|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 02 2024 06:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 01:15 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 21:31 Magic Powers wrote:Under Elon Musk, government censorship on Twitter has gone way way up. "The data shows that, overall, government requests to Twitter have more than doubled since Musk took over at the app, and that Twitter’s compliance rate for such has increased from around 50% on average, to 80%." https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-actions-more-government-requests-for-removals-under-elon-musk/648865/This is not a case where Elon Musk's policy stands in contrast to a government's wishes. It's just him being selectively hypocritical. He'd happily censor away if this didn't irk him personally. He's a hypocrite. Granted, I agree with the overall point BJ is making. Twitter should not comply with government censorship to the degree that it has been doing in recent years. But it's a misrepresentation to paint Elon Musk as our savior when he's literally the exact opposite. He loves government censorship. While many things changed, a significant change was Twitter itself. Before Musk, Twitter took a considerably more proactive approach in policing what people could post, removing bots, hate speech and other excesses. Musk has unbanned a lot of PBUs, and has cut their CS department down to the bare minimum. It's entirely possible that the reason governments request more censorship is because Twitter no longer does anything themselves. It's not the only change, of course. Western society has polarized further in the meantime, and more strongman leaders feel empowered to clamp down on "free" speech. Whether that's Erdogan, Orban, Modi or any of too many others. I agree with this analysis. It's hard to draw any firm conclusions just from looking at two sets of numbers and percentages, especially when the government takedown requests are not differentiated between illegal things that should obviously be banned like CP and governments just wishing to crack down on political dissent on social media. Either way, my point was not to claim Elon to be a saviour of free speech. My point was we shouldn't have governments that are permitted to silence dissent. I was hoping to find unanimous agreement on that here but evidently Elon is too much of a lightning rod that trying to stick it to him is more important than trying to stick it to the people you've listed. It's not about Elon. Of course it's not great that governments crack down on dissent. But countries and cultures have different views on what free speech is and which parts are important and your coming into this from a *very* US perspective it seems. Remember that these are mostly democratic countries where the people have shaped their laws. I visit r/conservative weekly to check in with opinions that are pretty far from mine. The conservative free-speech brigade loves to talk shit about other countries. Now it's Brazil but just recently it was the UK. Why? Because they had riots over the Swift stabbings and among other things they cracked down on people trying to inflame the situation. Completely heinous to a US crowd because they would 100% be protected if they did it there. But in many countries free speech is not considered above people actively being assholes in order to make a bad situation worse and the government is trusted to not run amok with that power. Also the US free speech situation is not exactly a shining beacon inspiring others right now. While you may have free speech (political) discourse seems to be an open sewer ripping your country apart right now. I prefer to stay with our mostly free but civil system that's watched over by the government and EU over whatever it is the US of A are doing.
Yes, you are right. I have a very US perspective here. For example the story of the girl in the UK that was arrested for posting the rap lyrics to a song to honor her dead friend:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk?feature=share
To me it's unimaginable to get arrested for something like that. It's also quite perplexing because then it begs the question would a rapper be allowed to perform their song that contains offensive lyrics or do they get a pass? Perhaps to Europeans being permitted to post the n-word on social media without facing legal consequences is unimaginable. I suppose the US itself has a privileged position where the racial schisms in Europe might be a little fresher than in the US which has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning.
Either way, I think we are sort of on a precipice here. Legislation designed to police speech on the internet seems to be increasing dramatically. I think we are going to see this move in one direction or another quite heavily in the coming years and it's really sad to see the direction some people want to go.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On September 02 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 06:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 02 2024 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 01:15 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 21:31 Magic Powers wrote:Under Elon Musk, government censorship on Twitter has gone way way up. "The data shows that, overall, government requests to Twitter have more than doubled since Musk took over at the app, and that Twitter’s compliance rate for such has increased from around 50% on average, to 80%." https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-actions-more-government-requests-for-removals-under-elon-musk/648865/This is not a case where Elon Musk's policy stands in contrast to a government's wishes. It's just him being selectively hypocritical. He'd happily censor away if this didn't irk him personally. He's a hypocrite. Granted, I agree with the overall point BJ is making. Twitter should not comply with government censorship to the degree that it has been doing in recent years. But it's a misrepresentation to paint Elon Musk as our savior when he's literally the exact opposite. He loves government censorship. While many things changed, a significant change was Twitter itself. Before Musk, Twitter took a considerably more proactive approach in policing what people could post, removing bots, hate speech and other excesses. Musk has unbanned a lot of PBUs, and has cut their CS department down to the bare minimum. It's entirely possible that the reason governments request more censorship is because Twitter no longer does anything themselves. It's not the only change, of course. Western society has polarized further in the meantime, and more strongman leaders feel empowered to clamp down on "free" speech. Whether that's Erdogan, Orban, Modi or any of too many others. I agree with this analysis. It's hard to draw any firm conclusions just from looking at two sets of numbers and percentages, especially when the government takedown requests are not differentiated between illegal things that should obviously be banned like CP and governments just wishing to crack down on political dissent on social media. Either way, my point was not to claim Elon to be a saviour of free speech. My point was we shouldn't have governments that are permitted to silence dissent. I was hoping to find unanimous agreement on that here but evidently Elon is too much of a lightning rod that trying to stick it to him is more important than trying to stick it to the people you've listed. It's not about Elon. Of course it's not great that governments crack down on dissent. But countries and cultures have different views on what free speech is and which parts are important and your coming into this from a *very* US perspective it seems. Remember that these are mostly democratic countries where the people have shaped their laws. I visit r/conservative weekly to check in with opinions that are pretty far from mine. The conservative free-speech brigade loves to talk shit about other countries. Now it's Brazil but just recently it was the UK. Why? Because they had riots over the Swift stabbings and among other things they cracked down on people trying to inflame the situation. Completely heinous to a US crowd because they would 100% be protected if they did it there. But in many countries free speech is not considered above people actively being assholes in order to make a bad situation worse and the government is trusted to not run amok with that power. Also the US free speech situation is not exactly a shining beacon inspiring others right now. While you may have free speech (political) discourse seems to be an open sewer ripping your country apart right now. I prefer to stay with our mostly free but civil system that's watched over by the government and EU over whatever it is the US of A are doing. Yes, you are right. I have a very US perspective here. For example the story of the girl in the UK that was arrested for posting the rap lyrics to a song to honor her dead friend: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk?feature=shareTo me it's unimaginable to get arrested for something like that. It's also quite perplexing because then it begs the question would a rapper be allowed to perform their song that contains offensive lyrics or do they get a pass? Perhaps to Europeans being permitted to post the n-word on social media without facing legal consequences is unimaginable. I suppose the US itself has a privileged position where the racial schisms in Europe might be a little fresher than in the US which has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning. Either way, I think we are sort of on a precipice here. Legislation designed to police speech on the internet seems to be increasing dramatically. I think we are going to see this move in one direction or another quite heavily in the coming years and it's really sad to see the direction some people want to go.
