That’s the problem. Everyone will choose “lies & misinformations” they like. If someone likes DT’s lies about election fraud they will follow those lies. In effect, twitter will be a megaphone for those lies. That’s not ok and lies is not free speech either.
Lies is not free speech. Just because we value free speech doesn’t mean we should tolerate lies.
Yes it is. What divine authority do you have in mind to decide what are lies and what's truth?
There are plenty that is clear cut. I’m surprised you think everything is in a shade of grey.
Not “censure all those people”. Censure Trump (to show what he said is lie). Once electors decided who’s the winner & he continued to lie, he should be censured, & rightly so.
You're simply arguing a common slippery slope fallacy. Of course I can decide who's right and wrong. That's freedom. You're the one jumping from a private platform to "the state". The state certainly shouldn't be censoring speech.
You essentially just made the case for Musk allowing free speech on his platform.
I don't know what you mean by this statement. Of course the first ammendment's free speech clause allows Musk to allow what legal speech he wants. What we are discussing is what speech he should allow and promote.
Okay? I have no idea what your point is here.
No it's not. Sure, it's a type of speech that the government should not regulate unless it poses imminent harm. But it's not "free speech". They are two different things.
Sure. If you want to be black and white. Both sides use misinformation. But the world isn't black and white. One side (assuming you're referring to US politics) uses misinformation significantly more than the other in recent years.
As if words don't lead to violence too.
Misinformation is often disinformation -- that is, deliberate lies deliberately spread. And when disinformation channels get caught out, they say "but but but EVERYbody has the right to an opinion."
The problem is that the only true point of reference of what is misinformation and what is not can only be a skills like statesmanship competencies of the individual which the average person simply does not have.
The problem with Twitter moderation (and most social media platforms) isn't what it allows people to say. It's what it promotes that people say. Grandpa Joe can spout all the lies he wants. The problem with social media is that its algorithms promote Grandpa Joe's lies to millions of people because "engagement". Same incentives apply to TV news and even traditional news to a lesser extent.
That's why Google did its turnaround on Holocaust denial on Youtube -- it was shown to them that not only were they *hosting* it, but the algorithm was happily *promoting* it. "Ah I see you were looking for information about the Holocaust, so here's Bunkerbonker von Kranktrousers telling you the Jews made it up." Even the whizzes of Google knew that was a place they didn't want to be.
The individuals will have a right to pick the platform which algorithms(the owner) they trust the most by themselves. This is the choice only you can make and have control over. But you are definitely don't have any right to say to the individuals which platforms are good or bad.
Yes!
I don't understand what you are saying here. I assume there is a typo.
Investing in education is important, but you can't expect individuals to be experts in everything. Moderation of propaganda and misinformation is still something we should demand from popular platforms.
You don't have a right to say Twitter is bad and Facebook is good for example. It is up for the individual to decide for themselves. You have a right to voice your personal opinion but in the end individuals will decide for themselves.
Demand is a very strong word and those who demand will still have to be questioned and heavily moderated themselves. At the end of the day you just can't bypass education. Nations rise and fall because of the poor education. Unfortunately the idea behind all social platforms is to dumb people down. Arguing about algorithms is meaningless and shallow in itself. This is why reading books is a must no matter how hard it is.
I guess what I mean is there is a difference between preaching something and casually stating a personal opinion on any given matter.
I don't need to encounter racism daily to know what racism is, and I don't need to encounter it daily to determine whether it's still basically the same glop it always has been.
