Social Media Misinformation
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Social Media Misinformation
This question is based on real-life misinformation issues that social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter are currently dealing with.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Social Media Misinformation
What is the difference between a series of comments and a conspiracy? Free speech does not cover a conspiracy to defraud.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:45 am Imagine you are the CEO of a successful social media company that allows users to debate, discuss, and share information about a variety of issues. Initially, there are no problems. Recently however, you noticed that a lot of people and even organizations are either intentionally or unwittingly sharing information that is false or misleading. Moreover, these false posts seem to be generating a lot of interest on your platform. Some of these false posts are even being made by prominent politicians. Do you have a moral obligation to flag or censor this false information? One would think absolutely, but what about the free-speech obligation to allow users to freely voice their views even if they are spreading misinformation? What should you do as a the owner of this social media platform?
This question is based on real-life misinformation issues that social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter are currently dealing with.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Social Media Misinformation
I don't think that tends to be the concern of shareholders, just as public health and safety doesn't concern cigarette companies, alcohol companies, smoked meat companies, slave labour, factory farms, clubs and pubs, arms companies, "security" (ie. mercenary) companies. Not to mention trashy products, pointless plastics destined for the scrap heap as an undesirable or immediately broken present. Excess packaging. Pollution.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:45 am Do you have a moral obligation to flag or censor this false information? One would think absolutely, but what about the free-speech obligation to allow users to freely voice their views even if they are spreading misinformation?
Sadly, the triple bottom line concept lost favour in the last couple of decades. We are largely back to a single line. $$
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Social Media Misinformation
POV of the owner of the site.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:45 am Imagine you are the CEO of a successful social media company that allows users to debate, discuss, and share information about a variety of issues. Initially, there are no problems. Recently however, you noticed that a lot of people and even organizations are either intentionally or unwittingly sharing information that is false or misleading. Moreover, these false posts seem to be generating a lot of interest on your platform. Some of these false posts are even being made by prominent politicians. Do you have a moral obligation to flag or censor this false information? One would think absolutely, but what about the free-speech obligation to allow users to freely voice their views even if they are spreading misinformation? What should you do as a the owner of this social media platform?
This question is based on real-life misinformation issues that social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter are currently dealing with.
Moderation and censorship cost money; reduce traffic to your site and discourage contributors.
Whilst you like to think about the balance between censorship and freedom of speech; the money monkey inside your head tend to stir you towards believing that freedom of expression are more important and that everyone has a right to speak and discriminate as they see fit.
POV is the user.
You love to speak freely. This is the first time in history that ordinary people have a platform that can potentially reach the whole world. You choose the sites that best suit your views (prejudices), and find many things that you agree with. You are a warrior and can see how wrong other people are and want to do something about it. There is advertising on the site, yet not so in your face that it bothers you and you think that it does not affect you. You reach for another coke with your Acme can grabber, open it with your Tamoichoi Can opener, grab a Ronko Super-straw and surf right in.
POV of the advertiser.
You do not much care for what is being said and by whom. Your biggest concern is for the amount of traffic, and how closely you can target your products at the visitors. The more sensational the posts, the more attractive they are to those who are haing their egos massaged by ideologies that suit them. You sell more. You have no interest in censorship but are keen to act on the data dumps that it produces.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Social Media Misinformation
Free speech is only worth having any concern with when we're talking about speech that some people would rather you didn't utter, and that's going to include speech that some people consider offensive, speech that some people consider stupid/incorrect, and so on.
If people are being misled by "misinformation," propaganda, etc., we have a critical thinking problem, we don't have a speech problem. The critical thinking problem isn't going to be cured by disallowing some speech. If we disallow speech that is labeled as incorrect, but we let the critical thinking problem persist, then when people come along who control the allowed speech, but who are really promoting propaganda, then we're really going to have a huge problem.
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: November 7th, 2021, 4:52 pm
Re: Social Media Misinformation
There is another (bigger) problem. These big-tech companies I mentioned is very powerfull, because they have reached dominant status in the size of user base (of those services for free). The Internet has changed from decentralized network of computers to centralized content/service broadcasting platform. We all know why it is not very good for people in general. But people do not realize this either and are trapped in the vendor lock-in, but it is theyself whose actions lead to this situation.
In the question of censorship, there are many questions hard to answer:
- Who should decide about company moral obligations?
- Who should pay costs for censorship?
- Who will decide what kind of information should company censor?
- What is the insurance that this censorship won't be abused against those who should protect?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Social Media Misinformation
Exactly. In our (American-) Capitalist world, profit and the acquisition of personal wealth trump all other priorities, morality included. The old saw "Nothing personal; it's only business" says 'This may be immoral, but it makes me money, so it's OK."
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Social Media Misinformation
In a Capitalist and Libertarian world, no-one should or does decide. There are no rules; all are free to act to make money and profit. No constraints.
[N.B. Because I recognise the reality doesn't mean I approve of it.]
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: Social Media Misinformation
So bottom line, it's not a problem worth revolving until it affects them.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:04 am
Exactly. In our (American-) Capitalist world, profit and the acquisition of personal wealth trump all other priorities, morality included. The old saw "Nothing personal; it's only business" says 'This may be immoral, but it makes me money, so it's OK."
