Why should meta decide what are “reliable sources of information”?
Comment on Meta has HOW MANY people working on "election integrity" ahead of the 2024 election?
thantik@lemmy.world 7 months ago“the people” are the idiots spreading these lies. They’re susceptible to propaganda.
Kaboom@reddthat.com 7 months ago
thantik@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’s practically impossible for individuals or governments to fact-check every piece of information effectively at the scale social media companies operate at. Social media companies have the resources and technology to implement automated and manual fact-checking processes to handle this volume.
They also have the only direct control over their platforms, needed to implement measures to fact-check in the first place. It’s their platform, so they should have control over it. They have a responsibility to combat misinformation, given the huge amount of influence they have over politics.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Yet, they are often wrong. It isn’t up to social media to decide what the “truth” is.
A good example is facebook blocked the hunter laptop story even though it was true. That impacts elections and that isn’t their job.
People should be able to read and evaluate the information and make their own decisions.
Now I will caveat that with i don’t mind them blocking meme and crap like that. I do not mind them blocking legitimate news outlets. That isn’t their job to be the keeper of the ‘truth’. That is why I don’t use facebook. They spread propaganda and not information.
thantik@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Nothing about the hunter laptop story had any merit whatsoever. You are a great example of why people can’t be trusted.
PizzaMane@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Because the alternative is the government. Would you prefer the government tell us what the truth is?
Kaboom@reddthat.com 7 months ago
In my mind, social media sites shouldnt decide what is truth. Thats why I use lemmy.
Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That sounds great if you ignore the role Meta has already undertaken. Two great examples are on their own website, where they said allowing manipulated “ video that was edited to make it appear as though U.S. President Joe Biden is inappropriately touching his adult granddaughter’s chest” to stay up and be considered fine, while originally choosing to silence all coverage of October 7th under rules enacted after the event only reversing course after questions were asked about all the ad money spent by both sides
thantik@lemmy.world 7 months ago
This looks like a very loop-hole way of those actors getting around Meta’s ruleset. When you create a set of rules, you’ve got to apply them evenhandedly, or what is the point? If Meta were to take it down, in violation of their own rules - it would be biased.