing to shallow logic of authoritarian types. Just because they think "big tech" is on their side.
Suggest using the microchips to make Microsoft muscle in on psychopharmaceutical market and VR if they actually did have the chips and it is jabbing at the logic of the conspiracy theory. Actually taking the absurd premise and using with more logic is clearly taking the piss like showing up to a crystal healing group and suggesting rolling paraplegics down stairs into piles of gemstones or throwing bleeding out soldiers onto them - you will likely be thrown out as a troll.
> Media lawyers note this is not the first time this sort of defense has been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."
> “Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false,’” he said.
https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/12/02/rachel-maddo...
Judge ruled in her favor:
> “The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts,” the judge decided.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/23/judge-tosse...
Back in my old country, before I foolishly immigrated to the land of "the free" (drum drum), political commentary was first turned into satire and then that was embedded in children's stories, and you had that interesting phenomena of adults passing around children's stories. Good times.
All authoritarian system are fundamentally psychological in nature. Brute force is theraputical. The ultimate objective is acceptance of authoritative narrative. The content matter is entirely irrelevant. Recall in 1984, Winston is being asked "how many fingers?" and "what does 2+2 equal?". Outside of fiction, recall the Church of Rome asserting it's authority by modifying commandments. Rationality, authenticity, applicability, or heaven help us, veracity, are not even variables in the equation of Authoritarian Control Over Information and Social Discourse.
The universal subjective human experience is that of interacting with other human beings, not all of whom are assumed to be "truth tellers". Discerning and dealing with falsehood or half-truths is the daily bread of a functioning mind.
Since when are we no longer to be trusted with discerning truth from lies?
Do you know what Velayateh Faqih, the theocratic doctrine of Ruhollah Khomeini and Iran's "Islamic Republic", means? It means 'guardianship of the learned'. According to Mr. Khomeini, your average adult Iranian is technically a "minor" that requires the "guardianship" of an "adult".
Are you a child or are you a citizen of a nation which had enshrined Free Speech as a fundamental instrument of its constitution and essence?
Mailchimp doesn't have that status. Perhaps it should. Perhaps all companies listed on the stockmarket should fall under this status. It would have pitfalls but overall it might strike the right balance.
"Your freedom of speech does not require me or your ISP to carry, propagate, or amplify your speech, whether for free or for pay."
Start to see the problem here, yet?
Plus they have common carrier status meaning they cannot offer/not offer service based on the content they carry for you. They must remain neutral.
You don't have to be. Neither does mailchimp.
I am certainly also subject to anti-collusion legislation.
> Plus they have common carrier status meaning they cannot offer/not offer service based on the content they carry for you.
Not since 2017.
This is why private email services and roll your own exist.
But you are right. Mailchimp and all these corporations which have clearly shown they have no regard for the civil liberties that are fundamental to the American Social Contract need to find robust competitors, post haste.
Likewise, if we want to talk about social norms -- private publishers have long enjoyed editorial authority in the US. Only in very few specific instances have we forced private publishers to publish against their will.
> guaranteeing the accuracy
The entire construct of "disinformation" is a strawman. There is ample historic evidence that the populations of societies subject to lying government organs (c.f Pravda in USSR) learn to discern deception.
If "disinformation" was so potent and deadly, none of the authoritarian societies that heavily relied on disinformation and lies would have needed to apply secret police tactics to control the population. They had both and they all still collapsed.
"We need to control disinformation" is double speak for "we control what you are permitted to know".
Propaganda is not a recent phenomena and we went through an entire Cold War with a noted power with excellent propaganda techniques (soviets) without censoring at this level.
The red scares and blacklistings and HUAC were just my imaginings.
Just one will do.
If your asking if a news group has ever refused to run a story due to dubious sources, yes. That happens all the time and has happened as long as there has been journalism.