SURVEY: Should social media block content that is false or misleading?

[Salerno]

4 minutes ago, Grumpy John said:

You mock him for having a different opinion to you.  Why not be a reasonable man and show proof he is wrong.

 

How about this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/?sh=6be3e9327ec6 which, IMO, illustrates the figure of 90% is way too high and also, IMO, shows why social media should take more responsibility with regard to what it publishes - it's dumbing down the population.

[tgw]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Anybody who thinks 90% of the people are smart must have a strange definition of "smart" or that person can't be smart.

 

 

the chart looks like Stanford-Binet scale, but the maximum of that scale is 150, so ...

 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, tgw said:

 

the chart looks like Stanford-Binet scale, but the maximum of that scale is 150, so ...

 

At least in theory there is no maximum. That isn't really that difficult to understand...

[tgw]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

At least in theory there is no maximum. That isn't really that difficult to understand...

 

IQ is measured by tests. answering all questions correctly results in 150 IQ points on the Stanford-Binet scale. Maybe another open-ended scale was used?

Edited November 8, 2020 by tgw

[ballpoint]

Personally, I find the thought of governments forcing social media platforms to allow all posts, no matter what the subject matter, to be just as scary as telling them not to allow certain posts.  

[Donutz]

My opinion isn't an option in the poll. I would basically delete/block any content that is an outright call to serious violence, death etc.  And include a warning on content that's objectively wrong (perhaps include a link to were people can find facts, though one may wonder if somebody who thinks the earth is flat would accept a link to a scientific site -and which one to link to?-). Outright banning or blocking 'troubled' information gives companies or governments with dubious goals ways to attack those who seek to weaken said company or government...   I for one don't entirely trust the current Thai regime to label what is and what isn't 'false news'. 

[simon43]

Personally, I miss my younger days before electronic' social media.  There were just as many idiots, nut-jobs and tin-hat loonies around, but the lack of global media meant that I wasn't so easily exposed to these morons and my time wasted..  I spent my time reading peer-reviewed, academic papers ????

[rumak]

4 hours ago, allencraig said:

Gosh, I wish "90% of all people are smart enough.." But that's clearly not the case. Educated, critical, concerned people make up the vast minority of the population. And many politicials make a lot of effort to keep things this way in all countries across the world, sadly.

I wish a lot more people would watch some of george carlins take on this.     of course i can't mention any sources.............

[Salerno]

15 minutes ago, rumak said:

I wish a lot more people would watch some of george carlins take on this. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZivTgCJ8hRI&ab_channel=LaughPlanet classic ????

 

[canuckamuck]

It used to be that free speech was recognized as an inalienable right. If someone one was mistaken it was not a crime. Other people simply took them to task and they debated the issue with facts and logic. Now people are given the right to speak based on where they stand politically.

I believe freedom should be protected. It is the only way to keep truth as a weapon against tyranny. Most liberals used to feel that way.

 

[Pedrogaz]

There is bias in everything we see. We see that even AI programs develop biases over time. This was reported 4 or so years back. I say absolutely no censoring by the likes of FaceBook, who are they to decide. I would like notifications. This morning I saw that Donald Trump's tweets were carrying a warning notice from Twitter saying that the information in the tweet may not be true or reliable. This is helpful and not heavy handed in my mind.

[Pedrogaz]

1 hour ago, Grumpy John said:

You mock him for having a different opinion to you.  Why not be a reasonable man and show proof he is wrong.

nearly 50% of Americans voted for Trump......that is enough evidence, for me, that 90% of the population are not able to distinguish between lies and reality.

[Artisi]

5 hours ago, kenk24 said:

Just watched on Netflix a new documentary - The Social Dilemma

 

they said there are something like 1 trillion news items on social media and the algorithms cannot be programmed to sort truth from lie and conspiracy theory.. 

And therefore it's better to believe virtually nothing on social media without checking, unfortunately where do most people check - yep, the social media. 