People don’t want to go in that direction, by and large. Least within the thread, I’d say it’s probably rather different outside of it.
You pick the most fringe examples, ultimately non-impactful. Somebody got arrested and nothing happened really. Do I agree with it, well no.
Meanwhile we had wholesale riots in the UK based on falsehoods as to the origin of a murderer being a Muslim migrant, businesses I know in my own city burnt out, with owners saying fuck it they’re not coming back, foreign nurses targeted and vowing not to return once their contracts are up, a bloke in my locale of Belfast left in intensive care after having the shit beat out of him for being mistaken for a Muslim.
While you’ve got Elon Musk almost palpably masturbating on Twitter over the prospect of a race war and angrily reacting at the temerity of folks over here saying maybe you should moderate that kind of stuff a little?
Ok perhaps a tad hyperbolic on the last bit. Or perhaps not, judge for oneself
It’s certainly a difficult balancing act, and I’d prefer if various stakeholders erred on the side of caution, equally I think there’s a fair amount of precedent that going full laissez faire on it doesn’t work too well in practice.
|
On September 02 2024 11:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 06:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 02 2024 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 01:15 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 21:31 Magic Powers wrote:Under Elon Musk, government censorship on Twitter has gone way way up. "The data shows that, overall, government requests to Twitter have more than doubled since Musk took over at the app, and that Twitter’s compliance rate for such has increased from around 50% on average, to 80%." https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-actions-more-government-requests-for-removals-under-elon-musk/648865/This is not a case where Elon Musk's policy stands in contrast to a government's wishes. It's just him being selectively hypocritical. He'd happily censor away if this didn't irk him personally. He's a hypocrite. Granted, I agree with the overall point BJ is making. Twitter should not comply with government censorship to the degree that it has been doing in recent years. But it's a misrepresentation to paint Elon Musk as our savior when he's literally the exact opposite. He loves government censorship. While many things changed, a significant change was Twitter itself. Before Musk, Twitter took a considerably more proactive approach in policing what people could post, removing bots, hate speech and other excesses. Musk has unbanned a lot of PBUs, and has cut their CS department down to the bare minimum. It's entirely possible that the reason governments request more censorship is because Twitter no longer does anything themselves. It's not the only change, of course. Western society has polarized further in the meantime, and more strongman leaders feel empowered to clamp down on "free" speech. Whether that's Erdogan, Orban, Modi or any of too many others. I agree with this analysis. It's hard to draw any firm conclusions just from looking at two sets of numbers and percentages, especially when the government takedown requests are not differentiated between illegal things that should obviously be banned like CP and governments just wishing to crack down on political dissent on social media. Either way, my point was not to claim Elon to be a saviour of free speech. My point was we shouldn't have governments that are permitted to silence dissent. I was hoping to find unanimous agreement on that here but evidently Elon is too much of a lightning rod that trying to stick it to him is more important than trying to stick it to the people you've listed. It's not about Elon. Of course it's not great that governments crack down on dissent. But countries and cultures have different views on what free speech is and which parts are important and your coming into this from a *very* US perspective it seems. Remember that these are mostly democratic countries where the people have shaped their laws. I visit r/conservative weekly to check in with opinions that are pretty far from mine. The conservative free-speech brigade loves to talk shit about other countries. Now it's Brazil but just recently it was the UK. Why? Because they had riots over the Swift stabbings and among other things they cracked down on people trying to inflame the situation. Completely heinous to a US crowd because they would 100% be protected if they did it there. But in many countries free speech is not considered above people actively being assholes in order to make a bad situation worse and the government is trusted to not run amok with that power. Also the US free speech situation is not exactly a shining beacon inspiring others right now. While you may have free speech (political) discourse seems to be an open sewer ripping your country apart right now. I prefer to stay with our mostly free but civil system that's watched over by the government and EU over whatever it is the US of A are doing. Yes, you are right. I have a very US perspective here. For example the story of the girl in the UK that was arrested for posting the rap lyrics to a song to honor her dead friend: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk?feature=shareTo me it's unimaginable to get arrested for something like that. It's also quite perplexing because then it begs the question would a rapper be allowed to perform their song that contains offensive lyrics or do they get a pass? Perhaps to Europeans being permitted to post the n-word on social media without facing legal consequences is unimaginable. I suppose the US itself has a privileged position where the racial schisms in Europe might be a little fresher than in the US which has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning. Either way, I think we are sort of on a precipice here. Legislation designed to police speech on the internet seems to be increasing dramatically. I think we are going to see this move in one direction or another quite heavily in the coming years and it's really sad to see the direction some people want to go. People don’t want to go in that direction, by and large. Least within the thread, I’d say it’s probably rather different outside of it. You pick the most fringe examples, ultimately non-impactful. Somebody got arrested and nothing happened really. Do I agree with it, well no. Meanwhile we had wholesale riots in the UK based on falsehoods as to the origin of a murderer being a Muslim migrant, businesses I know in my own city burnt out, with owners saying fuck it they’re not coming back, foreign nurses targeted and vowing not to return once their contracts are up, a bloke in my locale of Belfast left in intensive care after having the shit beat out of him for being mistaken for a Muslim. While you’ve got Elon Musk almost palpably masturbating on Twitter over the prospect of a race war and angrily reacting at the temerity of folks over here saying maybe you should moderate that kind of stuff a little? Ok perhaps a tad hyperbolic on the last bit. Or perhaps not, judge for oneself It’s certainly a difficult balancing act, and I’d prefer if various stakeholders erred on the side of caution, equally I think there’s a fair amount of precedent that going full laissez faire on it doesn’t work too well in practice.
