Social media censorship
Discussion
This seems to have reached a new extreme.
Just been served climate change information beneath a post about a architecture group called C20 (clearly the algorithm thinks someone is talking about CO2) and should you dare post about COVID you will get directed to WHO advice.
Whether or not you agree that Trump should have been banned while allegedly the Taliban are still active on Twitter, there is now a narrow band of information that these big tech firms deem valid
This is before you consider any freedom of speech angle.
Do people seem to agree this is for the best to root out abuse and misinformation (I don't see hate speech on these platforms so perhaps they are doing something right) or has this been taken to far to present a chosen narrative?
Just been served climate change information beneath a post about a architecture group called C20 (clearly the algorithm thinks someone is talking about CO2) and should you dare post about COVID you will get directed to WHO advice.
Whether or not you agree that Trump should have been banned while allegedly the Taliban are still active on Twitter, there is now a narrow band of information that these big tech firms deem valid
This is before you consider any freedom of speech angle.
Do people seem to agree this is for the best to root out abuse and misinformation (I don't see hate speech on these platforms so perhaps they are doing something right) or has this been taken to far to present a chosen narrative?
thewarlock said:
Their ball, their rules.
Those that get their information (or misinformation) solely from social media are daft.
IMO.
That implies only the BBC etc offer the truth. I'd say you're daft to use that as your only source of information when social media can direct you toward peer reviewed studies you may not have been aware of, for example. As I have stated above they are directing you toward one source of information which isn't even necessarily relevant to the posts they appear in response to.Those that get their information (or misinformation) solely from social media are daft.
IMO.
R Mutt said:
That implies only the BBC etc offer the truth. I'd say you're daft to use that as your only source of information when social media can direct you toward peer reviewed studies you may not have been aware of, for example. As I have stated above they are directing you toward one source of information which isn't even necessarily relevant to the posts they appear in response to.
No it doesn't, but I could have been clearer.Anyone that gets all their info from only one source is an idiot.
Fox, CNN, BBC, Reuters, Facebook, Twitter, take your pick.
Social Media platforms have come under a lot of scrutiny for allowing the spread of false information and extremism on their platforms (see David Ike and lizard people or certain groups that tell you COVID is a hoax and doesn't exist etc), they were tasked with taking more care and ensuring that people have ways of verifying what is and isn't false information. That's why when someone posts or you see a post about a COVID vaccine or climate change (to take just two of very many examples) it contains a referral to somewhere so that anyone can start to verify or dismiss the information on the post.
g4ry13 said:
Don't forget we always have fact check to weed out all the nasty misinformation floating around out there.
which is also funded by big tech and pharma
This is my issue. But as you can see from the replies here, being directed to a single source of information, for example an 'independent' fact checker, is seen as the correct approach to target 'misinformation', while taking your information from a single source is of course foolishwhich is also funded by big tech and pharma
Edited by R Mutt on Tuesday 17th August 16:32
Countdown said:
thewarlock said:
Their ball, their rules.
Those that get their information (or misinformation) solely from social media are daft.
IMO.
Those that get their information (or misinformation) solely from social media are daft.
IMO.
If you don't like them, don't visit them.
R Mutt said:
That then leaves you with whatever news you get from the traditional outlets. On Twitter etc. there are accounts which aggregate the stuff you don't. I'd still rather view that minus whatever the algorithm doesn't agree with than what I'm being fed on TV.
I'm not sure I understand your point.Do Twitter, FB, Gab, Parler, Rumble etc have the right to censor what they like, in order to present a biased view of the world? Yes absolutely - as another poster said "their gaff, their rules". If I don't like it that's my tough luck. It's a bit like me suggesting that the BNP website should allow me to post stuff on there that they disagree with otherwise they're "censoring" me. Arguably they ARE censoring me but it's THEIR website.
ETA what's wrong with news from the traditional outlets?
You only need 1 news source: Pistonheads News, Politics & Economics.
Wait untill a thread reaches 20 pages, then it's a big story. You should then read page 10 of the comments for a summary of that story. Ignore pages 1-9, that's the wild speculation before any facts are known. Anything after page 10 is bickering.
Wait untill a thread reaches 20 pages, then it's a big story. You should then read page 10 of the comments for a summary of that story. Ignore pages 1-9, that's the wild speculation before any facts are known. Anything after page 10 is bickering.
If you consider companies like Twitter, Facebook etc... To be private spaces, members only type of clubs then it's fair do's it's up to them what they publish on there.
If you consider the online space to be an extension of public spaces in the physical world (which is certainly what they cliamed to be on inception) then it much easier to see some of their policies as interfering with a free speech agenda.
Personally I don't use Twitter at all and consider it to be unusable and unreadable. I shunned Facebook from the beginning as it seemed from the start to be viral in nature, I don't engage with anything on there just use it as a source of information on local things and events etc...
This place seems to strike a decent balance.
If you consider the online space to be an extension of public spaces in the physical world (which is certainly what they cliamed to be on inception) then it much easier to see some of their policies as interfering with a free speech agenda.
Personally I don't use Twitter at all and consider it to be unusable and unreadable. I shunned Facebook from the beginning as it seemed from the start to be viral in nature, I don't engage with anything on there just use it as a source of information on local things and events etc...
This place seems to strike a decent balance.
R Mutt said:
This seems to have reached a new extreme.
