Zuckerberg and Facebook

[Dill]

(10-24-2019, 10:30 AM)Au165 Wrote: In terms of Facebook and the whole misinformation campaigns, their job isn't to regulate speech, even speech that is false. As much as people hate Zukerberg he is right on this one and the fact people actually want to ask a company to do such a thing leads to a very dangerous precedent. Instead of trying to limit people's exposure to false information, we should look in the mirror and ask ourselves why it's so damn easy for people to believe it. We don't properly teach our children how to critically reason and question the information they receive. We need to equip people with the tools to make good decision over trying to shield them from potentially making bad ones.

Once you go down the road of asking platforms to block false information you open up the question of who gets to determine what is false? That definition of "false" can then be dictated by the person enforcing the rules and now you've empowered someone to control content and manipulate what people see. Let's say an Atheist is now in charge of regulating the information and they decide that religion is false information and they ban it, are people going to still be happy they have given someone that power? Regulation of speech is a really powerful tool that you have to be careful who you allow to wield it.

A good, thoughtful post, A. It set me to thinking too.

I'd say, the question of "who gets to determine what is false" appears at every level, including when we "look in the mirror." I don't presume it can't be answered.

I agree with you that people are not answering that question very well, and teaching children to reason better should be part of the solution. But as soon as people don't like what their children are being taught, they'll be asking "who gets to determine what is thought?"  

Liberals cannot answer "who gets to?" questions very well, so they leave free speech (and education) up to the market where possible.  That road has led us to Trump, Fox and the Barr-run DOJ--people only to happy to decide what is false and the power to enforce their decisions.  

But defining "false" information on Facebook platforms is, at bottom, not really more difficult than resolving libel suits. Someone finally does get to decide, with the appropriate checks. Even if people want to keep truth a function of the market, companies have become quite good at avoiding slander and potential suits.  Facebook could be too.

Your example of the atheist who regulates religious "information" posits a censor unconstrained by voters and legal precedent. I don't think the choice has to between between that sort of unchecked power and a free market of speech.

At the moment, I view unchecked propaganda is a greater threat to democracy than censorship based upon legal, scientific and logical criteria of truth claims.  We can have the latter if enough of us  voters want it.