I have two questions for your post. My first is what if the murderer actually was a Muslim migrant? Surely Muslim migrants are not infallible and it’s not impossible for them to murder. Should posts on social media pointing out that fact be banned? Or would the resulting race riots be more acceptable because at least they are predicated on a truth instead of a lie?
My 2nd question is can you provide the context of Elon musk palpably masturbating over the prospect of a race war? I haven’t really followed the UK story that closely. I’m aware he’s made some posts predicting a civil war but predicting something and wanting some are not the same.
|
On September 02 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 06:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 02 2024 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 01:15 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 21:31 Magic Powers wrote:Under Elon Musk, government censorship on Twitter has gone way way up. "The data shows that, overall, government requests to Twitter have more than doubled since Musk took over at the app, and that Twitter’s compliance rate for such has increased from around 50% on average, to 80%." https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-actions-more-government-requests-for-removals-under-elon-musk/648865/This is not a case where Elon Musk's policy stands in contrast to a government's wishes. It's just him being selectively hypocritical. He'd happily censor away if this didn't irk him personally. He's a hypocrite. Granted, I agree with the overall point BJ is making. Twitter should not comply with government censorship to the degree that it has been doing in recent years. But it's a misrepresentation to paint Elon Musk as our savior when he's literally the exact opposite. He loves government censorship. While many things changed, a significant change was Twitter itself. Before Musk, Twitter took a considerably more proactive approach in policing what people could post, removing bots, hate speech and other excesses. Musk has unbanned a lot of PBUs, and has cut their CS department down to the bare minimum. It's entirely possible that the reason governments request more censorship is because Twitter no longer does anything themselves. It's not the only change, of course. Western society has polarized further in the meantime, and more strongman leaders feel empowered to clamp down on "free" speech. Whether that's Erdogan, Orban, Modi or any of too many others. I agree with this analysis. It's hard to draw any firm conclusions just from looking at two sets of numbers and percentages, especially when the government takedown requests are not differentiated between illegal things that should obviously be banned like CP and governments just wishing to crack down on political dissent on social media. Either way, my point was not to claim Elon to be a saviour of free speech. My point was we shouldn't have governments that are permitted to silence dissent. I was hoping to find unanimous agreement on that here but evidently Elon is too much of a lightning rod that trying to stick it to him is more important than trying to stick it to the people you've listed. It's not about Elon. Of course it's not great that governments crack down on dissent. But countries and cultures have different views on what free speech is and which parts are important and your coming into this from a *very* US perspective it seems. Remember that these are mostly democratic countries where the people have shaped their laws. I visit r/conservative weekly to check in with opinions that are pretty far from mine. The conservative free-speech brigade loves to talk shit about other countries. Now it's Brazil but just recently it was the UK. Why? Because they had riots over the Swift stabbings and among other things they cracked down on people trying to inflame the situation. Completely heinous to a US crowd because they would 100% be protected if they did it there. But in many countries free speech is not considered above people actively being assholes in order to make a bad situation worse and the government is trusted to not run amok with that power. Also the US free speech situation is not exactly a shining beacon inspiring others right now. While you may have free speech (political) discourse seems to be an open sewer ripping your country apart right now. I prefer to stay with our mostly free but civil system that's watched over by the government and EU over whatever it is the US of A are doing. Yes, you are right. I have a very US perspective here. For example the story of the girl in the UK that was arrested for posting the rap lyrics to a song to honor her dead friend: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk?feature=shareTo me it's unimaginable to get arrested for something like that. It's also quite perplexing because then it begs the question would a rapper be allowed to perform their song that contains offensive lyrics or do they get a pass? Perhaps to Europeans being permitted to post the n-word on social media without facing legal consequences is unimaginable. I suppose the US itself has a privileged position where the racial schisms in Europe might be a little fresher than in the US which has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning. Either way, I think we are sort of on a precipice here. Legislation designed to police speech on the internet seems to be increasing dramatically. I think we are going to see this move in one direction or another quite heavily in the coming years and it's really sad to see the direction some people want to go.
Someone getting arrested and then immediately released after a cursory investigation, during a time of national crisis seems like the law working as intended. Of course it's better that innocent people are never arrested at all but as long as they aren't detained or convicted it's not the end of the world.
I"m sure I won't be able to find any articles or videos of people being detained or arrested (or worse) unlawfully in the US by undertrained officers. Imagine the carnage if British police started shooting people over kettles of tea however.
I don't think it's your fault that you are missinformed either. There seems to be an active (probably Russian?) propaganda campaing over specifically this issue and aimed at conservative voters. Posting only parts of the story with no context is propaganda 101. It's probably why you feel that free speech is under attack while the people living in the actual countries are perplexed.
|
I did some cursory google-reading about the thing BJ was talking about - it seems she WAS arrested, charged, convicted, and fined. That itself seems absurd to me. The consequences were 8 weeks curfew and a 500 pound fine which does seem steep considering the offense was "Posted song lyrics on my instagram" from a teenager.
Of course, that does make me feel like I don't have all the information and there's something else that propelled this. That said, "Someone got arrested and nothing happened really" doesn't seem accurate, nor does "As long as they aren't detained or convicted it's not the end of the world."
|
On September 02 2024 14:33 Fleetfeet wrote:
I did some cursory google-reading about the thing BJ was talking about - it seems she WAS arrested, charged, convicted, and fined. That itself seems absurd to me. The consequences were 8 weeks curfew and a 500 pound fine which does seem steep considering the offense was "Posted song lyrics on my instagram" from a teenager.