Just been served climate change information beneath a post about a architecture group called C20 (clearly the algorithm thinks someone is talking about CO2)
I know this isn’t your point, but the twentieth century society go on about climate change a lot. If you’re interested, there’s a lecture in a few weeks by Barnabas Calder: “An overview of his new book about the highly topical subject, 'Architecture: From Prehistory to Climate Crisis' (Penguin Books), published in June which makes the links between architecture, energy use and production. Just been served climate change information beneath a post about a architecture group called C20 (clearly the algorithm thinks someone is talking about CO2)
The book is a history of architecture and how it is influenced by the available energy. ‘If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change then now, more than ever, we need beautiful but also intelligent architecture, and to retrofit - not demolish - the buildings we already have.’ “
I think ‘the algorithm thinks c20 means co2’ is naive.
MortyC137 said:
You only need 1 news source: Pistonheads News, Politics & Economics.
Wait untill a thread reaches 20 pages, then it's a big story. You should then read page 10 of the comments for a summary of that story. Ignore pages 1-9, that's the wild speculation before any facts are known. Anything after page 10 is bickering.
On any subject on NPE you will find a wide range of views. Links to the Guardian on one side and Mail the other. Interspersed with that you'll find something a bit more in depth or direct from source, from a Tweet for example, perhaps linking to other source material. That is assuming it doesn't get censored.Wait untill a thread reaches 20 pages, then it's a big story. You should then read page 10 of the comments for a summary of that story. Ignore pages 1-9, that's the wild speculation before any facts are known. Anything after page 10 is bickering.
One of the problems with SM-sourced information is that it was not limited by laws. Individuals who post can be, as some have discovered to the cost. The BBC is governed by strict rules as to what it can say in news reports and any comment, or op-ed pieces had to be separate from them. ITN is limited as well, but not to the same degree. However, they have further limitations, particularly a group of legally trained people to say that they should not go there, mainly because the company could be sued. The BBC is, in comparison, a free spirit.
The UK is dropping down the league table of free press, and it’s an increasing trend, 33rd now, below South Africa. We’re even below Australia, with its built-in-bias. Countries with a bit of left-of-centre bias are near the top.
It’s very difficult to judge the validity of the reports on SM. They might be spot on, more so that outlets in this country can risk, or it might be pure fantasy. Who knows?
When you look at the problems associated with trusted vaccines, such as MMRI, with scare stories in a magazine I subscribed to (not any more), you’ve got to sympathise with anyone who wants to protect those easily influenced by noise, rather than evidence.
It’s not the nutters who are pushing a lot of the scare stories though. It’s those with a political agenda – showing the man that you ain’t going to be pushed around - and if you have the vaccinations, the next thing you know, they’ll take your guns. Trump used SM for political ends.
I wonder, though, if the number of nutters is any larger, or even as large, as it’s always been. You’ve got to be a bit off-the-wall to believe that 98% of climate scientists have entered into a massive conspiracy. Consensus isn’t proof of anything, other than what those who’ve seen the evidence are saying.
It might be over-reaction. What it might do is confirm in the minds of those who are terrified of MSM that ‘they’, ie the sources of their information, are now part of the problem.
The UK is dropping down the league table of free press, and it’s an increasing trend, 33rd now, below South Africa. We’re even below Australia, with its built-in-bias. Countries with a bit of left-of-centre bias are near the top.
It’s very difficult to judge the validity of the reports on SM. They might be spot on, more so that outlets in this country can risk, or it might be pure fantasy. Who knows?
When you look at the problems associated with trusted vaccines, such as MMRI, with scare stories in a magazine I subscribed to (not any more), you’ve got to sympathise with anyone who wants to protect those easily influenced by noise, rather than evidence.
It’s not the nutters who are pushing a lot of the scare stories though. It’s those with a political agenda – showing the man that you ain’t going to be pushed around - and if you have the vaccinations, the next thing you know, they’ll take your guns. Trump used SM for political ends.
I wonder, though, if the number of nutters is any larger, or even as large, as it’s always been. You’ve got to be a bit off-the-wall to believe that 98% of climate scientists have entered into a massive conspiracy. Consensus isn’t proof of anything, other than what those who’ve seen the evidence are saying.
It might be over-reaction. What it might do is confirm in the minds of those who are terrified of MSM that ‘they’, ie the sources of their information, are now part of the problem.
Richyvrlimited said:
Irrelevant.
You have freedom to say what you want. These platforms have no requirement to give you that soapbox to say it to (potentially), millions.
If they are deciding what goes on their site they are not a platform but a publisherYou have freedom to say what you want. These platforms have no requirement to give you that soapbox to say it to (potentially), millions.
At the moment they seem to have the best of both worlds
bigandclever said:
I know this isn’t your point, but the twentieth century society go on about climate change a lot. If you’re interested, there’s a lecture in a few weeks by Barnabas Calder: “An overview of his new book about the highly topical subject, 'Architecture: From Prehistory to Climate Crisis' (Penguin Books), published in June which makes the links between architecture, energy use and production.
The book is a history of architecture and how it is influenced by the available energy. ‘If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change then now, more than ever, we need beautiful but also intelligent architecture, and to retrofit - not demolish - the buildings we already have.’ “
I think ‘the algorithm thinks c20 means co2’ is naive.
The post was about an old tower block, like most others in the same FB group, none of which trigger Facebook to serve me the below information The book is a history of architecture and how it is influenced by the available energy. ‘If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change then now, more than ever, we need beautiful but also intelligent architecture, and to retrofit - not demolish - the buildings we already have.’ “
I think ‘the algorithm thinks c20 means co2’ is naive.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff