Who do you trust to act as Censor?

[CivilDiscourse]

If you are in favor of "hate speech" and "fake news" being censored, who do you trust to do the censoring?

What group do you want to give the power to choose what is "hate" what is "Fake", what and who you are allowed to see and hear?

I don't really trust anyone to act as censor, which is why I am not in favor of censorship.

[rogue06]

Me.




Next question.

[Thoughtful Monk]

No one. Everyone has biases and blind spots; and no one is omniscient.

[Mountain Man]

I've never been one to let others tell me what to think.

[seer]

Me.




Next question.

No me!

[CivilDiscourse]

No me!

You've already shown yourself more than willing to squash someone because they expressed an opinion on a law you didn't like. So, obviously you cannot be trusted.

[Roy]

If you are in favor of "hate speech" and "fake news" being censored, who do you trust to do the censoring?

What group do you want to give the power to choose what is "hate" what is "Fake", what and who you are allowed to see and hear?

None. What is fake is determined by evidence, not by people.

[CivilDiscourse]

None. What is fake is determined by evidence, not by people.

Good in theory, but look at the Hunter Biden laptop story, or the Trump Russia server story, the Steele Dossier. In one a true story was censored, while in the other two false stories were ran with. Seems that the evidence was either too slow, or ignored.

[rogue06]

None. What is fake is determined by evidence, not by people.

Hunter's laptop was never fake news but the powers that be declared it to be so and squelched reporting on it.

[Mountain Man]

Hunter's laptop was never fake news but the powers that be declared it to be so and squelched reporting on it.

They're still squelching reporting on it even after the New York Times admitted that the story was genuine. Latest revelations show that Joe paid Hunter's legal fees in his business dealings with the Chinese government. Joe also had an unexplained income of over $5 million. These would be headline stories if they involved the Trump family, but you won't hear about it from mainstream sources.

[Sparko]

I think most platforms should only censor obvious criminal activity and specific rules for that platform (example, on Tweb we censor profanity and we have rules against advertising and where people can post). As long as they apply the rules equally to everyone, I think it is mostly OK.

Generally if someone is spouting a conspiracy theory or fake news, they will be argued with. That is what free speech and the internet is all about. Free discussion of ideas. If the idea is bad, you will have others argue against it. Sure you will have some idiots believe it, but if you try to censor it, they will just take that as "proof" that the conspiracy is true. Just look at us, we have people claiming things that others believe are "fake news" and "conspiracy theories" all the time, and it's fine, it is what drives the debates and discussions here. How boring would Tweb be if everyone only said things that everyone else already agreed with or believed?

I think the "fact checkers" have gone to extremes on other social media platforms. They started out with good intentions, to limit fake news, but what they turned into was being biased sources trying to shut down things they didn't agree with.

Our philosophy here at tweb is to let people say whatever they want. If they want to be a complete nutjob that is their business, just as long as they follow our rules they agreed to when they signed up. We don't allow advocating killing or violence toward people, profanity, flooding, advertising, or blatant racism, but pretty much everything else goes.

[rogue06]

They're still squelching reporting on it even after the New York Times admitted that the story was genuine.

22653482-4932-4540-b56b-8e63054a62a6.jpg
They might have mentioned it in passing adding a few more seconds to the total since this was made

[Alien]

That's a very good question. It would be nice if there could be no censoring and everyone had enough knowledge and independence of mind to judge what is true and what is false. The trouble with the "free for all" approach is that fake news can be very dangerous. Remember the guy who set out with an AK (or something) to rescue the children held in the (non-existent) basement of the Pizza shop? What if he had killed some people in the process?

The more general form of the problem is "where do we find the truth"?

[Ronson]

Did you hear that Jack Dorsey has actually endorsed Elon Musk's takeover? He said that he can think of no one better to manage Twitter. Weird. I thought they hated each other.

[Juvenal]

Generally if someone is spouting a conspiracy theory or fake news, they will be argued with. That is what free speech and the internet is all about. Free discussion of ideas. If the idea is bad, you will have others argue against it. Sure you will have some idiots believe it, but if you try to censor it, they will just take that as "proof" that the conspiracy is true.

TWeb doesn’t allow bots to amplify fake news by amplifying it through thousands of fake accounts effectively drowning out rebuttals. The bias here is real, but at the same time a true reflection of the aggregated views of the active members. More, moderation here is by consensus in an effort to minimize inconsistent application, whereas the larger social media platforms are too large to allow for consistent, consensual moderation by humans alone.

That is, even if the moderators could be supported well enough to do their jobs without breaking down. Humans have limited ability to moderate child porn without cracking. Moderating hate speech for a living is similarly debilitating. That kind of moderation is only practical for machines following their “algorithms,” an absurdly inadequate description of the neural nets that the programmers themselves couldn’t explain.

Just look at us, we have people claiming things that others believe are "fake news" and "conspiracy theories" all the time, and it's fine, it is what drives the debates and discussions here. How boring would Tweb be if everyone only said things that everyone else already agreed with or believed?

I agree that factually unmoored discussions can be more exciting, and allows for a lower bar to entry, but arguing opinions from a factual base is more efficient, and ultimately more satisfying. Recently I argued strongly that Musk was not serious about his bid for Twitter based on my reading of his SEC filing (and other data points I didn’t detail) and have since been proven wrong. But being wrong on my opinions is fundamentally and categorically less embarrassing than being wrong on my facts.

I think the "fact checkers" have gone to extremes on other social media platforms. They started out with good intentions, to limit fake news, but what they turned into was being biased sources trying to shut down things they didn't agree with.

I think what changed was that the people being fact-checked on their lies took exception to being called to account and took advantage of their vastly larger voices to lie about the fact-checkers as well. I remain open to actual data showing there’s a basis for the criticism, but to date, I’ve seen nothing beyond hand-waving such as the above.

Our philosophy here at tweb is to let people say whatever they want. If they want to be a complete nutjob that is their business, just as long as they follow our rules they agreed to when they signed up. We don't allow advocating killing or violence toward people, profanity, flooding, advertising, or blatant racism, but pretty much everything else goes.

I’ll remind you that you made an exception when a member repeatedly advocated the killing of all homosexuals.