Of course, that does make me feel like I don't have all the information and there's something else that propelled this. That said, "Someone got arrested and nothing happened really" doesn't seem accurate, nor does "As long as they aren't detained or convicted it's not the end of the world."
That seems to be from 2018. So either it wasn't one of the cases I was thinking about concerning the riots or it was in fact dug up and posted at the same time (again classic propaganda). A fine and community service seems excessive for posting lyrics on your instagram but I've seen weirder things make sense in context.
|
Norway28709 Posts
Ive seen some rulings from the uk where people were fined/punished for posting offensive stuff where i really disagreed with it. Haven’t seen much of that from the rest of europe, at least when Norwegian have been fined for hate speech ive thought that yeah theres no reason why saying what they said should be protected. Maybe there's a language barrier and im only aware of the uk rulings but my impression is that the UK is an outlier in europe, and even though theyve made a handful of really stupid rulings, i have the impression it is basically a handful over a decade. I have no need to defend those rulings, but they also dont constitute a threat to free speech and arent indicative of 'Europe' having a problem in this regard
|
United States43232 Posts
As BJ implies, Elon’s posts regarding the UK riots are little more than the dispassionate prognosticators in a schoolyard solemnly but repeatedly forecasting that two rivals may be about to fight. We cannot know Elon’s mind when he posts these things and it would be wrong to imply that he does it with any glee.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On September 02 2024 13:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 11:02 WombaT wrote:On September 02 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 06:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 02 2024 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 01:15 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 21:31 Magic Powers wrote:Under Elon Musk, government censorship on Twitter has gone way way up. "The data shows that, overall, government requests to Twitter have more than doubled since Musk took over at the app, and that Twitter’s compliance rate for such has increased from around 50% on average, to 80%." https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-actions-more-government-requests-for-removals-under-elon-musk/648865/This is not a case where Elon Musk's policy stands in contrast to a government's wishes. It's just him being selectively hypocritical. He'd happily censor away if this didn't irk him personally. He's a hypocrite. Granted, I agree with the overall point BJ is making. Twitter should not comply with government censorship to the degree that it has been doing in recent years. But it's a misrepresentation to paint Elon Musk as our savior when he's literally the exact opposite. He loves government censorship. While many things changed, a significant change was Twitter itself. Before Musk, Twitter took a considerably more proactive approach in policing what people could post, removing bots, hate speech and other excesses. Musk has unbanned a lot of PBUs, and has cut their CS department down to the bare minimum. It's entirely possible that the reason governments request more censorship is because Twitter no longer does anything themselves. It's not the only change, of course. Western society has polarized further in the meantime, and more strongman leaders feel empowered to clamp down on "free" speech. Whether that's Erdogan, Orban, Modi or any of too many others. I agree with this analysis. It's hard to draw any firm conclusions just from looking at two sets of numbers and percentages, especially when the government takedown requests are not differentiated between illegal things that should obviously be banned like CP and governments just wishing to crack down on political dissent on social media. Either way, my point was not to claim Elon to be a saviour of free speech. My point was we shouldn't have governments that are permitted to silence dissent. I was hoping to find unanimous agreement on that here but evidently Elon is too much of a lightning rod that trying to stick it to him is more important than trying to stick it to the people you've listed. It's not about Elon. Of course it's not great that governments crack down on dissent. But countries and cultures have different views on what free speech is and which parts are important and your coming into this from a *very* US perspective it seems. Remember that these are mostly democratic countries where the people have shaped their laws. I visit r/conservative weekly to check in with opinions that are pretty far from mine. The conservative free-speech brigade loves to talk shit about other countries. Now it's Brazil but just recently it was the UK. Why? Because they had riots over the Swift stabbings and among other things they cracked down on people trying to inflame the situation. Completely heinous to a US crowd because they would 100% be protected if they did it there. But in many countries free speech is not considered above people actively being assholes in order to make a bad situation worse and the government is trusted to not run amok with that power. Also the US free speech situation is not exactly a shining beacon inspiring others right now. While you may have free speech (political) discourse seems to be an open sewer ripping your country apart right now. I prefer to stay with our mostly free but civil system that's watched over by the government and EU over whatever it is the US of A are doing. Yes, you are right. I have a very US perspective here. For example the story of the girl in the UK that was arrested for posting the rap lyrics to a song to honor her dead friend: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk?feature=shareTo me it's unimaginable to get arrested for something like that. It's also quite perplexing because then it begs the question would a rapper be allowed to perform their song that contains offensive lyrics or do they get a pass? Perhaps to Europeans being permitted to post the n-word on social media without facing legal consequences is unimaginable. I suppose the US itself has a privileged position where the racial schisms in Europe might be a little fresher than in the US which has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning. Either way, I think we are sort of on a precipice here. Legislation designed to police speech on the internet seems to be increasing dramatically. I think we are going to see this move in one direction or another quite heavily in the coming years and it's really sad to see the direction some people want to go. People don’t want to go in that direction, by and large. Least within the thread, I’d say it’s probably rather different outside of it. You pick the most fringe examples, ultimately non-impactful. Somebody got arrested and nothing happened really. Do I agree with it, well no. Meanwhile we had wholesale riots in the UK based on falsehoods as to the origin of a murderer being a Muslim migrant, businesses I know in my own city burnt out, with owners saying fuck it they’re not coming back, foreign nurses targeted and vowing not to return once their contracts are up, a bloke in my locale of Belfast left in intensive care after having the shit beat out of him for being mistaken for a Muslim. While you’ve got Elon Musk almost palpably masturbating on Twitter over the prospect of a race war and angrily reacting at the temerity of folks over here saying maybe you should moderate that kind of stuff a little? Ok perhaps a tad hyperbolic on the last bit. Or perhaps not, judge for oneself It’s certainly a difficult balancing act, and I’d prefer if various stakeholders erred on the side of caution, equally I think there’s a fair amount of precedent that going full laissez faire on it doesn’t work too well in practice. I have two questions for your post. My first is what if the murderer actually was a Muslim migrant? Surely Muslim migrants are not infallible and it’s not impossible for them to murder. Should posts on social media pointing out that fact be banned? Or would the resulting race riots be more acceptable because at least they are predicated on a truth instead of a lie? My 2nd question is can you provide the context of Elon musk palpably masturbating over the prospect of a race war? I haven’t really followed the UK story that closely. I’m aware he’s made some posts predicting a civil war but predicting something and wanting some are not the same.
