48 pct of Americans say government should restrict “false” information online(pewresearch.org)
pewresearch.org
48 pct of Americans say government should restrict “false” information online
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-government-should-take-steps-to-restrict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/
33 comments
I know that statistic says sample size isn't as important as is representation. But I doubt they really got a representation of 300 million Americans from a sample set of 11,178 people who volunteered to be in a group that can be called on to answer these sort of surveys.
So I personally always take things like this with a grain of salt.
So I personally always take things like this with a grain of salt.
We had something that largely worked, the fairness doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Was removed in 1985.
That wasn't perfect but was considerably better than what we have now.
It seems to be a 'new' idea that there isn't really objective truth - it's all just opinions. Clearly that isn't the case many things are knowable and provable.
Also there are countries, organizations and individuals who are operating in bad faith. That they are knowingly spreading often fairly easily disprovable lies.
If they do so they should be sue-able. There should be the options to constrain them legally by the government through due process.
Also we have this odd situation where 'news' often doesn't mean 'news' it's opinion pieces presented in the style of 'news'. That's not confusing by accident.
Oh and we have a traditional media that has it's business model disrupted where most of the (costly) analysis originated, to tech media company's who claim to just be a 'conduit' even though they manipulate what you see via black box algorithms. And they take no responsibility for spreading lies and misinformation. Their economics are around clicks/attention. They don't pay for investigative reporting. They attention economy gets really fired up with outrage clicks.
Bottom line is there should be significant repercussions for knowingly spreading lies and disinformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Was removed in 1985.
That wasn't perfect but was considerably better than what we have now.
It seems to be a 'new' idea that there isn't really objective truth - it's all just opinions. Clearly that isn't the case many things are knowable and provable.
Also there are countries, organizations and individuals who are operating in bad faith. That they are knowingly spreading often fairly easily disprovable lies.
If they do so they should be sue-able. There should be the options to constrain them legally by the government through due process.
Also we have this odd situation where 'news' often doesn't mean 'news' it's opinion pieces presented in the style of 'news'. That's not confusing by accident.
Oh and we have a traditional media that has it's business model disrupted where most of the (costly) analysis originated, to tech media company's who claim to just be a 'conduit' even though they manipulate what you see via black box algorithms. And they take no responsibility for spreading lies and misinformation. Their economics are around clicks/attention. They don't pay for investigative reporting. They attention economy gets really fired up with outrage clicks.
Bottom line is there should be significant repercussions for knowingly spreading lies and disinformation.
The Fairness Doctrine never covered print -- only radio and TV, which were using "public" airwaves.
It would be a big -- and likely unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds -- stretch to bring the doctrine back and expand it to print or online media.
It would be a big -- and likely unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds -- stretch to bring the doctrine back and expand it to print or online media.
Social media companies don’t just upload info and spread it. People share stuff they want friends and family to see
Who decides what's false?
Bingo, that's the problem with censoring misinformation.
What needs to happen isn't censorship... I think more metadata needs to be provided with "news" information that gives cryptographically verifiable authorship, information source, date of publication and other items.
This would allow people to use their standard logic for determining the veracity of information to be used.
Yes, it needs supporting software and processes, but it's a better way to go than just trying to remove everything someone thinks is "false".
What needs to happen isn't censorship... I think more metadata needs to be provided with "news" information that gives cryptographically verifiable authorship, information source, date of publication and other items.
This would allow people to use their standard logic for determining the veracity of information to be used.
Yes, it needs supporting software and processes, but it's a better way to go than just trying to remove everything someone thinks is "false".
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/06/12/social-me...
It's already decided for us in indirect ways through influence on social media. Why bother censoring information when huge swaths of people will do it for you? Most of the public in the world, let alone USA are puppetted by algorithms and belief system of Silicon Valley. A person's brain has inputs and outputs. Inputs are overloaded with popular trends, social media posts, constant attention seeking and addiction culture fostered by these companies. Independent thought if it goes against the mainstream will get characterized as 'political' or worse 'misinformation', ultimately get shunned.
