In my view the only proper way to handle content moderation is that every user of these “free“ social media platforms over the age of 18 should should be required to moderate some proportion every month to understand what’s actually going on.
In my view the only proper way to handle content moderation is that every user of these “free“ social media platforms over the age of 18 should should be required to moderate some proportion every month to understand what’s actually going on.
I'm to be responsible for what someone else's views are?
Nonsense. This is the cry of the censorship apologist. This moderation draft you speak of... what guidelines will the draftees follow? Will they moderate out of the goodness of their hearts? Or will they follow some standard? (I'm sure many people would be extremely eager to author! You mean I get to decide what is permissible to discuss online? What a wonderful avenue to advance my political causes by force!)
The author is right. The solution is not to double down on moderation.
Does that mean no vetting at all of the moderators? Anybody can become a moderator? But then you have QAnon in large numbers moderating content on like the CNN Facebook page or something? I really, really, really don't think that is a "proper" or even tenable moderation solution.
There are too many people who would abuse the moderation power. Moderation should at least be a paid position, paid well in fact, and vetted before allowed to moderate. Otherwise it will be worse than before.
I believe very much that bad material no matter how disgusting is best handled through public exposure, not censorship.
No interrogation of why it spread was investigated. It immediately made me wonder, maybe people just thought "false" information was a whole lot funnier, and hence sharable.
The problem with misinformation is it vaguely doesn't exist. There's parody, non-orthodoxy, true things people disagree with for political reason, unproven things, urban myths, rumors, etc etc. These are all classes of information people blame all the ills of society on.
You don't think that people lie on the internet?
The transmission cascades and cascade sizes for false info are studied. Misinformation for example is repeated, like a nuclear feedback loop, or more like gossip being repeated between people till it becomes a “fact”.
Science related info propagates through the network only a few times, as if people who read it understand it and move on.
Do you think that a site should be forced to host other people's vile content?