There have been recent reports about the spread of disinformation and fake news stories.   Both Facebook and Twitter have received criticism for handling these situations.   Which of the following best describes your opinion on controls of what can be posted on social media?

 

For the purpose of the poll, fake stories and disinformation is from what can be considered as a news source.   Expressing an opinion would not be considered as false.

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

Social media is a lot like nuclear power. Used one way it is a plentiful source of (relatively) clean power; used another way it is a destructive species-killer.

 

Social media can be a tool for promoting the sharing of ideas and understanding among peoples or it can be a tool for promoting division and hatred.

 

It depends on your view of humanity.

 

Unfortunately I have a dim view of humanity...

 

A few years ago someone on TV said Thailand was heading for doom because of all the people spending too much time on FB and other social media.I responded by saying Fb was probably the best thing that

happened to Thailand because it made the epole aware of things and would expose things like corruption.

I was partly right,i do think today things are challenged that ten years ago would not even see the light of day.

Yes too much misinformation on social media but it boils down to people see what they want to see.

Sort of like the Bible or other religious books,you take a quote that suits you at that time.

I do not think false information should be removed but maybe a warning label attached?There is a definite need for people to be aware of scams and lies but some people will remain gullible.

I remember long ago there where a few guys who spread a rumor about a company and stock prices dropped fast,that is when they bought and made a fortune.

The thing is if you agree with false information being removed who is going to do it?Can you trust their agenda?Elections can be won or lost this way and see what that has gotten the world.

Would Thai Visa be regarded as part of the social media scene? Perhaps not, comments are moderated and anonymity is preserved.

Personally, I don't engage with Facebook or Twitter - havens for narcissists. I don't really want to know what clothes you wore or food you ate today.

Before the internet came about I was taught to always read between the lines. If everyone followed this common sense rule there would be far less issues. But you can't fix stupid.

Shadow banning of certain points of view on social media is becoming a big problem. 

Regulations to eliminate that are needed 

7 hours ago, Scott said:

There have been recent reports about the spread of disinformation and fake news stories. 

Are you talking about social media or Fox News?

Who decides what is "fake news" we know we can't trust what the "authorities release as the truth far too often, banning "fake news" is another step towards a ........... ....... (fill in the gaps!)

11 minutes ago, Suradit69 said:

Are you talking about social media or Fox News?

Social Media.   News agencies, such as Fox, do try to fact-check their information.   They, as are other news outlets, can be selective in what they report and what they don't report.   

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

Social Media.   News agencies, such as Fox, do try to fact-check their information.   They, as are other news outlets, can be selective in what they report and what they don't report.   

I was joking.

 

I assume you were joking about Fox doing fact-checks.

And who becomes the arbitrator to determine the veracity of "false stories and misinformation" in this day and age of weaponized government propaganda?  All governments have self-interests that they act upon, so it's pretty much a given that governments will inject propaganda into the social media narrative.

 

From supporters of Government A:
Government A is good; Government B is bad - therefore Government A should impose limitations on the freedom of speech to protect 'the people' from the evil Government B.

Of course, from supporters of Government B:
Government B is good; Government A is bad - therefore Government B should impose limitations on the freedom of speech to protect 'the people' from the evil Government A.

So what I get from the current poll results is that the majority of responders wish to have their own governments restrict what they are allow to see in social media.  That's a statist's dream come true: the citizens call on the their respective governments to censor what the information they can obtain: Fahrenheit 451 for the digital age.
The nanny-state gets to keep the ignorant even more ignorant because it's the "Will of the People."  <head-shake>

 

The minority of the poll responders are classical liberals:  "We're adults.  Give us everything and allow us to determine what is true and what is false."  And if 'adults' are worried about what their kids see, then it's the parent's responsibility to limit the content.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

News agencies, such as Fox, do try to fact-check their information.   They, as are other news outlets, can be selective in what they report and what they don't report.   

This is where the problem lies as I see it, there is no actual "reporting" anymore, or very little of it, most news comes from "news feeds" Reuters & associated press being the main ones, these media outlets are controlled by very powerful people that have run the media since day one, Rothschilds are very involved, these news-feeds are passed onto the various stations and disseminated by "reporters" & given the angle & twist they want to present to their public, the story often ends up very twisted! Yet this is Not fake news!

"Some" so called fake media is just pointing out this twisting of the truth out, off course they want to Ban this! How dare we question ?

Social media puts idiots in touch with each other. Once upon a time they struggled for an audience, even in cities, now they can find like minds scattered around the world.  Then there are the more devious ones, who are not idiots, but those who know how to push the buttons of the disaffected. I suppose certain newspapers have pushed lines in the past, but the new stuff spreads far wider and is less easy to refute. Wish I had a simple answer.

57 minutes ago, Cats4ever said:

  Then there are the more devious ones, who are not idiots, but those who know how to push the buttons of the disaffected.

Gee, I wonder who you are referring to.

It's funny were adults I'm sure we can decided what's real whats fake.

Why have someone decide for you.

Next it will be should we have someone decide if your using the bathroom too much.

Or someone checking everytime you buy something 

"News"?  LOL. 

