Doesn’t reminding users not to be so gullible address that?
A problem is promoting unrealistic expectations that untrustworthy information is reliable because someone else will unerringly determine the truth & catch falsehoods from spreading.
Claiming that ever made sense is bogus.
What is your position here, that they dont have a responsibility or they do?
The platform hosts everyone from nazi sympathisers to famed and accredited journalists, should they be presented as equals? Because if there is no onus and it is all caught under the same blanket warning there is a false equivalency being presented.
That it’s irresponsible to sell a false bill of goods: a company sincere about not giving a fuck & that merely puts out an advisory is more credible than one that entertains illusions that fact-checking all social media isn’t a foolish endeavor.
We don’t get that in reality, so why should we pretend we can get that online?
Ultimately, the burden & responsibility to work out the truth is & has always been with the individual, and it’s irresponsible to pretend we can sever or transfer that responsibility, especially in an open medium like the town square, social media, or general reality.
There’s also the intractable problem of settling the truth.
Why should anyone trust a company or anyone to be arbiter of truth?
Infallible authorities don’t exist & they are inevitably going to get this wrong & draw wild conclusions like that pro-palestinian protests are antisemitic & need to be censored.
While they could merely place notes/comments of fallible, researched opinions, we already get that with discussions like in real life.
Social media isn’t a controlled publication like an encyclopedia or news agency that chooses its writers & staff.
It’s a communication platform open to the public.
Instead of promoting a false sense of confidence that lowers people’s guard with assurances no one can deliver, it’s better to cut the pretense, admit there is no real solution, and remind everyone the obvious—unreliable information from anyone is untrustworthy, so they need to grow up, verify their information, and keep their guard up.
Your argument is built upon the position that it would be impossible to guarantee the veracity when it just is not the case. Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.
If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible why cant the richest organisations on the planet be held to the same, or preferrably a higher, satandard?
Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.
The law doesn’t magically make open discussions not open.
By design, social media is open.
If discussion from the public is closed, then it’s no longer social media.
ban people who share false information
Banning people doesn’t stop falsehoods.
It’s a broken solution promoting a false assurance.
Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true.
There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies.
Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down.
Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed.
Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify.
If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible
Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing.
It has a prepared, coordinated message.
They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want.
Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked.
They aren’t claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
They asolutely should and likely do have a duty to challenge falsehoods.
The word private makes people feel like it isnt anyone’s business but that isnt the case.
I’d rather “trust” a company that cuts the bullshit with notices like
to remind the user that trusting noncredible information from unreliable sources is a ridiculous concept.
Except for the users presenting shit as facts and it being promoted through their platform.
Doesn’t reminding users not to be so gullible address that?
A problem is promoting unrealistic expectations that untrustworthy information is reliable because someone else will unerringly determine the truth & catch falsehoods from spreading. Claiming that ever made sense is bogus.
What is your position here, that they dont have a responsibility or they do?
The platform hosts everyone from nazi sympathisers to famed and accredited journalists, should they be presented as equals? Because if there is no onus and it is all caught under the same blanket warning there is a false equivalency being presented.
That it’s irresponsible to sell a false bill of goods: a company sincere about not giving a fuck & that merely puts out an advisory is more credible than one that entertains illusions that fact-checking all social media isn’t a foolish endeavor. We don’t get that in reality, so why should we pretend we can get that online? Ultimately, the burden & responsibility to work out the truth is & has always been with the individual, and it’s irresponsible to pretend we can sever or transfer that responsibility, especially in an open medium like the town square, social media, or general reality.
There’s also the intractable problem of settling the truth. Why should anyone trust a company or anyone to be arbiter of truth? Infallible authorities don’t exist & they are inevitably going to get this wrong & draw wild conclusions like that pro-palestinian protests are antisemitic & need to be censored. While they could merely place notes/comments of fallible, researched opinions, we already get that with discussions like in real life.
Social media isn’t a controlled publication like an encyclopedia or news agency that chooses its writers & staff. It’s a communication platform open to the public.
Instead of promoting a false sense of confidence that lowers people’s guard with assurances no one can deliver, it’s better to cut the pretense, admit there is no real solution, and remind everyone the obvious—unreliable information from anyone is untrustworthy, so they need to grow up, verify their information, and keep their guard up.
Your argument is built upon the position that it would be impossible to guarantee the veracity when it just is not the case. Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.
If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible why cant the richest organisations on the planet be held to the same, or preferrably a higher, satandard?
The law doesn’t magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open.
If discussion from the public is closed, then it’s no longer social media.
Banning people doesn’t stop falsehoods. It’s a broken solution promoting a false assurance.
Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed.
Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify.
Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want.
Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren’t claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
So, 4chan. You want Twitter to be 4chan.