But he wasn’t, it wasn’t one of those cases of ambiguity, or a complex issue, it just wasn’t the case. I’ll see if I can dig out the article, the BBC did a bit of digging as to the trail of where and how this particular story spread. If memory serves it seemed highly likely to be a deliberate, malicious bit of disinformation, but mostly spread by the merely ignorant subsequently.
In your hypothetical it would be the truth, one that might have unfortunate consequences but hey sometimes that comes with the territory. There was a similar sparking of spontaneous rioting in Dublin where that was indeed the case.
Let’s say some bloke gets shot in San Francisco and the same kinda mechanisms of misinformation. Let’s say a completely untrue story about it being a cop shooting an unarmed person starts spreading like wildfire, and leads to a bunch of civil disturbances. It would seem prudent to me to make an effort to douse those flames sooner, rather than have them get out of hand.
You’re in territory that isn’t a million miles away from the classic shouting fire in a crowded theatre scenario.
I can’t really be remotely objective about Mr Musk, but doing his whole le epic shit poster shtick about civil disturbances partly precipitated by his own refusal to moderate his large social media platform, maybe not the best thing to say.
As I frequently say I’d like to see some kind of wider collaboration and certain agreed frameworks on how to approach such things come into place, rather than it being rather ad hoc/governments occasionally intervening, and something that errs on the side of being as permissive as possible.
Such collaboration could also really spread the load of a quite large problem for companies to tackle on an individual basis. You could have a shared database of known malicious ‘news’ sources for example, and make it harder for them to propagate their nonsense.
The problem is only going to get worse with AI tools letting people churn out plausible, reasonably well-presented stuff in seconds. Never mind image and increasingly video/audio generation.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On September 02 2024 15:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Ive seen some rulings from the uk where people were fined/punished for posting offensive stuff where i really disagreed with it. Haven’t seen much of that from the rest of europe, at least when Norwegian have been fined for hate speech ive thought that yeah theres no reason why saying what they said should be protected. Maybe there's a language barrier and im only aware of the uk rulings but my impression is that the UK is an outlier in europe, and even though theyve made a handful of really stupid rulings, i have the impression it is basically a handful over a decade. I have no need to defend those rulings, but they also dont constitute a threat to free speech and arent indicative of 'Europe' having a problem in this regard
You’d be hard pressed to find folks over here who agree with some of the more egregious examples, even ending up in court never mind resulting in an actual prosecution.
But aye it’s still not some endemic problem, although I’d prefer it weren’t a problem to begin with.
You also have some cases that are kind of misleadingly presented in some quarters, where the defendant isn’t up for merely being offensive, but for something like actual targeted harassment.
|
On September 02 2024 15:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 14:33 Fleetfeet wrote:
I did some cursory google-reading about the thing BJ was talking about - it seems she WAS arrested, charged, convicted, and fined. That itself seems absurd to me. The consequences were 8 weeks curfew and a 500 pound fine which does seem steep considering the offense was "Posted song lyrics on my instagram" from a teenager.
Of course, that does make me feel like I don't have all the information and there's something else that propelled this. That said, "Someone got arrested and nothing happened really" doesn't seem accurate, nor does "As long as they aren't detained or convicted it's not the end of the world." That seems to be from 2018. So either it wasn't one of the cases I was thinking about concerning the riots or it was in fact dug up and posted at the same time (again classic propaganda). A fine and community service seems excessive for posting lyrics on your instagram but I've seen weirder things make sense in context.
Agreed. My guts say context is lacking in that case, I just don't love discarding BJ's criticism just because my guts don't agree.
|
On September 02 2024 15:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 13:55 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 11:02 WombaT wrote:On September 02 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 06:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 02 2024 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 01:15 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 21:31 Magic Powers wrote:Under Elon Musk, government censorship on Twitter has gone way way up. "The data shows that, overall, government requests to Twitter have more than doubled since Musk took over at the app, and that Twitter’s compliance rate for such has increased from around 50% on average, to 80%." https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-actions-more-government-requests-for-removals-under-elon-musk/648865/This is not a case where Elon Musk's policy stands in contrast to a government's wishes. It's just him being selectively hypocritical. He'd happily censor away if this didn't irk him personally. He's a hypocrite. Granted, I agree with the overall point BJ is making. Twitter should not comply with government censorship to the degree that it has been doing in recent years. But it's a misrepresentation to paint Elon Musk as our savior when he's literally the exact opposite. He loves government censorship. While many things changed, a significant change was Twitter itself. Before Musk, Twitter took a considerably more proactive approach in policing what people could post, removing bots, hate speech and other excesses. Musk has unbanned a lot of PBUs, and has cut their CS department down to the bare minimum. It's entirely possible that the reason governments request more censorship is because Twitter no longer does anything themselves. It's not the only change, of course. Western society has polarized further in the meantime, and more strongman leaders feel empowered to clamp down on "free" speech. Whether that's Erdogan, Orban, Modi or any of too many others. I agree with this analysis. It's hard to draw any firm conclusions just from looking at two sets of numbers and percentages, especially when the government takedown requests are not differentiated between illegal things that should obviously be banned like CP and governments just wishing to crack down on political dissent on social media. Either way, my point was not to claim Elon to be a saviour of free speech. My point was we shouldn't have governments that are permitted to silence dissent. I was hoping to find unanimous agreement on that here but evidently Elon is too much of a lightning rod that trying to stick it to him is more important than trying to stick it to the people you've listed. It's not about Elon. Of course it's not great that governments crack down on dissent. But countries and cultures have different views on what free speech is and which parts are important and your coming into this from a *very* US perspective it seems. Remember that these are mostly democratic countries where the people have shaped their laws. I visit r/conservative weekly to check in with opinions that are pretty far from mine. The conservative free-speech brigade loves to talk shit about other countries. Now it's Brazil but just recently it was the UK. Why? Because they had riots over the Swift