Civilized said:
IseWolf22 said:
Civilized said:
ncsualum05 said:
This is what Youtube is apparently sending out. No matter what candidates you vote for or how you feel about policies, this right here should scare you. This is another shot from big tech saying that we deem the election to be over just like we deem what is correct about covid even though we are not doctors nor are we constitutional law experts. This is exactly how you become a communist nation like China. You want to see the death of freedom, there's a big factor right there.
The election is over. That's not debatable.
When will you believe it's over is the question.
You're right, the election is over. Biden won.
However, I do think big tech is on a slippery slope with the way their moderation decisions are trending. Enforcement hasn't been applied evenly and has been largely reactionary to public outcry by certain parts of the media.
That said, they are a private company and have the absolute right to moderate their platform as they see fit. People upset with big tech's decisions should migrate to their smaller competitors
Big tech moderation is a potential problem.
Disinformation campaigns, both foreign and domestic, and countless baseless claims of fraud and election rigging, including by our very own president, on social media is an actual problem.
Public distrust of mainstream media sources that typically attempt to adhere to some semblance of journalistic standards is an actual problem.
Big tech is between a rock and a hard place on this, if not from a legal standpoint then certainly from an ethical one.
On one hand, if they simply serve as a basically unmoderated information conduit, they become the means by which rando weirdos disseminate lies to tens or hundreds of millions that erode public trust and potentially harm our democracy and public health.
Millions or tens of millions of Americans now believe the election was fraudulent because those lies have gotten repeated over and over by our sitting president and others on social media. There is no legitimate evidence of mass fraud, but the volume of social media posts about it normalize and validate the claims.
OTOH, If they try to censor baseless claims that have clear potential to harm, they are accused of monopolizing and controlling the public narrative.
What can they do? What should they do?
It's a complex issue without easy answers for sure. They are between a rock and a hard place as Republicans and Democrats both attack section 230, but with completely different changes in mind. There likely isn't a perfect solution that pleases everyone.
IMO, their moderation should be relatively lax, with a bipartisan panel setting up clear, unambiguous rules. Moderation decisions inherently have human bias, and big tech should do whatever they can to provide transparency into what they are doing and why. The fact that most of the people leading the moderation teams at these companies, are former Democratic congressional or campaign staffers, does not breed trust overall.
IMO, when it comes to deliberate disinformation, there is no perfect solution. Blocking content can actually amplify the story because many people inherently do not trust a higher authority telling them that information is dangerous. There is always going to be a contingent of people who want to discuss or believe something solely because it's taboo or restricted.
I'm Ok with warnings and links to relatively unbiased sources, while not actually blocking the content from being displayed. Even then, it should be restricted to factual, not opinion reporting showing why this is wrong. Mainstream media is partially to blame for the state of today's fractured information ecosystem, but this will dovetail into an entire other conversation.