It's already decided for us in indirect ways through influence on social media. Why bother censoring information when huge swaths of people will do it for you? Most of the public in the world, let alone USA are puppetted by algorithms and belief system of Silicon Valley. A person's brain has inputs and outputs. Inputs are overloaded with popular trends, social media posts, constant attention seeking and addiction culture fostered by these companies. Independent thought if it goes against the mainstream will get characterized as 'political' or worse 'misinformation', ultimately get shunned.
Irrelevant. The process is the punishment.
Ultimately the fact finder at trial, just as in cases of fraud or defamation. But preliminarily often an agency, as with false advertising statutes.
The government and courts decide truth and falsity all day, everyday. That isn't new. The real issue is the scope of speech and activities that are put under scrutiny.
The government and courts decide truth and falsity all day, everyday. That isn't new. The real issue is the scope of speech and activities that are put under scrutiny.
Every Facebook post is going to trial.
Who decides what's obscene?
A society. Gov't doesn't beam down to Earth from space but is elected. Overstep and you won't be voted on again and the bullshit will be reversed
A society. Gov't doesn't beam down to Earth from space but is elected. Overstep and you won't be voted on again and the bullshit will be reversed
It absolutely should not be the government (in the context of media, at least).
Did you want Trump deciding what the truth was about January 6? About election fraud?
Do you want Biden deciding what the truth is about the Afghanistan pullout? About Biden's state of mental ability?
At least one of the two previous paragraphs should terrify you.
Did you want Trump deciding what the truth was about January 6? About election fraud?
Do you want Biden deciding what the truth is about the Afghanistan pullout? About Biden's state of mental ability?
At least one of the two previous paragraphs should terrify you.
Yeah, given recent history it's so odd to me that most people can't seem to imagine that a leader they don't like or agree with could also wield the power they are happy to give to government.
Would you be OK with your enemy having this power should be a litmus test for any power we grant to government.
Would you be OK with your enemy having this power should be a litmus test for any power we grant to government.
A court?
There is a partisan split: 65% of Democrats, vs 28% of Republicans, think the government should restrict false information, and 76% vs. 37% think tech companies should.
So it's political? And Covid is just another excuse to shit all over freedom lovers and destroy any bastion of liberty left alive.
Now it makes sense that people feel heroic by taking the burden of disease upon themselves to protect their Liberty ;)
Now it makes sense that people feel heroic by taking the burden of disease upon themselves to protect their Liberty ;)
Word to the Democrats: A year ago, that would have meant that Trump got to restrict "false information" about election fraud and January 6. Isn't that enough to show that this is a terrible idea?
[deleted]
Strange how the Democrats used to be the anti-censorship party and now the roles have flipped.
Rage against the machine would now be called praise the machine.
I guess the Democrats used to also be the 'slavery is good' party as well in the 1800s.
It's interesting to see how dynamic political party issues can change.
Rage against the machine would now be called praise the machine.
I guess the Democrats used to also be the 'slavery is good' party as well in the 1800s.
It's interesting to see how dynamic political party issues can change.
Probably a bad idea, but I’m not necessarily opposed to private companies doing it though as you have choice in the market.
I also wouldn’t mind a more comprehensive law that allows for lawsuits against people who are intentionally creating false information for profit. Although I imagine it would be hard to litigate.
I also wouldn’t mind a more comprehensive law that allows for lawsuits against people who are intentionally creating false information for profit. Although I imagine it would be hard to litigate.
We already have that. It's called "fraud", but the definition of "profit" is not terribly loose.
Is it false information to say kids don’t need a covid vaccine for example?
Under the current regime, the answer to your question is basically "if the CDC says so then yes."
Translation: "Pewresearch wants us to think that Americans support censorship. The claim is backed by a bogus questionnaire given to 0.003% of Americans."
This is a great comment and a good point.
The news media is constantly manufacturing discontent these days.
The news media is constantly manufacturing discontent these days.
