Critical voices are denounced under the umbrella term "conspiracy theorist" to undermine their credibility and keep them from reaching large crowds, etc. — Tzeentch
Such is a conspiracy theory in itself. — Hanover
Such is a conspiracy theory in itself. — Hanover
perceived self-serving or malicious motives — Hanover
I assume you live in the United States, so are you unaware of what for example the CIA gets up to? Those things are all publicly available. — Tzeentch
My comment was specifically directed at stating that where a conspiracy theory has been alleged and there is not sufficient evidence that the underlying act occurred, it is appropriate to call out the the theory as a conspiracy theory in order to undermine the credibility of the speaker. — Hanover
I'd prefer the now antiquated concept of self regulation, where news outlets adhere to journalistic standards. That used to be a thing. — Hanover
The FCC already maintains some regulatory control over the airwaves because it considers them public property, but, even then it is very limited. — Hanover
I'd also add that not all Western countries permit openly racist comments to be made. As in the example of Germany, they have very strict laws related to holocaust denying and hate speech. Obviously they are a nation that almost destroyed itself from such speech, and they have an interest in protecting against it recurring.
I don't agree with this because that assumes anyone was arguing for complete control of the media by a regulatory body. — Hanover
As noted in the OP, there was a time when there were relatively few mass media outlets, who, by agreement, regulated the press based upon some ethical rules they agreed upon. We were operating at that time under a strict regulatory scheme, but no one sees it that way because we refuse to view it as censorship because it was by private enterprise.
And really that's precisely the only control we have right now to runaway offensive speech. Kanye can't engage in anti-Semitic talk not because the US government can stop him, but because Adidas executives won't allow it. — Hanover
Sort of because Twitter is new and the cost of entry is very low, as compared to how difficult it was when I was younger to get my letter to the editor published about whatever nonsense bothered me at the time. — Hanover
It was Trump who was posting, which means it was the government doing the posting complaining about the non-government regulating him, and also claiming the government lacked the right to regulate the government, if you follow that confusing road. — Hanover
If you're going to blur the distinction between private and government, then you're going to impose a duty on private outlets (like Twitter and I guess this site) to publish everything and eliminate moderation. — Hanover
People also speak without knowing what they're talking about all the time. I assume that's always been the case. — Hanover
Are you aware of a different system? — Hanover
The issue is that what is more likely to go viral, get views or clicks is often the most outrageous, inflammatory, and divisive. This isn't suppressed because clicks, shares, and likes is exactly what is being sold. — Mikie
The OP is in response to Elon Musk's removal of censorship from Twitter. — Isaac
I can see the argument that social media algorithms lead to ever more divisive and inflammatory views, but on the subject of censorship, it's the human CEOs and management who are making decisions, and they're making them against what would make good click-bait (though presumably still for monetary gain). — Isaac
It can be said he is fueling those with conspiratorial mindsets, just not causing them.
People will receive the information and run with it however they will, and according to their own will and volition. That’s why he who dispenses such information cannot be blamed for how others act upon it. — NOS4A2
That’s why it is a double evil because not only is his free speech violated but so is our right to hear it. — NOS4A2
But we’ve tried developing moral behavior with coercion, censorship, ostracism and the results are nothing to be proud of. — NOS4A2
these private owners have always been allowed to dictate terms of service. That's what we accept when we click "agree" to them. They can censor anything they'd like, because they own it. I don't necessarily like that — Mikie
You sound remarkably complacent. — Isaac
There's always something we can do. Protest. Kick up a fuss. Make a noise. Same as always. — Isaac
Yet more evidence to abolish capitalism. — Mikie
We can't just let that go with a shrug. — Isaac
I'm surprised that folks are so undiscriminating about speaking truth and speaking falsely. — unenlightened
Trust Lab, the company dedicated to creating a safer internet using ML-powered Trust & Safety, today announced its strategic partnership with In-Q-Tel (IQT) for a long-term project that will help identify harmful content and actors in order to safeguard the internet. — Trust Lab website
In-Q-Tel (IQT), formerly Peleus and In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies to keep the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability. — Wiki
The things you think are false other people think are true. — Isaac
I think we can, and that we need to, find the truth, agree what is true and enforce the truth. — unenlightened
we ought to be able to agree that losing an election is not winning the election. and if we cannot, democracy has become unusable. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.