Irwin
Well-known Member
- Location
- Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
Should it be the responsibility of Facebook and Twitter to stop the dissemination of false information? Why or why not?
Exactly. It should be left up to an individual to study and learn all the facts they can and decide from there what is credible. Of course, that would be too difficult for a lot of people these days. Much easier to turn on the boob tube and listen to a talking head spew.Who decides what information is true or false?
Exactly. The operative words are "it could cause harm". If something is posted on their platform, which can cause harm; then it is their duty not allow it to be disseminated. Hate speech is not "free speech". Nor is posts, which call for violence on others. And misinformation designed to create upheaval, riots, and crimes against others.Yes they should be sure if something important contains miss information that people might believe and it could cause harm
Given that some people today tend to label anything they don't like hearing as "hate speech", the problem returns as to who decides. An example of this was when some retards (or trolls) started calling "Wuhan or China Flu" hate speech. Unless you are for unrestrained totalitarianism, you certainly don't want the government telling what is or isn't truth or hate speech. Sooner or later, the Supreme Court is likely to weigh in on this. As for facebook and twitter, I don't use either as they are not much good for anything I do or enjoy.Exactly. The operative words are "it could cause harm". If something is posted on their platform, which can cause harm; then it is their duty not allow it to be disseminated. Hate speech is not "free speech". Nor is posts, which call for violence on others. And misinformation designed to create upheaval, riots, and crimes against others.
I agree. But is calling Covid, "the China flu" going to harm others. I don't think so. I believe what Sassycakes and I are stressing is misinformation that will cause actual harm to others.Given that some people today tend to label anything they don't like hearing as "hate speech", the problem returns as to who decides. An example of this was when some retards (or trolls) started calling "Wuhan or China Flu" hate speech. Unless you are for unrestrained totalitarianism, you certainly don't want the government telling what is or isn't truth or hate speech. Sooner or later, the Supreme Court is likely to weigh in on this. As for facebook and twitter, I don't use either as they are not much good for anything I do or enjoy.
Can you be more specific and give us an example of harmful information?I agree. But is calling Covid, "the China flu" going to harm others. I don't think so. I believe what Sassycakes and I are stressing is misinformation that will cause actual harm to others.
I don't agree."Causing harm" is in the eye of the beholder. What needs to be done instead is to remove Section 230 protections from Facebook, Twitter, etc so that they can be sued for harmful content posted on their websites. As it currently stands, they have immunity; that immunity needs to be removed.
Who is responsible for controlling the dissemination of misinformation?
An example of this was when some retards (or trolls) started calling "Wuhan or China Flu" hate speech.
I don't agree.
Facebook and Twitter do try to stop people from using their web properties as a platform for dissemination of false information, as is their right.Should it be the responsibility of Facebook and Twitter to stop the dissemination of false information? Why or why not?
That's exactly right. Facebook and Twitter are private companies and they can ban whatever and whomever they want. If they allow illegal content, then maybe they should be held liable, but otherwise, like you said, it's like a homeowner deciding what can be put in their yard.Facebook and Twitter do try to stop people from using their web properties as a platform for dissemination of false information, as is their right.
Example: I have the absolute right to prevent people from planting posters and signs in my yard. It's that simple.
Makes sense, but it is usually pretty hard to prove.if that misinformation leads to violence, or harm to anyone, then those perpetrators should be held liable and suffer the consequences
Facebook and Twitter do try to stop people from using their web properties as a platform for dissemination of false information, as is their right.
Example: I have the absolute right to prevent people from planting posters and signs in my yard. It's that simple.
Within living memory, Americans once had the right to work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labor - whether it was owning a modest house in the suburbs or a 100 unit apartment building. Back then, property owners could rent or sell to whomever they pleased, without explanation to anyone, including any government bureaucrat. For example, if an apartment building owner didn't want to rent to you for any reason whatsoever - it was an unquestioned right for him to do so. In short, he did not have to justify or explain his reasons to anyone. And why? Because he owned the property.That's exactly right. Facebook and Twitter are private companies and they can ban whatever and whomever they want. If they allow illegal content, then maybe they should be held liable, but otherwise, like you said, it's like a homeowner deciding what can be put in their yard.
You nailed it right there! People want to feel like they belong and fit in somewhere, which is what organized religion and cults provide. It is also the main recruiting tool of terrorists. They prey on young men from broken homes who desperately want some kind of family structure in their lives.Reading or hearing someone's claptrap on social media shouldn't automatically make one a believer. Maybe these days it happens more than it should. People feel alienated and want to belong. Just learn the rhetoric and you're one of us. Blah. No you're not. You're just another dope they add to the roster called Followers. Followers don't get to make any rules, they don't get to do much of anything except show up and keep the leaders happy. Yippee!
You can still discriminate against someone if you don't like their political beliefs or some organization that person belongs to. You just can't discriminate because of a person's sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. I'm not sure the purpose of that is the "public good." I think it's more to protect certain groups of people who have characteristics they have no control over.Within living memory, Americans once had the right to work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labor - whether it was owning a modest house in the suburbs or a 100 unit apartment building. Back then, property owners could rent or sell to whomever they pleased, without explanation to anyone, including any government bureaucrat. For example, if an apartment building owner didn't want to rent to you for any reason whatsoever - it was an unquestioned right for him to do so. In short, he did not have to justify or explain his reasons to anyone. And why? Because he owned the property.
Fast forward to today: since there is a clear precedent for stripping property rights from past business owners "for the public good" then the business owners of today have no moral grounds to bleat about "property rights" being stripped from them. Now, we're senior citizens here, right? Certainly some of you were alive when we Americans enjoyed "the right of free association"? We could start a club, buy a clubhouse, and only grant membership to whom we pleased. Remember that? That was the right of free association. Well, that right too was stripped away. Now you can be legally forced to allow people into your club whether you like it or not. The reason? "The public good". So whether we're speaking of a private home, an apartment building, a men's club, a cake bakery, or a 21st century Internet social media platform, the principle is the same: If your "right of ownership" interferes with what the government deems to be "the public good" then your "right of ownership" can be legally modified or simply done away with so that you cannot exclude others from what your business offers.
Some will disagree, and that's fine. Many will. But American citizens have been steadily stripped of their property rights for decades now, as well as their right to freely associate with only those people they wish to. As I see it, if businesses like Facebook and Twitter want to kick people off their platforms (whose opinions they don't like) then we need to restore the rights of house and apartment owners to be able to rent or sell to only those people they wish to. For either our laws are rooted in consistency and logic, or they are simply arbitrary constructs to be changed at whim.
Time Waits 4 No Man meant more diverse discrimination than just religion & gay folks. He forgot about Interstate Commerce and how that applies.The Constitution protects a person from religious discrimination, I believe. Gay people are protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so you can't discriminate against them, either.