Therefore if it's on the "net" it must be true. 

[Artisi]

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

Personally, I miss my younger days before electronic' social media.  There were just as many idiots, nut-jobs and tin-hat loonies around, but the lack of global media meant that I wasn't so easily exposed to these morons and my time wasted..  I spent my time reading peer-reviewed, academic papers ????

With many peer reviewed papers also suspect in content in some cases. 

[wwest5829]

14 hours ago, UB40 said:

Who decides, what's true or fake?

Truth and criticism is mostly blocked and/or deleted by governments. 

So, that's just cutting the freedom of informations. I think 90% of all people are smart enough to read and decide themselfs. The other 10% can't read or need supervised thinking

I wish I could agree with you but ... well, you see, as an American I have been subjected to a documented serial liar fomenting division purposely for his political ends. Then we have the false or misleading "snake oil salesmen" dealing with trying to make money. I agree with you, the devi is in the derails as to the need for more than one "fact checking" resource. I fear your percentages are woefully off.

[wwest5829]

7 hours ago, kenk24 said:

Just watched on Netflix a new documentary - The Social Dilemma

 

they said there are something like 1 trillion news items on social media and the algorithms cannot be programmed to sort truth from lie and conspiracy theory.. 

Thanks for mentioning the program. I want to watch as it was recommended to me previously but ... forgot the name of the program! Yes, double edged sword ... so much information at our fingertips. BUT, ah the demand is for an educated population of uses capable of critical thinking. That appears not to be the vast majority of users.

[johnray]

They should add a dropdown tag for bullsh*t.

 

comedy

news

art

music

education

bullshi*t

Edited November 8, 2020 by johnray

[wwest5829]

5 hours ago, allanos said:

Firstly, all of the well-known social media platforms have a built-in, left-wing bias; think FB, Twitter, Google. When they are challenged, they trot out specious reasoning to pull the wool over our eyes, and defend their actions.

 

An interesting "read" is the recently-released book, "Deleted", by Allum Bokhari, which details the extent to which social media platforms play to their left-wing biases. 

 

Like him or loath him, Donald Trump was not only fighting his opponent, but had the might of social media and leftist rags like the WSJ against him, too. It was a very much one-sided, blatantly unfair contest. Biden's win was gifted by the anti-Trump vote and not the pro-Biden vote, in my opinion.

 

Even giving social media the benefit of the doubt, as many will, algorithms are imperfect at best. They therefore lead to the censoring or banning of perfectly innocuous content which the SM's platform has deemed to be untrue or harmful, or flouts some kind of "policy". They have far too much power to operate unfettered in any democracy.

 

Other than messaging which advocates threatening behaviour, violence, or racial hatred, I believe one should be allowed to post what one likes on social media, and leave the reader to make a judgement call on the content.

 

 

Not being familiar with the author you cite, I searched for his name. "Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent for Breitbart News". Good to learn he has no axe to grind. Dismissed ...

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

Elected governments have to make the laws what can and can’t be said in public. The social media platforms then only have to hide those posts in violation of said laws wherever they apply. So in Germany Facebook users shouldn’t be able to see a holocaust deniers post, whereas US people should see such post. If enough people in a country don’t like something being said online, they can petition the government to ban it. It’s their job, not the social media’s job to decide what gets censored. 

I cannot disagree with your opinion out of hand. After all, we just decided to fire a documented serial liar ...

[KKr]

15 hours ago, UB40 said:

Who decides, what's true or fake?

Truth and criticism is mostly blocked and/or deleted by governments. 

So, that's just cutting the freedom of informations. I think 90% of all people are smart enough to read and decide themselfs. The other 10% can't read or need supervised thinking

In some places it is not 10 but about 47 %

[KKr]

IMHO news and formation providers should take responsibility, similar to journalists, for publishing believable information, and segregate verifiable news from personal opinions

[alianware]

Yes they should. But only if the owner of the content can't provide the any proof from other sources.

