Are Social Media Bans of Scientific Misinformation Helpful ? Why/not ?
Social Media Bans of Scientific Misinformation Aren't Helpful
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.It is probably almost impossible to do anyway, even defining what is and what is not misinformation is probably not possible. And even if you could entrust the social media with enforcing guidelines laid down by national institutions, acting as independent arbiters, you could still not get any agreements. For example, did China have the same view of what constituted scientific misinformation as the western countries during the early Corona Virus outbreak.
But it could be that in the long term, ( Twenty five, fifty years perhaps.) it will not matter. Because society itself will probably adjust, becoming more cynical, sceptical, less relativist, much less tolerant of fringe opinion, and reverting more to belief in centralized mainstream views as objective truth. In part because people do learn by experience, though very slowly, and do sometime realize they have been fooled, if rarely, but also as the greatest forces in human life, boredom and laziness begin to bite, and people find that they just do not have time or interest in fringe ideas anymore.
That will bring with it its own dangers like dogma, and unquestioning respect for civil authorities, neither of which ever did any good, but it will certainly happen.
Fernapple
Level 9
Jan 21, 2022
1
FREE SPEECH is the only way to refute actual disinformation...
At least a couple dozen times the past two years REAL science has been banned by the shitfucks at Google, and twittee,.....
That meant conversations about treatments and cures were denied platforms.
The people running these websites are young and profoundly arrogantly ignorant. DON'T LET THEM tell you what is the truth.... They don't know anything about truth. They only care about getting their way.
JacarC
Level 8
Jan 20, 2022
0
I would say further study is needed. This is a new problem for H.sapiens, and it will take some time for us to get the balance right. And as the article mentions, their conclusion may be right for the one culture but not for others.
Two comments:
One is... the fact that they think censorship is appropriate for "hate speech, terrorist content, child sexual abuse material" but not for scientific misinformation (or even that those two categories can be cleanly separated from each other) smells more like a cultural value judgement than a scientific study. Seems to me the social/psychological mechanisms that apply to one would apply equally to the other.
And two... my guess is that the large social media companies are doing everything they do primarily to satisfy their stockholders, not to effect any particular moral code or political agenda, so, as long as the general public (i.e. their customers) overwhelmingly think scientific misinformation is unacceptably destructive, then they will continue to censor it. And when the Q-crowd becomes the majority of their customer base (heaven forbid) they will just as happily censor scientifically valid information.
Am I being cynical?
Maybe a little.
Suckerbird may be a real humanitarian. (nah)
skado
Level 9
Jan 20, 2022
2
In the case of Google (%95 of revenue from ads) -- and likely others -- the 'visitors' are not the customers, they are the product.
@FearlessFly
That is technically true but may be a distinction without a difference. Somebody has to buy those products they’re advertising. Bad cultural juju is not good for business.
Science needs to be challenged. So the question is who decides it is misinformation and then who decides what is banned.
Talking censorship here, so a big no. Used to like the internet when it was warts and all.
puff
Level 8
Jan 20, 2022
1
Someone stamping their feet and howling about the jewish mind control chips being hidden in vaccines is not "challenging science", its a declaration of non medicated paranoid schizophrenia. 
puff:
@FearlessFly Yes, so counter with facts, education and ridicule. Don't ban it.
@puff The problem is social media itself.
As long as tracking and personalized pushing of subjects are the way the tools work then misinformation will be dominant.
All attempts to combat will fail.
And truth will be the biggest casualty. Which of course implies an effective war was started the moment online advertising started down this black hole.
Ad driven social media, at least in its current form, is fundamentally flawed.
puff:
@FearlessFly I agree and we should all mourn the loss of net neutrality.
I see a problem as algorithms used by the likes of FB and youtube will direct content they think you like to you, with accompanying ads of course. Now if you are a paranoid twat who looks up weird shit, these sites feed you more of the same which feeds the paranoia. That's why I miss the old days mostly I think, you saw all not just what is deemed commercially advantageous. A fine example is google searches now. Those that appear first have paid for the privilege unlike previously.
@puff . . . first, I don't use Google (Startpage), I have NEVER used FB
. . . I use FF, private windows, AdBlock, NoScript (and several other) extensions. I NEVER see adds, and 'tracking' is highly minimized.
. . . second, whenever anyone claims "I have nothing to hide", I respond
. . . have you noticed virtually everyone saying that is fully clothed ? 
. . . that is fallacious -- just because someone has things they don't want WIDELY known does NOT mean they are doing anything wrong !
IMO, a desire for no censorship is misguided,
. . . (falsely) yelling fire in a crowded theater
. . . (actually) inciting violence
. . . child pornography
. . . other, etc.
. . . also
puff:
@FearlessFly Speech inciting active violence is not what I'm talking about. But like on here, you see people cheering un-vaxxed deaths, happy for them to all die. I think they are somewhat sick but like the unvaxxed, I will defend their right to be dickheads in cyber space. Now if they call for people to go to place A at time B and do action C then that is different. That is inciting violence. Child porn in itself is evidence of crime.
Yes electronic communication is not secure and I am well aware of that. Which is why I like typing "bomb" and "massacre" etc every now and then. As key words/ phrases that spook's algorithms will pick up and hopefully, I will make some bored shitless analyst's day a little bit more bearable once he/ she reads the shite I dribble..
@puff . . . it just dawned on me, your NN comment -- and its' follow up comment -- are also fallacious (my post is about SCIENTIFIC misinformation) :
puff:
@FearlessFly Bang head.
Read my original comment on this thread. I replied again stating use education not censorship. Then someone commented "The problem is social media itself." and I responded.
In 2022 when talking information/ misinformation and science, bit hard to do it without mentioning being online, the way of the world. And online nowadays means censorship.
Isn't there a big difference between saying "you are allowed to say that, legally" and saying "here's a megaphone, go nuts" ?
FearlessFly
Level 9
Jan 20, 2022
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.