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Social Media Misinformation
There's actually more rules than ever.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:07 amIn a Capitalist and Libertarian world, no-one should or does decide. There are no rules; all are free to act to make money and profit. No constraints.
[N.B. Because I recognise the reality doesn't mean I approve of it.]
How much freedom is there to be found in a world of eight billion people competing for a slice of an ever-decreasing resource pie? The number, interests, attitudes and powers of those around us shape the arena in which we can operate. Hence the world's slide towards authoritarianism. Might is right. As populations grow, governance increasingly becomes akin to herding cats, so there is always pressure to "crack down" on whomever is being most (publicly) inconvenient at the time.
Thus, we are moving towards an abridged form of natural selection, survival of the fittest. That is, survival of the most powerful; survival of the wealthiest and most popular/networked. Controls are implemented by those who can. Consider the ever-greater control of legislation by lobbyists for corporations and employer groups - merchant banks, fossil fuel companies, arms companies, alcohol and junk food, clubs and pubs, monetised religions, and so forth.
In short, democracies have d/evolved into oligarchies. The rules are made by the wealthy, which is not exactly a break from the past. Rather, it appears that the west's brief flirtation with honesty, integrity and long-term thinking in the 20th century has proved to be either a blip, or the first "green shoots".
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Social Media Misinformation
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:07 am In a Capitalist and Libertarian world, no-one should or does decide. There are no rules; all are free to act to make money and profit. No constraints.
[N.B. Because I recognise the reality doesn't mean I approve of it.]
Yes, we don't disagree, we're just expressing it differently. I suppose "rules" was a bad word-choice; maybe "constraints" is better? Those who just take what they want have no limits placed upon them by the rest of us; they are free to do as they wish, and what they wish is to take all the wealth for themselves, by any means (moral or not).Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 8:00 pm There's actually more rules than ever.
How much freedom is there to be found in a world of eight billion people competing for a slice of an ever-decreasing resource pie? The number, interests, attitudes and powers of those around us shape the arena in which we can operate. Hence the world's slide towards authoritarianism. Might is right. As populations grow, governance increasingly becomes akin to herding cats, so there is always pressure to "crack down" on whomever is being most (publicly) inconvenient at the time.
Thus, we are moving towards an abridged form of natural selection, survival of the fittest. That is, survival of the most powerful; survival of the wealthiest and most popular/networked. Controls are implemented by those who can. Consider the ever-greater control of legislation by lobbyists for corporations and employer groups - merchant banks, fossil fuel companies, arms companies, alcohol and junk food, clubs and pubs, monetised religions, and so forth.
In short, democracies have d/evolved into oligarchies. The rules are made by the wealthy, which is not exactly a break from the past. Rather, it appears that the west's brief flirtation with honesty, integrity and long-term thinking in the 20th century has proved to be either a blip, or the first "green shoots".
"Who cares, wins"
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Social Media Misinformation
This is generally the case with leadership throughout history. There have been brief times and places where decent leaders do their best, but it seems to me that the "green shoots" of ethics are constantly swamped by the "weeds" of self-interest, ego and corruption. What is remarkable that humans, with a history of being lead by violent, despotic types has been as functional, productive and effective as it has done.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 8:42 amYes, we don't disagree, we're just expressing it differently. 🙂 I suppose "rules" was a bad word-choice; maybe "constraints" is better? Those who just take what they want have no limits placed upon them by the rest of us; they are free to do as they wish, and what they wish is to take all the wealth for themselves, by any means (moral or not).
The same schema that denies us ethical leadership also managed to drive human progress from grass huts to the ISS, despite people mostly being lead by the selfish, corrupt and deluded. Still, it does seem that the rich today are operating like squirrels busily gathering nuts for a winter they anticipate.
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: November 7th, 2021, 4:52 pm
Re: Social Media Misinformation
I always think that this means something different. Something like: Even if we do not agree each other and maybe do not like each other, we will make bussiness regardless to that. Because we know that bussiness is good for both sides, so why not?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:04 am The old saw "Nothing personal; it's only business" says 'This may be immoral, but it makes me money, so it's OK."
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Social Media Misinformation
It means what P-c said it means.figliar0 wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 4:52 pmI always think that this means something different. Something like: Even if we do not agree each other and maybe do not like each other, we will make bussiness regardless to that. Because we know that bussiness is good for both sides, so why not?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:04 am The old saw "Nothing personal; it's only business" says 'This may be immoral, but it makes me money, so it's OK."
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Social Media Misinformation
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:04 am The old saw "Nothing personal; it's only business" says 'This may be immoral, but it makes me money, so it's OK."
We know this? What is it that says business is good for both sides?
I think the basis for your sentiment is not factual, but a faith position. It is a statement of devotion to Capitalism, and all that it entails. Business, trade and commerce can be seen as desirable from some points of view, but not all.
The moral desirability of Capitalism is what is being questioned here, by me and a few others, and your response clearly comes from an exclusively pro-Capitalist perspective. I do not attack you for this, I merely point it out. But I do challenge your assertion that 'business' is good for all. Not everyone accepts the dogma of your $$$ Church of Capitalism $$$.
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023