 

"The Internet" is a direct and indirect E-commerce platform.

 

As the Millenials are fond of saying, "It is what is it, bro". 

3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Shadow banning of certain points of view on social media is becoming a big problem. 

Regulations to eliminate that are needed 

“Shadow banning”...another trumptonian myth and a great example of fake news on social media. 

Internet along with social medias were born (almost) fully free and should stay in that way.

 

It took few funny misses when people were learning how to read The Onion or DPRK News account on Twitter, but now people already know.

 

The same applies to the fake news. There are always few morons, who don't know how apply critical thinking while reading articles. Well, hopefully they learn, after their accidents have been publicly laughed at.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Personally, I don't engage with Facebook or Twitter - havens for narcissists. I don't really want to know what clothes you wore or food you ate today.

I don't use Facebook, but boy you have a wrong idea what Twitter is. 

 

I guess it depends who you interact with, but mostly it's banter, talking about current events, news feed, politics and sciences. Selfies almost never, food and cat pictures sometimes. Mostly information feed from various sources and various parts of the world.

 

 

Misinformation, misleading news, false gossips,lies,devious commences from the people in power be it politics or Financial, unethical unregulated journalism follow these....then it spreads to likes of FB....and newsfeed.... here at Thaivisa is no exception...Read news say 30/ 40 years ago.... reporting was much cleaner, clearer, appropriate language and not malipulated as it is today..and what had changed?....The world has multiplied,with it via the internet altered the meaning of truth and trust!..... literally... event reporting is so inaccurate these days.... just read any breaking news coverage...with in a few hours it is most likely factually inaccurate...a fact these days!

Wikipedia - Big Lie

 

History repeating itself.... Again!

6 hours ago, CGW said:

This is where the problem lies as I see it, there is no actual "reporting" anymore, or very little of it, most news comes from "news feeds" Reuters & associated press being the main ones, these media outlets are controlled by very powerful people that have run the media since day one, Rothschilds are very involved, these news-feeds are passed onto the various stations and disseminated by "reporters" & given the angle & twist they want to present to their public, the story often ends up very twisted! Yet this is Not fake news!

"Some" so called fake media is just pointing out this twisting of the truth out, off course they want to Ban this! How dare we question ?

Ah yes, the Rothschilds. What is that a code word for? Mmmmm...

Do you people need any kind of 'internet police'? I mean: do you guys really want that???

Then welcome in Orwell's '84!!!

 

Fake news only brings false debates. Once people are arguing/debating about a lie, they are wasting their own time without even knowing it. A bit like arguing how much the Loch Ness monster weighs!!

I think the zoids that are in charge of all this (probably the governments) should stop looking at how we can ban fake news, we need to see how we control fake people, the ones who choose to be offended by anything and everything because they feel so useless in life yet are pandered to when the tears start flowing - THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG RIGHT NOW pandering to the feeble who represent 0.00001% of the real population, not the electronic population. As soon as these melts are told NO (probably for the 1st times in their lives) they will get bored of secreting crocodile tears and disappear, hey, they might even get a job and start contributing hahaha

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

I don't use Facebook, but boy you have a wrong idea what Twitter is. 

 

I guess it depends who you interact with, but mostly it's banter, talking about current events, news feed, politics and sciences. Selfies almost never, food and cat pictures sometimes. Mostly information feed from various sources and various parts of the world.

 

 

You call what Trump posts an "information feed"? Yeah right.

6 hours ago, CGW said:

This is where the problem lies as I see it, there is no actual "reporting" anymore, or very little of it, , Rothschilds are very involved, these news-feeds are passed onto the various stations and disseminated by "reporters" & given the angle & twist they want to present to their public, the story often ends up very twisted! Yet this is Not fake news!

"Some" so called fake media is just pointing out this twisting of the truth out, off course they want to Ban this! How dare we question ?

 

 

"most news comes from "news feeds" Reuters & associated press being the main ones, these media outlets are controlled by very powerful people that have run the media since day one"

 

Seriously when do you reckon to be day one?

 

How long do you believe his has been happening?

 

34 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

"most news comes from "news feeds" Reuters & associated press being the main ones, these media outlets are controlled by very powerful people that have run the media since day one"

 

Seriously when do you reckon to be day one?

 

How long do you believe his has been happening?

 

Are you serious, google could be your friend? ? 

Where do you think papers like the Bangkok post get their news, do you imagine they have thousands of reporters? syndicated news maybe?

Source? as i posted.............

Social media is the people talking, people should be able to say whatever they want. What should be banned is international conglomerates having a monopoly on news media.

7 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Social media is the people talking, people should be able to say whatever they want. What should be banned is international conglomerates having a monopoly on news media.

So is it fox news that holds this monopoly? cnn? who exactly is it?

1 hour ago, CGW said:

Are you serious, google could be your friend? ? 

Where do you think papers like the Bangkok post get their news, do you imagine they have thousands of reporters? syndicated news maybe?

Source? as i posted.............

 

 

Sorry I thought I asked a straight forward  question.

 

Google can give a lot of answers and I use it many times daily/ hourly 

 

I asked your opinion with hopefully  a link or two if you could provide it.

 

No problem.