11–20 of 732 posts
Also, i have to say its quite amazing to see Mark Zuckerberg on the JRE. Wouldnt have thought that would ever happen.
It's scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us, in a way that's virtually impossible for us to detect.
This is the great fear of many come to pass - censorship by algorithm. Facebook didn't outright ban sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop stories like Twitter did, they instead tweaked their algorithm to prevent the story from spreading. We found out about it this time because Zuckerberg owned up to it, but what about next time? For all we know, Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing this right now on a range of other s…
Not censorship to suppress falsehoods (or actual national secrets) but to suppress a true story. How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution? The Federal Government suppressing speech. Where is the Justice Department's investigation? It seems like egregious overstepping. Remember when Qwest refused the FBI requests to phone data and we all hailed them for sticking to princi…
It is a stickier than that though - I imagine Facebook fears regulation, not criminal prosecution. And if so, perhaps that fear led to the act of self-censorship. Can the government unconstitutionally suppress free speech via the threat of regulation? I personally don't think so.
Not censorship to suppress falsehoods (or actual national secrets) but to suppress a true story. How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution? The Federal Government suppressing speech. Where is the Justice Department's investigation? It seems like egregious overstepping. Remember when Qwest refused the FBI requests to phone data and we all hailed them for sticking to princi…
- what you should censor
- whether you should censor
when running a social media (more like an ad-platform but irrelevant to the point I'm making) service to this scale serving people from every demographic.
Anything you do is wrong.
If you don't censor, there's misinformation on a platform you control and you will be responsible for further conspiracies and actions/campaigns stemming from it in the worst case scenario. The cost outweighs the benefit. On the other hand, if you do censor, you piss people off anyway.
Its based on a comment he made on his appearance on the Joe Rogan experience(JRE #1863) a few days ago. Only extracts are on youtube as he moved to spotify. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://open.spotify.com/episode/51gxrAActH18RGhKNza598 Also, i have to say its quite amazing to see Mark Zuckerberg on the JRE. Wouldnt have thought that would ever happen.
Calling it “censorship at behest of FBI” is very disingenuous and misrepresents the story. I think what they did was very reasonable as a platform.
Not censorship to suppress falsehoods (or actual national secrets) but to suppress a true story. How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution? The Federal Government suppressing speech. Where is the Justice Department's investigation? It seems like egregious overstepping. Remember when Qwest refused the FBI requests to phone data and we all hailed them for sticking to princi…
Well it sounds like Facebook chose to self-censor after talking with the FBI. But they still had the legal right to not do so. It is a stickier than that though - I imagine Facebook fears regulation, not criminal prosecution. And if so, perhaps that fear led to the act of self-censorship. Can the government unconstitutionally suppress free speech via the threat of regulation? I personally don't think so.
The optics around this interaction are extremely unethical. Whether or not there was any actual legal pressure is only half of the issue. The other half is the appearance of unethical behavior.
The question of what gets pushed to the front page of some media platform is an interesting one, but I'm not sure censorship is the right mental frame. I'd like to think of it more as propaganda. It controls the narrative by choosing what to propagate and flood people with, not so much by censoring.
Another interesting dimension here too is that the previous flood of misinformation seems to also have been part of why this was specifically targeted. If you let too much misinformation go through, you're bound to start to believe everything is misinformation, and so here even the FBI and Facebook and other social media platforms thought: what if this is more misinformation, what if it's more Russian interference?
In fact, I think I read a while back this is a known tactic used by old USSR propaganda. You delegitimize real information by pushing a bunch of false info alongside it, and people can't discern truth from lie, and trust in information is lost.
It begs the question, which is worse, let the lies fly, or risk some false positive flags on the truth?
It's a tough problem all around.