0% of those people will agree that both "Biden has perfect cognitive ability" and "Trump had the election stolen from him" are true
Free speech is not unlimited and it's obviously being used to attack the US.
If you spread falsehoods online with the intent to harm (ex. vaccine misinformation has killed people), then you should have to defend it in court. Let a jury decide.
Thoughts?
If you spread falsehoods online with the intent to harm (ex. vaccine misinformation has killed people), then you should have to defend it in court. Let a jury decide.
Thoughts?
Intent to harm? Hard to prove. And not yet known.
Would you also extend this malicious prosecution to those who advocate for those with prior infections to get vaccines? That certainly is intent to harm if there is no provable benefit, and even a few VAERs reports.
The real issue is one of timing. Some people know, understand, internalize and regurgitate truths while others take years to catch up. I'm thinking government agencies. How dangerous would it be to start throwing people in jail for being ahead of established science?
How would you mind read someones comments and qualify them if they hold a dicotomy of views with varying probabilities in their head? Are they only allowed to profess what they believe to be true? What is most likely true? Do they have to present all 9 future possibilities and give them percentages and write a dissertation to back it up just to stay out of jail?
I have a better idea. Stop trying to be a hero, no one needs your saving, no one wants your saving. It's this kind of talk that makes people disengage, shut their mouths and become entrenched in their ways.
No longer is it about science, it's about resisting coercion.
And that's where we are today. Better some die today, to save us from tyranny of the crowd tomorrow.
Would you also extend this malicious prosecution to those who advocate for those with prior infections to get vaccines? That certainly is intent to harm if there is no provable benefit, and even a few VAERs reports.
The real issue is one of timing. Some people know, understand, internalize and regurgitate truths while others take years to catch up. I'm thinking government agencies. How dangerous would it be to start throwing people in jail for being ahead of established science?
How would you mind read someones comments and qualify them if they hold a dicotomy of views with varying probabilities in their head? Are they only allowed to profess what they believe to be true? What is most likely true? Do they have to present all 9 future possibilities and give them percentages and write a dissertation to back it up just to stay out of jail?
I have a better idea. Stop trying to be a hero, no one needs your saving, no one wants your saving. It's this kind of talk that makes people disengage, shut their mouths and become entrenched in their ways.
No longer is it about science, it's about resisting coercion.
And that's where we are today. Better some die today, to save us from tyranny of the crowd tomorrow.
The vaccine argument was just an example. I'm not even fully on board with this, I don't have answers. I'm hoping to discuss.
I also didn't suggest "throwing people in jail"
I also didn't suggest "throwing people in jail"
I think it's a good example though. There is 200 years of medical history to guide us, and anyone trying to use that knowledge before it can be reconfirmed is promptly ejected from the discussion.
Knowledge and correctness are time dependant was my main point. At what point does a theory become a fact? At what point does nuance overrule that previous "fact"?
For these reasons, I can't support any censorship at all.
Knowledge and correctness are time dependant was my main point. At what point does a theory become a fact? At what point does nuance overrule that previous "fact"?
For these reasons, I can't support any censorship at all.
You don't support any?
What about (from Wikipedia):
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.
What about (from Wikipedia):
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.
What great idea has ever been universally accepted at inception?
Lets go with the theory of evolution. At inception, how would the theory of evolution not be labeled misinformation in this context?
This is an utterly moronic view of the infallibility of our current state of knowledge about the world.
Lets go with the theory of evolution. At inception, how would the theory of evolution not be labeled misinformation in this context?
This is an utterly moronic view of the infallibility of our current state of knowledge about the world.
If not for Chinese censorship, maybe we would be given more time to stop the pandemic from spreading from China and they would have more time in Wuhan.
If we had censorship in the West, the anticonsensus (at the time) view that masks work might have never grew.
Similarly with lab leak hypothesis. We dont know the truth here yet, but would you hear about that?
I understand it in principle but the reality of that just doesnt work. It has been also debated for literally centuries by philosophers, but who reads philosophers?