- Reading the usual set of least-biased sources such as Associated Press, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, BBC, The Hill, etc is also a good alternative. These can be found in the "Center" bias column of the All Sides media bias chart I linked above.
If I objectively look at this problem, there a three issues
1. How might you know it's violating
2. How might you remove "violating" content without violating free speech
3. How do you remove people from the equation.
For #1 and #2, the reviewer gives the example of Jan 6th riots, where individuals organized on FB and other platforms before the event and ended up rioting in DC. How do you know that the individuals wanted to riot before hand? The president himself called everyone to visit DC. What about BLM protesters who used social media platforms to organize in-person events, which ended up in riots and burning down shops. Should we pre-ban any gatherings? NYTimes is simply insuniating that FB should spy on people and curb their privacy, so things like Jan 6th won't happen.
For #3, I believe FB instituted oversight group for this purpose. It is 3rd party reviewers and their decision is binding. I am hoping more and more decisions are made by the group.
Either ways, there is no doubt that there is a contention between growth, free speech and violating content.
I agree. Blaming Facebook or social media sites for Jan 6th riots is like blaming the phone company for some terrorist attack because the actors used phone and texting services to organize the attack.
7 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 17.2 ms ] thread- Ground News (https://ground.news/) - it's a site that links articles from across the political spectrum for any given story
- All Sides (https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news) - similarly provides headlines from articles of different biases for any given story. Also has one of the better media bias ratings database (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings). They also have a great blog called "Perspectives" (https://www.allsides.com/blog) that often covers meta-issues around news and bias.
- The Factual (https://www.thefactual.com/) - unbiased news in your inbox each morning
- The New Paper (https://thenewpaper.co/) - similar to The Factual
- Reading the usual set of least-biased sources such as Associated Press, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, BBC, The Hill, etc is also a good alternative. These can be found in the "Center" bias column of the All Sides media bias chart I linked above.
If I objectively look at this problem, there a three issues
1. How might you know it's violating
2. How might you remove "violating" content without violating free speech
3. How do you remove people from the equation.
For #1 and #2, the reviewer gives the example of Jan 6th riots, where individuals organized on FB and other platforms before the event and ended up rioting in DC. How do you know that the individuals wanted to riot before hand? The president himself called everyone to visit DC. What about BLM protesters who used social media platforms to organize in-person events, which ended up in riots and burning down shops. Should we pre-ban any gatherings? NYTimes is simply insuniating that FB should spy on people and curb their privacy, so things like Jan 6th won't happen.
For #3, I believe FB instituted oversight group for this purpose. It is 3rd party reviewers and their decision is binding. I am hoping more and more decisions are made by the group.
Either ways, there is no doubt that there is a contention between growth, free speech and violating content.