Dangerous memes have been with us for thousands of years, take religion for example. Social media has given memes a medium through which to propagate at unprecedented rates, far more quickly than human moderators can monitor. So on the surface allowing an AI moderator to remove fake news and propaganda seems reasonable. But who writes the code, who decides what is fake news? In the West it is a handful of unelected billionaires whose interests are manifestly not aligned with society. In China the internet is mediated through the Chinese Communist Party. That doesn’t turn out well either.
Perhaps a more important question is can we agree that objective facts exist ? If we can’t agree on this basic unit of understanding then we are spiraling towards an increasingly polarized, post-truth future of alternative facts. Many “fuckwits” in America are prepared to swallow Trumps’ Orwellian exhortations to “"Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening." In this world facts don’t exist - unless convenient - and the scientific method is nothing but a hoax.
Denial of objective truth is at the heart of the threat to democracy and liberal ideals, memes are merely a symptom of the malaise.
Now we are getting into philosophy; to be more precise logic (true vs. false).
What is a fact?
Surely a fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence. In comparison, an opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that is neither true nor false.
Opps! Writing in the back of a cab and fat fingered post!
As I was saying…
Discourse is impossible if one side will not accept a logical proposition. This can stifle important questions of public policy. For example the concept of lived experience seemly trumps that of empirical data. Researchers are wary of engaging with topics like racial injustice for fear of contradicting lived experience with data. This is tragic as it inhibits the possibility of a nuanced debate.
Couldn't agree more that dangerous misinformation needs to be curbed. We already implement important policy to protect citizens, such as laws banning hate speech, that would seemingly contradict free speech ideology. Banning the publication of anti vaxx material would also protect citizens.
While major tech companies are somewhat on board with fact checking material and taking down some posts, the volume of content makes it difficult for these steps to be effective. I think the key to the solution is to look at who actually publishes the posts. At the moment it's individuals who are responsible for what appears on their Facebook and Instagram accounts. Why not make it the platforms themselves?
Most people get their news from social media these days, so why can't we look at these companies like news outlets? If a newspaper publishes damaging misinformation they can be sued for defamation, libel ect. In my view Facebook and the Times should have the same laws applied to them for the content they produce. Then let's see how effectively they manage to curb misinformation ! They will have law suits coming out of their ears.
The problem is Section 230 which states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).
I think if tech is going to be regulated properly there are a number of legal amendments that will need to be made and section 230 is certainly one. A law created in 1996 before the birth of social media surely needs to be looked in our current context.
In the same way that social media has lead to new laws concerning our data and privacy, there needs to be a new legal framework created specifically for tech platforms that fully incorporates publication and responsibility.
Dangerous memes have been with us for thousands of years, take religion for example. Social media has given memes a medium through which to propagate at unprecedented rates, far more quickly than human moderators can monitor. So on the surface allowing an AI moderator to remove fake news and propaganda seems reasonable. But who writes the code, who decides what is fake news? In the West it is a handful of unelected billionaires whose interests are manifestly not aligned with society. In China the internet is mediated through the Chinese Communist Party. That doesn’t turn out well either.
Perhaps a more important question is can we agree that objective facts exist ? If we can’t agree on this basic unit of understanding then we are spiraling towards an increasingly polarized, post-truth future of alternative facts. Many “fuckwits” in America are prepared to swallow Trumps’ Orwellian exhortations to “"Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening." In this world facts don’t exist - unless convenient - and the scientific method is nothing but a hoax.
Denial of objective truth is at the heart of the threat to democracy and liberal ideals, memes are merely a symptom of the malaise.
Now we are getting into philosophy; to be more precise logic (true vs. false).
What is a fact?
Surely a fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence. In comparison, an opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that is neither true nor false.
Opps! Writing in the back of a cab and fat fingered post!
As I was saying…
Discourse is impossible if one side will not accept a logical proposition. This can stifle important questions of public policy. For example the concept of lived experience seemly trumps that of empirical data. Researchers are wary of engaging with topics like racial injustice for fear of contradicting lived experience with data. This is tragic as it inhibits the possibility of a nuanced debate.
I agree. Dare I suggest wokeness has taken the pendulum too far to the left and someone (we) needs to bring it back to the centre?
Of course but discourse - political or otherwise - is impossible when one side is not prepared to accept an objective l
Couldn't agree more that dangerous misinformation needs to be curbed. We already implement important policy to protect citizens, such as laws banning hate speech, that would seemingly contradict free speech ideology. Banning the publication of anti vaxx material would also protect citizens.
While major tech companies are somewhat on board with fact checking material and taking down some posts, the volume of content makes it difficult for these steps to be effective. I think the key to the solution is to look at who actually publishes the posts. At the moment it's individuals who are responsible for what appears on their Facebook and Instagram accounts. Why not make it the platforms themselves?
Most people get their news from social media these days, so why can't we look at these companies like news outlets? If a newspaper publishes damaging misinformation they can be sued for defamation, libel ect. In my view Facebook and the Times should have the same laws applied to them for the content they produce. Then let's see how effectively they manage to curb misinformation ! They will have law suits coming out of their ears.
The problem is Section 230 which states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).
I think if tech is going to be regulated properly there are a number of legal amendments that will need to be made and section 230 is certainly one. A law created in 1996 before the birth of social media surely needs to be looked in our current context.
In the same way that social media has lead to new laws concerning our data and privacy, there needs to be a new legal framework created specifically for tech platforms that fully incorporates publication and responsibility.
The way to stop the spread of this code is to socially isolate, wear masks and wash your hands frequently.
This is literally how to weaken the immune system