Hacker News Reader

Comment by Klinky | Hacker News Reader

Com'on, someone linking to a poorly done study claiming it proves "drug x cures COVID" isn't misinformation? Someone posting about 5G or Bill Gates being the source of the infection isn't misinformation? Someone going on some racist tirade about Chinese people isn't misinformed hate speech? You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate? Plenty of people were trying to steer the conversation in specific directions with little regard for the scientific accuracy of what they were stating.

View on HN

Well if nothing else, blocking such posts has the real possibility of making the posters even more certain they've uncovered some conspiracy, and driving them to less well-monitored corners of the interwebs, where misinformation breeds like a virus. I'd agree posts containing suggestions that directly contravene expert medical advice should be tagged with warnings though.

Well if nothing else, allowing such posts to propagate and be reinforced has the side effect of legitimizing them. Tagging posts as misleading is certainly one strategy, but people also complain about that being censorship or a conspiracy against them as well. Also if the argument is we should be moderating less, not more, then you're just arguing to turn mainstream social media platforms into those less well-monitored corners of the internet. Let it stay there.

I wouldn't have an issue with some sort of shadow-blocking/ hiding of posts containing clearly dangerous misinformation. I'm not at all against moderation per se, but I don't think there's a simple one-size-fits-all approach that guarantees the best result for everyone. But I do have an overriding concern that ideas, no matter how crackpot, are best debated in the open rather than left to simmer in dark places.

If we want governmental mandates to regulate social media, let's do it. Make it law that crackpot ideas MUST be shared, and limit exactly how platforms can moderate their platform. The problem with this approach is that in the quest for freedom of speech, we'll have stripped freedom from owners of the platform to moderate their platform how they see fit.

The reality is that truly unfettered free speech & unmoderated discussions/debates devolves into all sorts of distractions from the primary goals of the platform (e.g. spam, hate speech, illegal activity, off-topic discussion). There must always be some level of moderation and censorship, even if that is at a basic level watching for spam bots & illegal activity. Typically that's not enough to ensure decorum, so you end up with additional community guidelines to set the tone for the platform.

My point here is that freedom of speech on online platforms is a mythical unicorn, that never existed, nor will it ever exist. It seems more like a wedge issue certain people like to bring up because they're unhappy with how a platform has acted towards them, and want to claim superiority by championing "free speech", even if they don't actually believe in it. For all the belly aching Musk did about Twitter, he is doing exactly the same things he complained about. That'd be fine, if he wasn't such a hypocrite about it & understood the ramifications and expectations of free speech, and the complexities of competent content moderation.

I'd also disagree that crackpot ideas are best debated in the open on social media. I think in a well moderated forum where people are held accountable, and expected to cite their sources yes. In the firehose that is social media where attention spans are limited, consumption is often on mobile devices which may hamper ability to do in-depth research, it leaves much to be desired as a place to find deeper truth easily. Also with puppet accounts, the moment you debunk one thread, ten more have popped up regurgitating the same talking points.

> You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate?

Yes, otherwise what happens when the ruling party is no longer your team?

What if everything becomes inverted, so if you tried to say Bill Gates isn't one of the biggest beneficiaries of COVID then you get "visibility filtered" AKA shadowbanned?

Then you make a detailed explanation about how the story of the Wuhan lab having had a virus leak was all just a hoax, but oops that is a final strike and now you're banned?

The bar for censorship shouldn't be so low and arbitrary. Social media platforms should exist to help us change our minds by discussing and debating with others (like we are doing right here), not be all echo chambers and filter bubbles.

The ruling party wasn't on my team and was often a source of misinformation during the height of the COVID pandemic. If I got banned for saying Bill Gates conspiracies were bullshit, then it sounds like that social media platform wasn't receptive to what I was saying. Boo hoo. Are you suggesting you'd force social media platforms to carry all voices, no matter what they're saying? How would you achieve that? Would community & content quality guidelines become illegal?

The bar for censorship shouldn't be so high that you legitimize misinformation by giving it a bigger platform than it merits. Social media can be a good place for discussion & debate, but in times when there's a national crisis occurring & you have people continually posting about how to take off-label drugs causing shortages for people who actually need it & injury to those taking it incorrectly, you run into misinformation causing real tangible harm to people. You cannot just ignore that. It's not just a run-of-the-mill philosophical debate about misinformation & censorship. The stakes are much lower in our discussion here.

> Are you suggesting you'd force social media platforms to carry all voices, no matter what they're saying? How would you achieve that? Would community & content quality guidelines become illegal?

No, my OP and this thread's link is about government intervention, which then lead to social media action.

Whilst I do think social media platforms should have additional regulation once they are big enough to become the new public square, there's no need to go that far yet and I'm uncertain of the appropriate balance.

However when it comes to the government's own response, they should have higher bar for taking action due to the oppressive influence it can have backed by it's monopoly on force. And again I state that this should be serious scientific study as the minimum prerequisite for this bar.

> in times when there's a national crisis occurring & you have people continually posting about how to take off-label drugs causing shortages for people who actually need it & injury to those taking it incorrectly, you run into misinformation causing real tangible harm to people. You cannot just ignore that.

Just like you cannot ignore the horror of slipping into a tyrannical police state like China.

Instead of shadowbanning and actual banning I was previously in favour of fact checking and warning labels under legitimately harmful information. Unfortunately even this tool has been abused by being misapplied to factual information, as well as non-harmful opinions. I have yet to see an intervention method since COVID that hasn't been corrupted to oppress the population, so I'm inclined to think that some harm is an inevitable tradeoff for living in a free society.

>No, my OP and this thread's link is about government intervention, which then lead to social media action.

I don't see a problem with private and public sector collaboration, it happens all the time. Not all communications between Twitter and the government resulted in Twitter taking action, and even when Twitter took action it does not mean they did so outside their own community guidelines.

>Whilst I do think social media platforms should have additional regulation once they are big enough to become the new public square, there's no need to go that far yet and I'm uncertain of the appropriate balance.

So which is it? You want regulation or you don't? Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

>However when it comes to the government's own response, they should have higher bar for taking action due to the oppressive influence it can have backed by it's monopoly on force. And again I state that this should be serious scientific study as the minimum prerequisite for this bar.

No, governments are expected to lead and provide information to their citizens on urgent matters. In a situation like COVID you can't wait 12 - 24 months for comprehensive scientific meta-analysis studies to confirm things. It seems you want a very hands off approach during a national crisis. I assure you this would not go over well, and is just as reprehensible(e.g. lackadaisical responses to Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana or Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico), as an overly heavy handed approach(e.g. China welding people's doors shut).

Also my original reply was regarding your claim that it's not possible to disprove misinformation without serious scientific study. That statement in and of itself is misinformation. You do not need exhaustive proof to show an in-vitro study does not mean a drug is a cure for COVID, or to show confounding variables, or that there were zero cited sources for claims being made in a post.

>Just like you cannot ignore the horror of slipping into a tyrannical police state like China.

You also cannot ignore a million+ dead people, many of whom were likely duped by charlatans into believing something that eventually lead to their demise. As you note later, you're fine with this harm, it's the cost of "freedom", except you don't actually want a private company to do as it pleases it sounds like, yet you also seem to lack any tangible action items or regulations you want applied. It seems like you just want to put your hands in your pockets. I dunno?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com