[Is this real]

19 hours ago, Scott said:

A number of social media platforms have taken steps to stop false, misleading and unverified information.   In your opinion, is this a good idea or is it overreach?  Chose the option that best describes your opinion.

 

Feel free to leave a comment.

Who determines if a comment is false, misleading and unverified information?  

[Pattaya46]

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

It used to be that free speech was recognized as an inalienable right.

If someone one was mistaken it was not a crime. //

 

When was that? And where?

In most countries there is no "free speech".

Many subjects may bring you in front of the Justice

because law forbids to claim - or deny - about such subjects.

Same laws should apply on social media IMHO.

 

About lies (such as recent political lies) there should be a warning as soon as several people report it and when the probability of false/fake news is high.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Pattaya46

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Is this real said:

Who determines if a comment is false, misleading and unverified information?  

Whoever owns the platform you agree to abide by when you sign up.

[rumak]

6 hours ago, Salerno said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZivTgCJ8hRI&ab_channel=LaughPlanet classic ????

 

 

........   i look forward to meeting george one day     .  

Edited November 8, 2020 by rumak

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

 

When was that? And where?

In most countries there is no "free speech".

Many subjects may bring you in front of the Justice

because law forbids to claim - or deny - about such subjects.

Same laws should apply on social media IMHO.

 

About lies (such as recent political lies) there should be a warning as soon as several people report it and when the probability of false/fake news is high.

Fair enough, I was speaking from my own experience. I grew up in Canada, and although we do not have the same constitution as the USA, everyone believed in free speech. Perhaps the Europeans are used to censorship and oppression, but it is new to me. 

Those of you who support censorship will one day find yourselves on the other side. I don't need to prove it. History bears it out. There is nothing but violence and suffering at the end of that path.

Edited November 8, 2020 by canuckamuck

[Scott Tracy]

Whose responsibility is it to identify false or misleading information? Are social media like facebook, Twitter platforms or publishers? How is false or misleading information flagged to those who think they should be checking? Who decides what false and misleading information should be removed or just flagged? For example, false or misleading information that is flagged instead of removed, due to 'public interest'? Who decides what is in the 'public interest'?

Perhaps there is a requirement that social media complies with local laws? In some countries, freedom of speech is enshrined in law. In others, social media is censored. How do they keep up with changing environments?

Some people hold firm beliefs that what they post is true and incontrovertible. Others would disagree with them. Who decides what is the proper truth? Who decides which is right or wrong?

 

in short, in my view, the practicalities of censoring, which is what proper fact checking would be, is beyond modern technology and would require censors that are aware of the law environment in each country. 

At the end of the day, the media did not post the information, the person, or robot in some cases, posted the information. The poster is responsible for the accuracy of the information posted, and is legally liable.

[Scott Tracy]

On 11/8/2020 at 1:01 PM, allanos said:

Firstly, all of the well-known social media platforms have a built-in, left-wing bias; think FB, Twitter, Google. When they are challenged, they trot out specious reasoning to pull the wool over our eyes, and defend their actions.

 

 

 A good example of a statement of a firmly held belief, but without any corroborating evidence. Has this social media forum fact checked this statement? Is this the truth? Or is this false and misleading information? Can this statement be verified? Should this statement be flagged or removed?

 

See the conundrum?

[1FinickyOne]

13 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Thanks for mentioning the program. I want to watch as it was recommended to me previously but ... forgot the name of the program! Yes, double edged sword ... so much information at our fingertips. BUT, ah the demand is for an educated population of uses capable of critical thinking. That appears not to be the vast majority of users.

Yes. They mentioned the positive side of being able to have a taxi at your door in minutes, but they channel your news based on your other clicks... sort of helping you down a rabbit hole to support and further your direction of beliefs... I assume it to mean that once you have established a political belief they will take you further and further into a separate reality... true or not... the algorithm doesn't care as long as it gets you to spend time on the website..