It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.
Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes and whenever disinformation is desirable.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Part of the problem is who decides what is misinformation. As soon as the state gets to decide what is and isn’t true, and thus what can and cannot be said, you no longer have free speech.
Syl@jlai.lu 1 year ago
Education is key. Destroying education and critical thinking is the problem.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Don’t worry, the person you responded to is conservative so they’re doing their damnedest to finish off education
Korkki@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And who decides what is being taught if this is to be solved with education? That still just falls into the same dogma enforcement that presupposes objective truth especially in political matters. it just turns from censorship to indoctrination of some kind. There can be no real discussion about political matters if it’s presupposed that there is such thing as objective truth in some hard science sense in political discourse, because then every side in an argument from a position of objective truth and there is no way to compromise or approach the other side when everybody are either heretics or believers to your side.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The state deciding on speech is a red line yes but that’s not even on the table here. This is about social media moderation.
bamboo@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Centralized for-profit companies policing speech doesn’t really solve free speech concerns. It doesn’t violate the US first amendment, but corporate-approved speech isn’t really free speech either. No person or organization is really suitable to be the arbiter of truth, but at the same time unmoderated misinformation presents its own problems.
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You do not have free speech today.
The state does not have to be the one to decide these things, nor is it a case of “deciding” what is true, we have a long history of using proofs to solidify something as fact, or propaganda, or somewhere in between. This is functionally what history studies are about.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That brings up another thing. At what point does it become a “public space”?
Theres an old supreme court case on a company town that claimed someone was trespassing on a sidewalk. The supreme court ruled it was a public space, and thus they could pass out leaflets.
firstamendment.mtsu.edu/…/marsh-v-alabama-1946/
Imo, a lot of big sites have gotten to that stage, and should be treated as such.
Corgana@startrek.website 1 year ago
Nobody (besides maybe extreme conservatives) is advocating for “the state” to decide what “is and isn’t true”. That’s not what this is about.
Furthermore, “misinformation” and “disinformation” refer to things that can be true! Propogansists don’t always need to invent false facts for them to be used in deceptive ways. To suggest that the goverment should stay out of the matter unless they utilze a perfectly foolproof fact-o-meter is IMO, shortsighted. “The state” makes policy decisions all the time with imperfect facts.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
If you want to deal with misinformation, at some point someone has to say what misinformation is. Someone has to make a judgement on every fact, every event, every story.
And holy fuck my dude! “Furthermore, “misinformation” and “disinformation” refer to things that can be true!”
Thats some shit straight out of 1984. Censoring true facts? Wtf is wrong with you?
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Oh weird, you coincidentally are a conservative mod lol
Gee so surprising you’re mad about cEnSoRsHiP
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Well yeah, did you read the article?
Fucking tankies thinking inalienable rights are bad things.
dhork@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Except there have always been limits on speech, centered mainly on truth. Your freedom of speech doesn’t extend to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, for instance.
But we live in an age of alternative facts now, where science isn’t trusted if it comes up with conclusions that conflict with your world view. Do you get a pass if you are yelling “Fire” because you are certain there are cell phone jammers in the theater that are setting your brain on fire because you got the COVID shot and now the 5G nanoparticles can’t transmit back to Fauci’s mind control lair?
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes. Anyone in good faith attempting to warn others of any potential harm that they believe to be true to the best of their abilities should have their speech protected.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Technically, it’s causing a panic that’s illegal. Yelling fire is not. law.stackexchange.com/…/is-it-illegal-to-yell-fir…
Different states have different laws, of course, and I am not a lawyer, I just googled if it was actually illegal. Don’t actually go yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Pxtl@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Uh, you know that happens regularly in courtrooms right? Like, almost every court battle hinges on what’s true and what’s not. And courts are an arm of the state.
In some cases it’s directly about the truth of speech. Fraud, defamation, perjury, filing a false report, etc. are all cases where a court will be deciding whether a statement made publicly is true and punishing a party if it was not. Ask a CEO involved in a merger how much “free speech” they have.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Well, here’s how that was framed for participants of this study:
And even with this, Republicans didn’t care if it was true or not.
We’re actually past the point of anyone being able to be considered truthful by Republicans. It either tickles their feelings right or it doesn’t and that is all.
tastysnacks@programming.dev 1 year ago
Section 230 gets the state involved from the get go. Remove liability protections from the state and everything else will shake out. Make little tweaks from there as necessary. The broad protection of 230 is causing this issue.
cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Isnt a grand jury enough to deal with this kinda thing? Like before damage is done but I don’t see why that mechanism can’t be useful here too?
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Imo, not really. Juries are still problematic, in much the same way