stabbings and among other things they cracked down on people trying to inflame the situation. Completely heinous to a US crowd because they would 100% be protected if they did it there. But in many countries free speech is not considered above people actively being assholes in order to make a bad situation worse and the government is trusted to not run amok with that power. Also the US free speech situation is not exactly a shining beacon inspiring others right now. While you may have free speech (political) discourse seems to be an open sewer ripping your country apart right now. I prefer to stay with our mostly free but civil system that's watched over by the government and EU over whatever it is the US of A are doing. Yes, you are right. I have a very US perspective here. For example the story of the girl in the UK that was arrested for posting the rap lyrics to a song to honor her dead friend: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk?feature=shareTo me it's unimaginable to get arrested for something like that. It's also quite perplexing because then it begs the question would a rapper be allowed to perform their song that contains offensive lyrics or do they get a pass? Perhaps to Europeans being permitted to post the n-word on social media without facing legal consequences is unimaginable. I suppose the US itself has a privileged position where the racial schisms in Europe might be a little fresher than in the US which has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning. Either way, I think we are sort of on a precipice here. Legislation designed to police speech on the internet seems to be increasing dramatically. I think we are going to see this move in one direction or another quite heavily in the coming years and it's really sad to see the direction some people want to go. People don’t want to go in that direction, by and large. Least within the thread, I’d say it’s probably rather different outside of it. You pick the most fringe examples, ultimately non-impactful. Somebody got arrested and nothing happened really. Do I agree with it, well no. Meanwhile we had wholesale riots in the UK based on falsehoods as to the origin of a murderer being a Muslim migrant, businesses I know in my own city burnt out, with owners saying fuck it they’re not coming back, foreign nurses targeted and vowing not to return once their contracts are up, a bloke in my locale of Belfast left in intensive care after having the shit beat out of him for being mistaken for a Muslim. While you’ve got Elon Musk almost palpably masturbating on Twitter over the prospect of a race war and angrily reacting at the temerity of folks over here saying maybe you should moderate that kind of stuff a little? Ok perhaps a tad hyperbolic on the last bit. Or perhaps not, judge for oneself It’s certainly a difficult balancing act, and I’d prefer if various stakeholders erred on the side of caution, equally I think there’s a fair amount of precedent that going full laissez faire on it doesn’t work too well in practice. I have two questions for your post. My first is what if the murderer actually was a Muslim migrant? Surely Muslim migrants are not infallible and it’s not impossible for them to murder. Should posts on social media pointing out that fact be banned? Or would the resulting race riots be more acceptable because at least they are predicated on a truth instead of a lie? My 2nd question is can you provide the context of Elon musk palpably masturbating over the prospect of a race war? I haven’t really followed the UK story that closely. I’m aware he’s made some posts predicting a civil war but predicting something and wanting some are not the same. But he wasn’t, it wasn’t one of those cases of ambiguity, or a complex issue, it just wasn’t the case. I’ll see if I can dig out the article, the BBC did a bit of digging as to the trail of where and how this particular story spread. If memory serves it seemed highly likely to be a deliberate, malicious bit of disinformation, but mostly spread by the merely ignorant subsequently. In your hypothetical it would be the truth, one that might have unfortunate consequences but hey sometimes that comes with the territory. There was a similar sparking of spontaneous rioting in Dublin where that was indeed the case. Let’s say some bloke gets shot in San Francisco and the same kinda mechanisms of misinformation. Let’s say a completely untrue story about it being a cop shooting an unarmed person starts spreading like wildfire, and leads to a bunch of civil disturbances. It would seem prudent to me to make an effort to douse those flames sooner, rather than have them get out of hand. You’re in territory that isn’t a million miles away from the classic shouting fire in a crowded theatre scenario. I can’t really be remotely objective about Mr Musk, but doing his whole le epic shit poster shtick about civil disturbances partly precipitated by his own refusal to moderate his large social media platform, maybe not the best thing to say. As I frequently say I’d like to see some kind of wider collaboration and certain agreed frameworks on how to approach such things come into place, rather than it being rather ad hoc/governments occasionally intervening, and something that errs on the side of being as permissive as possible. Such collaboration could also really spread the load of a quite large problem for companies to tackle on an individual basis. You could have a shared database of known malicious ‘news’ sources for example, and make it harder for them to propagate their nonsense. The problem is only going to get worse with AI tools letting people churn out plausible, reasonably well-presented stuff in seconds. Never mind image and increasingly video/audio generation.
Riots over police shootings was so 2020. I agree these are unprecedented times we are in with how quickly information can spread and in different ways it can spread. Russian troll farms, armies of bots, deepfake AI, etc are not things we've had in public forums before. My mind is not set in stone and I don't rule out changing my mind if the problem becomes severe enough. I think an analogy can be made to the COVID thread where I've always said that I don't oppose all mitigation measures out of principle. If COVID killed say 10% of people instead of <1% I would have been on board with everyone else. If race riots were happening every day because of mutterings on social media maybe I would change my position. In general I obviously err more on the side of personal liberty than public safety than most of the people here so I'm fine with an 'agree to disagree' disposition.
|
On September 02 2024 18:11 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 15:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 02 2024 14:33 Fleetfeet wrote:
I did some cursory google-reading about the thing BJ was talking about - it seems she WAS arrested, charged, convicted, and fined. That itself seems absurd to me. The consequences were 8 weeks curfew and a 500 pound fine which does seem steep considering the offense was "Posted song lyrics on my instagram" from a teenager.
Of course, that does make me feel like I don't have all the information and there's something else that propelled this. That said, "Someone got arrested and nothing happened really" doesn't seem accurate, nor does "As long as they aren't detained or convicted it's not the end of the world." That seems to be from 2018. So either it wasn't one of the cases I was thinking about concerning the riots or it was in fact dug up and posted at the same time (again classic propaganda). A fine and community service seems excessive for posting lyrics on your instagram but I've seen weirder things make sense in context. Agreed. My guts say context is lacking in that case, I just don't love discarding BJ's criticism just because my guts don't agree.
