Reddit CEO Rejects Call to Take Down Covid-19 Disinformation

I think we have a problem now that certain large media organizations and government are directing the narrative. They put out what they want in the media, they control what's there. These large parties are dictating what's misinformation, and the big problem is that large amounts of people are just accepting it. That then feeds the "hive mind" where anyone who does not share that "popular" opinion/viewpoint are ostracized. To make matters worse, in most cases now it's black and white - either you're for or against. You can't be undecided - that automatically puts you on the "against" side of things. As well, for the most part the likelihood of civil discussion with those on the side of the sponsored viewpoint is just not going to happen.

Seems like the right move to me. We’ve already seen that things labeled “misinformation” can turn into a plausible theory overnight, e.g. the lab leak theory.

It’s disappointing to see so many people demanding that corporations act as the arbiters of truth.

from the open letter:

"There are those who deny that the pandemic even exists, there are those who think that wearing a mask will literally suffocate you, there are those who think it's no worse than a regular flu virus, that it's a bioweapon, and everything in between."

And everything in between? How do I possibly know what idea is "approved" and what is off-limits? There was a time when saying you didn't need to disinfect surfaces every hour was fringe. Lab leak was WILDLY fringe and now it's at least a viable topic. These things evolve because we don't allow them to become dogma, but instead present evidence. Take mask efficacy. It's a hot debate right now but they link to a couple of papers and act as if that means it's settled science. What if I have a couple of peer-reviewed articles saying otherwise? How do I present that without being banned in this world?

The question is whether one CEO can resist an absolute mob of people who don't have any respect for liberal values about tolerating dissent and freedom of opinion. There are so many of them, on Internet comment sections at least.

I don't care whose side you're on - compared to ten years ago, the front page of Reddit has absolutely become infiltrated with deliberately crafted narratives clearly intended to push certain agendas.

This call to action by "volunteer moderators" is ironic in that sense, because there are likely even bigger more impactful systematic campaigns of disinformation going on - see this recent discussion from yesterday for some great insight into why and how these campaigns may be orchestrated [1].

[1] Almost all of the top subreddits are moderated by the same people (291 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28312261

What has been interesting with Covid is what would be considered “disinformation” has changed.

At the beginning, saying you should wear a mask was “disinformation”. Then saying that the virus could have leaked from the Wuhan lab was “disinformation”. Then saying you might need a booster vaccine was also “disinformation”.

Meanwhile, moderators at "rubber ducks floating in sinks enthusiasts" and "small cats with big katanas enthusiasts" and ... etc. have declared themselves guardian of some endangered truth.

Having spent millennia trying to get better discrimination, including intellectual, there seems to be now answers where earlier we had doubts: everything is easy, truth is clear, and the qualifications required to see it with solid grounds are apparently negligible. Big /S

And especially, what have rubber ducks cats and katanas have to do with medicine and virology etc.

Socrates should be back to show an unexpectedly large part of humanity "Are you really sure?". Critical thinking should come with basic education.

--

Edit: it seems as if a new club like "Private citizens with responsibilities [billboards] but different responsibilities [even cats] for the defence of responsible truth" has formed - this is the idea.

And I find it appalling that there seems to be an assumption with that «responsible truth»: the idea, even explicit in some cases, that doubt is dangerous for society. (And what is the cost of the opposite?) With the sibling idea that people must be protected, and they must be protected from exposure to complexity, and ultimately sheltered because incapable of rational thinking (real position expressed almost literally by involved parties). (They are supposed to be scholarized, exclamation mark.)

Read:

"Our business model is making money off shitposts. And our advertisers aren't demanding we shut down this hot garbage yet, so go pound sand until they do."

My guess is those behind spreading the disinformation cater to or are a part of reddits core, influential and very vocal demographic. Who would want to rock that boat with a billion dollar valuation. User Engagement over everything else wins.