Is it now forbidden to be wrong?

[DrZoidberg]

Articles like this worry me:

Climate change: Facebook fails to flag denial, study finds

Researchers tracked thousands of posts denying climate change - and only 8% were marked as misinformation.

www.bbc.com

In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.

 

[Elixir]

There is a difference between being wrong and being deceptive. i.e. lying.

 

[laughing dog]

There are plenty of venues for people to spout their lies and misinformation. No vendor is under compulsion to allow the quality of their product or service to be diluted or soiled. Facebook is attempting (and doing rather poorly) to protect the quality of the service.

Your OP is an example of making an extreme leap to a false conclusion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Articles like this worry me:

Climate change: Facebook fails to flag denial, study finds

Researchers tracked thousands of posts denying climate change - and only 8% were marked as misinformation.

www.bbc.com

In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.

Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a difference between being wrong and being deceptive. i.e. lying.

Ok. So what? It's also ok to lie.

Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.

 

[Patooka]

Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.

The owner of the bar can kick you out if you don't shut the fuck up about the holocaust being fake. If you're in facebook's bar, you drink by their rules.

I'm looking forward to your obvious response being something in the realms of, "How is that different to discrimination? Where will it end?"

 

[Trausti]

By curating the content on its site, does FB become a publisher subject to civil liability?

 

[Politesse]

I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.

 

[Shadowy Man]

By curating the content on its site, does FB become a publisher subject to civil liability?

Do users of Facebook agree to Facebook’s rules when signing up? Aren’t they a private company providing a private service to those who willingly choose to partake of that service?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Articles like this worry me:

Climate change: Facebook fails to flag denial, study finds

Researchers tracked thousands of posts denying climate change - and only 8% were marked as misinformation.

www.bbc.com

In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.

Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.

Ok, fine. So what?

In Egyptian tombs they wrote all the things that went well in the pharao's reign. They left out anything negative. We know the context. So we understand that ancient Egypt wasn't a never ending success story. We also know that Abrham Lincoln didn't really say that we shouldn't trust everything we read on the Internet.

Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.

The owner of the bar can kick you out if you don't shut the fuck up about the holocaust being fake. If you're in facebook's bar, you drink by their rules.

I'm looking forward to your obvious response being something in the realms of, "How is that different to discrimination? Where will it end?"

I don't think people get thrown out of bars for that

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.

I don't think anyone has that responsibility. The only responsibility we have is to seek bliss on our own terms. That's it

 

[DrZoidberg]

There are plenty of venues for people to spout their lies and misinformation. No vendor is under compulsion to allow the quality of their product or service to be diluted or soiled. Facebook is attempting (and doing rather poorly) to protect the quality of the service.

Your OP is an example of making an extreme leap to a false conclusion.

That's not how the article is formulated. It makes it sound like this is something that it is desirable to stop and that Facebook has a duty to stop it.

If we want to get morals involved, the highest moral value here is that of free expression. The most moral thing to do for Facebook here is the easiest, ie nothing

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Articles like this worry me:

Climate change: Facebook fails to flag denial, study finds

Researchers tracked thousands of posts denying climate change - and only 8% were marked as misinformation.

www.bbc.com

In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.

Well first, the underlying post needs to actually be coming from a person, not a Bot before we say Facebook is censoring anything. If it is a person and they are just being stupid, there isn't much to control there.

One trouble with Facebook is the ease to disseminate fake information using Bots. And then it gets latched onto. There isn't much that can be done other than if an account isn't attached to a human or a transparent organization, all posts should be labeled as a Bot. This will only go so far though. Facebook created a monster they have no control over and there is little viable control to be had, other than ending the anonymity.

Ok, fine. So what?

Okay, so you are having trouble agreeing with me accepting that moderating individual opinions isn't a positive thing? Do you feel that you just need to be disagreeable?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

By curating the content on its site, does FB become a publisher subject to civil liability?

Do users of Facebook agree to Facebook’s rules when signing up? Aren’t they a private company providing a private service to those who willingly choose to partake of that service?

As a private entity, they control it all (anything that is legal). Facebook, by default wouldn't give a damn... which is why we are knee deep in this issue to begin with.

When it comes to information exchange, the question is do they have any moral responsibility of the information that is exchanged and if so, between whom, and over what? Facebook is facing outside pressure to deal with misinformation. But what level of oversight is morally justified. Climate change denial? 2+2 = 5? Joe Rogan is a viable source of info for medicine?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.

And IIDB, TF, etc... have long held the rule that you can't accuse members of lying, because you can't know the intent. People should not lie and should not spread misinformation.

The trouble is, in order to know you are spreading misinformation, you have to know it is misinformation. And probably most of the spread of misinformation is by the sheep swallowing their ivermectin. One isn't lying if they think it is the actual truth.

 

[TSwizzle]

I don't like the way the article is formulated.

Me neither and this is precisely why the BBC should be defunded. It is the propaganda arm of the government.

 

[Politesse]

I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.

And IIDB, TF, etc... have long held the rule that you can't accuse members of lying, because you can't know the intent. People should not lie and should not spread misinformation.

The trouble is, in order to know you are spreading misinformation, you have to know it is misinformation. And probably most of the spread of misinformation is by the sheep swallowing their ivermectin. One isn't lying if they think it is the actual truth.

This is true. I don't think people should be thrown in jail for posting bad things on Facebook, nor is that what's happening. But I do think Facebook has every right to try and exert some manner of control over what gets posted on their platform, and if they know something is wrong, to halt its spread.

 

[Elixir]

The only responsibility we have is to seek bliss on our own terms. That's it

Well thank you, Ayn Rand.
Seriously, most of us outgrew that me-centric view of the universe when we measured our age in single-digit years.

 

[Elixir]

Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.

I agree, that would be best. But that's not how it is IRL.

 

[Politesse]

I don't agree. Everyone has a moral responsibility to seek out and teach truth, not falsehoods. It should not be "forbidden to be wrong", but no one should intentionally spread information they know to be wrong.

I don't think anyone has that responsibility. The only responsibility we have is to seek bliss on our own terms. That's it

At least Crowley added "an it harm none". You're not the only person in society whose rights matter.