If you find the context lemme know cause it’s hard for me to believe as well
|
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On September 02 2024 18:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2024 15:56 WombaT wrote:On September 02 2024 13:55 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 11:02 WombaT wrote:On September 02 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 06:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 02 2024 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 02 2024 01:15 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 21:31 Magic Powers wrote:Under Elon Musk, government censorship on Twitter has gone way way up. "The data shows that, overall, government requests to Twitter have more than doubled since Musk took over at the app, and that Twitter’s compliance rate for such has increased from around 50% on average, to 80%." https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-actions-more-government-requests-for-removals-under-elon-musk/648865/This is not a case where Elon Musk's policy stands in contrast to a government's wishes. It's just him being selectively hypocritical. He'd happily censor away if this didn't irk him personally. He's a hypocrite. Granted, I agree with the overall point BJ is making. Twitter should not comply with government censorship to the degree that it has been doing in recent years. But it's a misrepresentation to paint Elon Musk as our savior when he's literally the exact opposite. He loves government censorship. While many things changed, a significant change was Twitter itself. Before Musk, Twitter took a considerably more proactive approach in policing what people could post, removing bots, hate speech and other excesses. Musk has unbanned a lot of PBUs, and has cut their CS department down to the bare minimum. It's entirely possible that the reason governments request more censorship is because Twitter no longer does anything themselves. It's not the only change, of course. Western society has polarized further in the meantime, and more strongman leaders feel empowered to clamp down on "free" speech. Whether that's Erdogan, Orban, Modi or any of too many others. I agree with this analysis. It's hard to draw any firm conclusions just from looking at two sets of numbers and percentages, especially when the government takedown requests are not differentiated between illegal things that should obviously be banned like CP and governments just wishing to crack down on political dissent on social media. Either way, my point was not to claim Elon to be a saviour of free speech. My point was we shouldn't have governments that are permitted to silence dissent. I was hoping to find unanimous agreement on that here but evidently Elon is too much of a lightning rod that trying to stick it to him is more important than trying to stick it to the people you've listed. It's not about Elon. Of course it's not great that governments crack down on dissent. But countries and cultures have different views on what free speech is and which parts are important and your coming into this from a *very* US perspective it seems. Remember that these are mostly democratic countries where the people have shaped their laws. I visit r/conservative weekly to check in with opinions that are pretty far from mine. The conservative free-speech brigade loves to talk shit about other countries. Now it's Brazil but just recently it was the UK. Why? Because they had riots over the Swift stabbings and among other things they cracked down on people trying to inflame the situation. Completely heinous to a US crowd because they would 100% be protected if they did it there. But in many countries free speech is not considered above people actively being assholes in order to make a bad situation worse and the government is trusted to not run amok with that power. Also the US free speech situation is not exactly a shining beacon inspiring others right now. While you may have free speech (political) discourse seems to be an open sewer ripping your country apart right now. I prefer to stay with our mostly free but civil system that's watched over by the government and EU over whatever it is the US of A are doing. Yes, you are right. I have a very US perspective here. For example the story of the girl in the UK that was arrested for posting the rap lyrics to a song to honor her dead friend: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk?feature=shareTo me it's unimaginable to get arrested for something like that. It's also quite perplexing because then it begs the question would a rapper be allowed to perform their song that contains offensive lyrics or do they get a pass? Perhaps to Europeans being permitted to post the n-word on social media without facing legal consequences is unimaginable. I suppose the US itself has a privileged position where the racial schisms in Europe might be a little fresher than in the US which has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning. Either way, I think we are sort of on a precipice here. Legislation designed to police speech on the internet seems to be increasing dramatically. I think we are going to see this move in one direction or another quite heavily in the coming years and it's really sad to see the direction some people want to go. People don’t want to go in that direction, by and large. Least within the thread, I’d say it’s probably rather different outside of it. You pick the most fringe examples, ultimately non-impactful. Somebody got arrested and nothing happened really. Do I agree with it, well no. Meanwhile we had wholesale riots in the UK based on falsehoods as to the origin of a murderer being a Muslim migrant, businesses I know in my own city burnt out, with owners saying fuck it they’re not coming back, foreign nurses targeted and vowing not to return once their contracts are up, a bloke in my locale of Belfast left in intensive care after having the shit beat out of him for being mistaken for a Muslim. While you’ve got Elon Musk almost palpably masturbating on Twitter over the prospect of a race war and angrily reacting at the temerity of folks over here saying maybe you should moderate that kind of stuff a little? Ok perhaps a tad hyperbolic on the last bit. Or perhaps not, judge for oneself It’s certainly a difficult balancing act, and I’d prefer if various stakeholders erred on the side of caution, equally I think there’s a fair amount of precedent that going full laissez faire on it doesn’t work too well in practice. I have two questions for your post. My first is what if the murderer actually was a Muslim migrant? Surely Muslim migrants are not infallible and it’s not impossible for them to murder. Should posts on social media pointing out that fact be banned? Or would the resulting race riots be more acceptable because at least they are predicated on a truth instead of a lie? My 2nd question is can you provide the context of Elon musk palpably masturbating over the prospect of a race war? I haven’t really followed the UK story that closely. I’m aware he’s made some posts predicting a civil war but predicting something and wanting some are not the same. But he wasn’t, it wasn’t one of those cases of ambiguity, or a complex issue, it just wasn’t the case. I’ll see if I can dig out the article, the BBC did a bit of digging as to the trail of where and how this particular story spread. If memory serves it seemed highly likely to be a deliberate, malicious bit of disinformation, but mostly spread by the merely ignorant subsequently. In your hypothetical it would be the truth, one that might have unfortunate consequences but hey sometimes that comes with the territory. There was a similar sparking of spontaneous rioting in Dublin where that was indeed the case. Let’s say some bloke gets shot in San Francisco and the same kinda mechanisms of misinformation. Let’s say a completely untrue story about it being a cop shooting an unarmed person starts spreading like wildfire, and leads to a bunch of civil disturbances. It would seem prudent to me to make an effort to douse those flames sooner, rather than have them get out of hand. You’re in territory that isn’t a million miles away from the classic shouting fire in a crowded theatre scenario. I can’t really be remotely objective about Mr Musk, but doing his whole le epic shit poster shtick about civil disturbances partly precipitated by his own refusal to moderate his large social media platform, maybe not the best thing to say. As I frequently say I’d like to see some kind of wider collaboration and certain agreed frameworks on how to approach such things come into place, rather than it being rather ad hoc/governments occasionally intervening, and something that errs on the side of being as permissive as possible. Such collaboration could also really spread the load of a quite large problem for companies to tackle on an individual basis. You could have a shared database of known malicious ‘news’ sources for example, and make it harder for them to propagate their nonsense. The problem is only going to get worse with AI tools letting people churn out plausible, reasonably well-presented stuff in seconds. Never mind image and increasingly video/audio generation. Riots over police shootings was so 2020. I agree these are unprecedented times we are in with how quickly information can spread and in different ways it can spread. Russian troll farms, armies of bots, deepfake AI, etc are not things we've had in public forums before. My mind is not set in stone and I don't rule out changing my mind if the problem becomes severe enough. I think an analogy can be made to the COVID thread where I've always said that I don't oppose all mitigation measures out of principle. If COVID killed say 10% of people instead of <1% I would have been on board with everyone else. If race riots were happening every day because of mutterings on social media maybe I would change my position. In general I obviously err more on the side of personal liberty than public safety than most of the people here so I'm fine with an 'agree to disagree' disposition.
