this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

69421 readers
2764 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
0
It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media (theconversation.com)
submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Part of the problem is who decides what is misinformation. As soon as the state gets to decide what is and isn't true, and thus what can and cannot be said, you no longer have free speech.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Well, here’s how that was framed for participants of this study:

identified as misinformation based on a bipartisan fact check

And even with this, Republicans didn’t care if it was true or not.

We’re actually past the point of anyone being able to be considered truthful by Republicans. It either tickles their feelings right or it doesn’t and that is all.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The state deciding on speech is a red line yes but that’s not even on the table here. This is about social media moderation. It actually seems really suspiciously disingenuous to bring that up here.

OP: Thread about social media moderation

You: The state deciding what’s true is the death of free speech!

Actually your comment is one of the big problems in this debate. People can’t tell the difference between a private social media firm moderating hate content and the government taking away their freedom of speech. You just slurred the two together yourself by bringing this up here.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Centralized for-profit companies policing speech doesn’t really solve free speech concerns. It doesn’t violate the US first amendment, but corporate-approved speech isn’t really free speech either. No person or organization is really suitable to be the arbiter of truth, but at the same time unmoderated misinformation presents its own problems.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Yes it solves it. Companies are not required to carry your voice around the world, which is what their platforms do. Stop equating guaranteed amplification with your freedom of speech. It’s wrong and dumb. I’ve lived in countries that actually restrict speech and whatever the Facebook mod did to you is NOTHING. The only reason Americans even fall into this stupid way of thinking is because their speech is so free. When your speech has never truly been restricted you have no idea what that freedom even means.