The Right/Left dichotomy on social media in a nutshell.

Amazing how nuts think they can put it in a nutshell, and it;s always THEIR nutshell and their favorite flavor configured to their particular distortions. You are unable to address this issue without your invariable insults to Trump, your blaming him while excusing the left for doing things worse. Always have. When social platforms start to "censor" the content users post specifically to create political bias, their category changes. If you are only a "platform", any rules of exclusion must be uniform and equally applied- and not used as a political weapon or tool. When that happens, the "platform" becomes a PUBLISHER. What's legal then changes dramatically. Equally important, that is designed to disseminate intentional misinformation, which makes them a propaganda mill masquerading as open public discussion.

Moral people would not do such things, because they allow others equal rights regardless of whether they like the opinion or not. But I doubt you understand this in the way I do. I believe in the constitution and believe it applies to every citizen regardless of politics, color, wealth, position. I may think you make a total fool of yourself expressing an opinion, but I recognize you have a right to do that.

You DO NOT have the right to suppress political opinions you don't like or people you don't like on a social platform.

 

Why do you folks have such difficulty understanding the difference between expressing an "opposing view" and telling a lie? Twitter didn't flag numerous tweets by Individual 1 for stating his position on tax policy. He was flagged for, among other things, lying.

 

As someone typically labeled on the left, I completely disagree with this.

It’s not because I like misinformation spreading across social media, but more about the fact that I don’t trust Silicon Valley sociopaths to make a fair judgement about what is true and what isn’t. This only further weaponizes social media as a propaganda platform, and has served to legitimize insidious lies in the eyes of those who believe them. When you restrict something you give it more allure, and promote the victim complex of certain people.

As the law currently exists, social media is not a protected 1st Amendment zone. There are a lot of terms and conditions you must agree to when signing up for such platforms, and honestly when looking into a lot of cases of bans, the user broke those conditions. Now, this is a more pro-private enterprise position that Republicans would typically advocate, but them getting the short end of the stick has made them flip their traditional standing.

The real question is if social media is important enough a space to extend 1st Amendment protections to. Some people call it the new public square, I haven’t seen any argument on twitter that could pass for debate.

Disinformation campaigns take advantage of social media’s promotional algorithms. There is a case to make that these platforms are being abused for a purpose they were not designed for. And in that case it may be possible to not ban misinformation, but limit the rate at which it can spread. This would have to be up to the designer of the platform.

 

Bot accounts are typically frowned upon, however, machine learning is not. And it is the machine learning that seeks out targets more susceptible to any propaganda. This is a big business, and is becoming used more prominently in political campaigns. But how to deal with it is a difficult question.

The problems aren’t new, foreign propaganda has always existed, and so has misinformation. It has just become so fast and ubiquitous that we are becoming overwhelmed. Social media is already groomed for a perspective, depending on your country, certain political speech is allowed, while others are not. We’re already down this path and it has not improved the misinformation, frankly, it continues to get more ridiculous.

The beauty of the internet is the possibilities of a decentralized information center. The more isolated it gets, the more radicalized the ostracized become. Instead of staying busy trying to scrub misinformation from the internet, we should try to understand why people believe it.

 

They believe it because they want to. Reality has been reduced to a matter of opinion in some circles.

 

Oh, I agree completely.

There has always been a segment of the population removed from objective reality. Never has it reached these levels.

I see much of it as a choice people make; no different than choosing a church or club. The GOP "platform" has become strictly one of culture wars. This keeps emotions high, which leaves people susceptible to "us vs them" propaganda.

I'm really hesitant to say this, as there is contrary evidence, but those who deny objective reality and logical deduction seem to exhibit an almost religious worldview in their politics.

 

YOUR the one making this claim.

"which is a fancy way of saying "social media platforms must be prevented from allowing "FREE SPEEH" to be spread unchecked"

Prove it.

 

"social media platforms must be prevented from allowing misinformation to be spread unchecked"
"social media platforms must be prevented from allowing "FREE SPEEH" to be spread unchecked"

The two words are interchangeable -- as information is part of free speech - regardless of whether or not someone does not like that information - and wants to call it "misinformation"..

All the Totalitarians love to do just that - label info they don't like - "misinformation" - in order to clamp down on freedom of speech/information/press.

It is the main tactic - History 101.

 

Misinformation is information that is not true. You obviously don't have a problem with spewing info that is not true.

 

Misinformation is "Information" - and what is claimed to be "misinformation" is not always un-true .

Regardless - believe in freedom of speech - is not belief only in speech you agree with - everyone believes in that (so this has nothing to do with what I think about the speech - true - untrue or otherwise) If you don't believe in freedom for speech that you disagree with - then you don't believe in freedom of speech "Salman Rushdie".

 

Ah, no it has NOTHING to with agree/disagree it has to do with whether or not facts are being distorted or flat out lying.

 

Lying is speech - whether you like it or not - has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. Belief in free speech however would include accepting of speech you disagree with.

The speech in question however is not necessarily lying - and this seems to be the part you are not getting - You have a political group claiming they want to - "eliminate" misinformation from Social Media.

in this case "misinformation" is code word for "Speech we disagree with" - which would include "Misinformation" but also stuff they just disagree and they will just call it misinformation.

 

PROVE IT.

 

That's what always happens when you Gov't Govt power to arbitrarily censor speech .. and as stated previously - go read a history book if you need proof - Stalin - Hitler - China - and a gazillion other despots .

Further - if you don't understand that it is a hairs breath between "misinformation" and "stuff one does not disagree with" - in the context of the OP - which is clearly the case given your request to prove the obvious - then perhaps understanding human interaction is not your forte.

 

I speak for myself. Since I refuse to suckle from either parties nipple, I see both sides as manipulative and dishonest.