To reiterate I don’t think social media has a responsibility to censor things that are true, that may cause a public order issue. Merely they should make a more concerted effort with complete, verifiable fabrications.
Don’t wanna go all Bachman-Turner Overdrive on it but I really think with AI it’s a case of you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
I think pretty damn simple pre-emptive safeguards and precautions should have been in place from day zero there at source.
Some companies have to my knowledge, but a lot of heavy lifting has been left to the ‘concerned citizens’ types and they’re fighting a losing battle there.
Average Joe/Jane aren’t going to stick every post or image they see into one of those third party AI detection tools to verify it. That stuff should be embedded into the various platforms that create or propagate the sharing of such content.
As I quite like the ‘community notes’ or similar embedded flags, a ‘btw this is an AI generated image’ goes a long way I think.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On September 02 2024 19:29 EnDeR_ wrote:
As with everything, it's all fun and games until businesses start getting torched and people start dying. The UK riots over intentional misinformation is a very relevant case in point, with a clear parallel in Brazil's handling of the X ban over the riots over there.
For BJ: where do you feel the line should be in these instances? What should 'X' do?
1. Politician intentionally muddies the waters and amplifies misinformation message with clear plausible deniability. For example, Farage publicly questioning during the riots whether the truth about the attack was being withheld by the police and speculating that the security services knew the suspect. Is that actionable? What actions would you take? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
2. Average Joe posts on X that refugees are the cause of all our woes and their accommodation should be torched. Is this actionable? What would be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
3. A more famous person with a history of agitating, e.g. Tommy Robinson, does the same thing as 2. Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
4. Someone posts a picture of refugee accommodation in a thread about torching refugees and captions it "FYI". Is this actionable? What should be the action in this case? Should the person face legal proceedings? Would you envision jail time for such a post?
Alas I am not BJ but I’ll give my half a dollar.
Legally, unless you have actual proof it was done intentionally dishonestly, I think it’s difficult to advocate for legal censure in 1 and 3’s case. It’s one of those frustrating ‘I fucking know what you’re doing, but I cannae prove it’ ones.
2 and 4 you’re getting into incitement territory, but for me it’s somewhat contextual. If said individuals are constantly advocating for refugees to have their places torched, yet maybe a police visit may do them good. Equally it could be a recently unemployed person who’s had a few too many beers and is venting, or a misjudged shitpost.
As for non-legal sanctions I mean I think it’s perfectly reasonable to, on whatever platform throw out a ‘don’t do this again or we’ll ban you’ warning, or straight throw the hammer.
In the specific case of Farage well, show your working or retract the claim.
There is quite famous precedent in the UK for the police avoiding tackling child abuse, and a quite horrific level of child/teen abuse for not wanting to appear racially insensitive or target a particular community. So such things do happen, and should have an outlet to be aired but extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Or well, at least some evidence.
Hey maybe you end up in a spot where people can make their ‘I reckon…’ claims, with a wee ‘This user has not substantiated their claims’ disclaimer, which would be an improvement for me. Less so for regular folks but I think for notable public figures that would be a reasonable filter
|
People who are in favor of government "collaborating" with tech always seems to fall into the typical blind spot...what if the person on the other end from the social media company is trying to do more than stop misinformation? If people really believe Trump will "try to be a dictator from day one" ehat on earth are people doing justifying government "pressure" (or whatever word Zuckerberg used)? It's not like before social media people were any more immune to bad info. Its not like there were never riots or mobs before FB. That's before we get to things like COVID or Hunter Biden where these entities were "pressured" by governments to suppress either not obviously false or even true information. I just don't get the disconnect between thinking democracy could fail and thinking the government should be allowed yo do this. Either a basic failure to do 2+2=4 or no one believes half of their heated rhetoric, in which case maybe they should be suppressed from saying it
|
United States24740 Posts
On September 03 2024 00:31 Introvert wrote:
It's not like before social media people were any more immune to bad info.
Whether this is strictly true or not, keep in mind that information spread very differently prior to social media. For example, pre-social-media it was much harder for a State-sponsored agent in Russia to manipulate thousands of Americans into doing something dangerous based on misinformation.
|
United States43232 Posts
|
On September 03 2024 01:50 KwarK wrote:
Just turn it all off.
It may just be the old man in me speaking, but that doesn't actually seem like the worst idea. Just turn the Internet back 20 years or so, before social media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
