Social mediums (Twitter, HN, Instagram, Yelp, etc) must also support verified identities. Opt-in. Just like metafilter.com. With onerous penalties for impersonation.
The outrage machine apologists (select examples below) are trying to post-authentic inauthentic speech. Algorithms will save us.
This cannot work. Ever. Because the belligerents in the computational propaganda arms race will always overwhelm authenticity.
Tristan Harris - The Social Dilemma
Casey Newton - The Verge
Philip N. Howard - Lies Machines
Frédéric Filloux - News Quality Scoring Project
All tortured performant whining about censorship and bias and Section 230 is not helping. No one is going to take away anyone's favorite chew toy. The food fight over lies and bias will continue unabated.--
Said another way:
Journalism is real simple. Show your data, cite your sources, sign your name.
Support authentic journalism, with real infrastructure. Give people an alternative to the outrage machine.
Why? Because slippery slope?
So I can't have any authentic speech ever because someone might want to remain anon.
What am I missing here? On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. We are all anon. There is no verifiable authentic speech.
Would you trust unsigned apps?
How much science is done anonymously?
We insist that websites are authenticated (using HTTPS).
But not Freedom Speeches™. Totally different. Authenticating any speech whatsoever is... Is what? How does authenticated speech harm any one? How?
They still control my filter bubble.
I want my own filter bubble, under my own control.
> It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation.
Every single person in the history of our species, has always, will always, and will never be prevented from doing this. The underlying implication of this complaint is that you’d prefer to control what misinformation people consume, rather than letting people choose it for themselves, and make their own minds up about it.
Moderation has literally become moderation. We're sleepwalking into Western lèse-majesté laws.
> If there's a huge silent population of kind reasonable people
A silent majority, if you will (of people who agree with me about the reasonable boundaries of conversation.)