this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
276 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

60021 readers
3392 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
276
It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media (theconversation.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
99 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not looking for guaranteed amplifiers. I’m looking for an outcome where anyone can find an amplifier if that’s what they want. No party should be required to amplify anyone else. It’s possible in this situation that someone could fail to find an amplifier, but I’d like to minimize that by just having many platforms with different incentives such that it is unlikely that they would all align against any one persons message.

The fediverse is built on this concept. Every instance can moderate their own users and communities, and choose which other instances to federate with. It’s unlikely that a specific user would be unable to find an instance that accommodates them, even if larger instances won’t. This contrasts with traditional social media where there is a sole for-profit entity that controls the entire network, able to completely remove people and ideas they don’t want.

[–] partial_accumen 2 points 1 year ago

I’m looking for an outcome where anyone can find an amplifier if that’s what they want.

How is that not a guaranteed amplifier?

but I’d like to minimize that by just having many platforms with different incentives such that it is unlikely that they would all align against any one persons message.

So if a person's message is something clearly abhorrent like "white supremacy" advocating violence against other races, you're hopeful there is a platform that person can amplify their voice with their ideas to the general public?

It’s unlikely that a specific user would be unable to find an instance that accommodates them, even if larger instances won’t.

My guess is that as the user increases the level of their bigotry, if the instance still allows is, that instance will be de-federated by nearly everyone. So they have their own echo chamber at that point. How is this different than what groups like that have done for decades prior to the internet with a private newsletter mailed out? This is essentially the situation we have at present.

What are you advocating that would change this?