So where are the free speech extremists now? Should Russian agitators be allowed to continue to attack the West using a sustained injection of misinformation and propaganda?
That only works if someone can hear it. The last several years of social media have broken that paradigm. The Internet becomes a personalized echo chamber and that "more speech" will never reach you. Unless the listener makes active effort to understand multiple viewpoints, it's a lost cause.
There is speech you don't like, combined with a technical problem, and the conclusion you jump to is censorship? Something is wrong with you. Come up with a better solution.
That only works if someone can hear it. The last several years of social media have broken that paradigm. The Internet becomes a personalized echo chamber and that "more speech" will never reach you.
Facebook has come up with a solution to that. They put a fact-check message on factually incorrect posts.
There is speech you might not like but is true. So depending which side of the political divide you are on "Donald Trump won the 2016 election" and "Donald Trump lost the 2020 election".
Then there is speech that is just false and bat shit crazy quack science. For example "5G causes coronvirus", "Bill Gates is going to microchip you with the vaccine", "the COVID vaccines will 'dereligous' you", "the COVID vaccines are going to sterilize black people", "COVID-19 is fake".
The facebook solution needs to be expanded to all social media and modified so that the posts are simply removed.
One would have thought that many of the quack science things expounded by people without medical qualifications (though one notes the dereligious crazyness comes from a medical doctor, which should get you struck off in any sane country) would count as practising medicine without a license and have to be removed.
Free speech. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The antidote to speech is more speech. I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
The antidote to speech is more speech.
That only works if someone can hear it. The last several years of social media have broken that paradigm. The Internet becomes a personalized echo chamber and that "more speech" will never reach you. Unless the listener makes active effort to understand multiple viewpoints, it's a lost cause.
Re: (Score:2)
There is speech you don't like, combined with a technical problem, and the conclusion you jump to is censorship? Something is wrong with you. Come up with a better solution.
That only works if someone can hear it. The last several years of social media have broken that paradigm. The Internet becomes a personalized echo chamber and that "more speech" will never reach you.
Facebook has come up with a solution to that. They put a fact-check message on factually incorrect posts.
Re:Free speech. (Score:2)
There is speech you might not like but is true. So depending which side of the political divide you are on "Donald Trump won the 2016 election" and "Donald Trump lost the 2020 election".
Then there is speech that is just false and bat shit crazy quack science. For example "5G causes coronvirus", "Bill Gates is going to microchip you with the vaccine", "the COVID vaccines will 'dereligous' you", "the COVID vaccines are going to sterilize black people", "COVID-19 is fake".
The facebook solution needs to be expanded to all social media and modified so that the posts are simply removed.
One would have thought that many of the quack science things expounded by people without medical qualifications (though one notes the dereligious crazyness comes from a medical doctor, which should get you struck off in any sane country) would count as practising medicine without a license and have to be removed.