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

[Scott]

Unapproved post linking to social media has been removed.  

 

[Tagged]

So religious texts should be banned in the future? Examples big chunks of tora, bible and quaran? 

Im all up for marking false and misleading content

 

[John Drake]

Option 3: "Yes, restrictions need to be placed on all false or misleading information."

 

Well, Prayut and the Thai government surely agree with that. 

[John Drake]

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

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.

 

He had four years to do something about it. All he did was bring in "Tim Apple," Zuckerberg, and others into his presidential technology roundtable. The man was an idiot.

[John Drake]

On 11/8/2020 at 3:11 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

It's almost funny that many posts here talk about information which is kind of true or a little true or not really wrong.

Let's concentrate for a moment on things which people say which are definitely lies. I.e. the earth is not flat, Covid is worse than the flu. And masks help protect people. These are facts and anybody who denies these facts is a liar. 

 

Lies or delusions? Let people decide themselves. Haven't seen any calls to ban the History Channel. And the last time I looked it was almost non stop Ancient Aliens, Conspiracy theories, Adolf Hitler escaping to South America, and Atlantis.

[John Drake]

On 11/8/2020 at 3:40 PM, Donutz said:

I would basically delete/block any content that is an outright call to serious violence, death etc. 

 

How do you tell the difference between an actual call to violence and an idiomatic expression? If I say Trump or Biden should be "tarred and feathered" and "ridden out of town on a rail," I don't mean that we should literally pour hot tar over them and pelt them with feathers and then literally sit them on a wooden beam while they are carried to the edge of town. It's an idiom! It means to harshly criticize. But we all know that censors are some of the most stupid people in the world. They only see things literally. That is why they suck the life out of language and want to create a world where everything somebody says or writes must sound like an HR manual from the Department of Commerce.

[BobBKK]

And who are they to say?  did they block Bush's WOMD?  I agree block anything harmful to anyone and hate speech. A censor board is no different to Soviet times and the list could be millions long.  How about block Christians?  are their claims verifiable?  Muslims maybe?  let alone Buddhists etc.

[KKr]

On 11/8/2020 at 9:24 PM, Is this real said:

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

the issue at hand is whether a comment is a fact based opinion, or a comment based on "dreams" that is presented as factual in such manner that it is misleading.
Not easy to do in an unbiased way.
think about comments based on publications in :
Financial Times vs The Sun.
WSJ vs Breitbart
Frankfurter Allgemeine vs. Bild 
choosing between these as recognised source of information reeks of bias and would be blown up by the rumour spreaders as such.
However, I think it is not a difficult choice if looking for factual sources
and one, or at least I, can choose without being biased.