Reasonable people can tolerate and sometimes quantify uncertainty. Unreasonable people tend to be very insistent.
There's a case like this going on now in arizona where the vote in last November's in Maricopa is being audited at the request of the state Senate. This is a subject of some controversy; how would you approach a situation like that?
I feel like the two sides of this issue talk past one another constantly with this.
There’s a difference between censoring ideas you disagree with and modding purposefully malicious hate and disinformation campaigns. But whenever it comes up there’s no nuance allowed.
People seem to understand market failures and the role of regulators in weeding out malicious actors like scammers, thieves, misleading advertising, market manipulation, and insider trading. But there’s no room apparently to admit that the marketplace of ideas is subject to the same forces because not everyone is coming to the marketplace in good faith.
It’s easy to argue that there should be light touch regulation on such things and err on allowing speech that is “on the fence” when you’re not the one being harmed by it.
> I'm unreasonably insistent that free speech should not be abridged.
You seem to be equating "free speech should not be abridged" with "we shouldn't fight disinformation", which is a strangely weak and fatalistic stance.
But nobody is talking about abridging free speech. This effort is aimed at providing supplementary context.
Your 'amused observer' position sounds like trolling to be honest. You could just look at the available public data for historical elections and offer a conjecture about the baseline reliability of results. I don't see the significance of declaring yourself to be 'amused' other than pre-emptive face saving in case you say something foolish.
This is literally a plot line from Metal Gear Solid 2 made real. I will quote below:
Colonel : Raiden, you seem to think that our plan is one of censorship.
Raiden : Are you telling me it's not!?
Rose : You're being silly! What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context.
Raiden : Create context?
Colonel : The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards the development of convenient half-truths. Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you.
......[ Skipping ahead a bit, the game is very verbose. ]
Raiden : And you think you're qualified to decide what's necessary and not?
Colonel : Absolutely. Who else could wade through the sea of garbage you people produce, retrieve valuable truths and even interpret their meaning for later generations?
It's true; sensemaking is now regarded as a key component of information warfare and organizational development in general, dating back to the 70s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking).
It seems like the ongoing anxiety is that external sources of authority (like press agencies) may be used to foreclose discussions and indirectly suppress unpopular ideas by equating their lack of popularity with lack of credibility - a basic problem for anyone making a novel proposal on its own merits.
On the other hand, arguing against the validity/objectivity of any observer forecloses the possibility of trust and pushes every reader into a solipsistic position in which all external propositions have to be evaluated from scratch, a laborious process that hinders the propogation of true information.
I do think we need strategies to address the issue of information pollution. Here's a recent example of people deliberately copying a tweet for the purposes of mockery and/or dilution of its original impact: https://theweek.com/coronavirus/1003095/the-making-of-a-vacc...
Since there' no real cost to such strategies, and it's easy to poison social graphs with bots or teams of like-minded people, there' an incentive to employ such tactics to spread false information for purposes ranging from pure entertainment to financial fraud or political manipulation. It seems to me that one of the big problems we have is the lack of good instrumentation and systems for measuring information authenticity/ originality/ reliability that would make it easier for people to efficiently evaluate information flows.
This seems like a bad thing overall, even though the intentions seem very good.
From the offset Twitter is collaborating with two entities, entities who themselves may promote the very sort of content and situation Twitter is trying to avoid with this post. That aside-
The very idea of a reliable source is dependent on the situation and subject matter at hand. Given the lack of consensus in the media or among so-called experts to begin with I’m not sure how much this will do other than reinforce the notion of a correct opinion, which you can rephrase as propaganda depending on your inclination.
No matter how many sources or information you have to prove your point, it seems what’s considered misinformation is often a matter of opinion.
A perfect example of this might be:
“People vaccinated with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine still die from the delta variant. Therefore I do not believe it’s worth getting the vaccine.”
Perhaps it’s true that there exists people who are vaccinated who still die. Perhaps their opinion is indeed that it’s not worth it. Is the above quote misleading or misinformation?
——
Personally I wish Twitter would take a political position based on whatever they believe to be true and just flag things they disagree with, rather than continue with the guise of stopping misinformation which without a perfect understanding of truth is likely to be an equally counterproductive action. So in the above example they could just say “for now we will flag all posts that discourage vaccinations as we believe it’s best for you to be vaccinated”
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 37.9 ms ] threadThere's a case like this going on now in arizona where the vote in last November's in Maricopa is being audited at the request of the state Senate. This is a subject of some controversy; how would you approach a situation like that?
I approach it as an amused observer; I wonder how long it's been since there was a straight election in the state of AZ.
There’s a difference between censoring ideas you disagree with and modding purposefully malicious hate and disinformation campaigns. But whenever it comes up there’s no nuance allowed.
People seem to understand market failures and the role of regulators in weeding out malicious actors like scammers, thieves, misleading advertising, market manipulation, and insider trading. But there’s no room apparently to admit that the marketplace of ideas is subject to the same forces because not everyone is coming to the marketplace in good faith.
It’s easy to argue that there should be light touch regulation on such things and err on allowing speech that is “on the fence” when you’re not the one being harmed by it.
You seem to be equating "free speech should not be abridged" with "we shouldn't fight disinformation", which is a strangely weak and fatalistic stance.
Your 'amused observer' position sounds like trolling to be honest. You could just look at the available public data for historical elections and offer a conjecture about the baseline reliability of results. I don't see the significance of declaring yourself to be 'amused' other than pre-emptive face saving in case you say something foolish.
Colonel : Raiden, you seem to think that our plan is one of censorship.
Raiden : Are you telling me it's not!?
Rose : You're being silly! What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context.
Raiden : Create context?
Colonel : The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards the development of convenient half-truths. Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you.
......[ Skipping ahead a bit, the game is very verbose. ]
Raiden : And you think you're qualified to decide what's necessary and not?
Colonel : Absolutely. Who else could wade through the sea of garbage you people produce, retrieve valuable truths and even interpret their meaning for later generations?
Rose : That's what it means to create context.
It seems like the ongoing anxiety is that external sources of authority (like press agencies) may be used to foreclose discussions and indirectly suppress unpopular ideas by equating their lack of popularity with lack of credibility - a basic problem for anyone making a novel proposal on its own merits.
On the other hand, arguing against the validity/objectivity of any observer forecloses the possibility of trust and pushes every reader into a solipsistic position in which all external propositions have to be evaluated from scratch, a laborious process that hinders the propogation of true information.
I do think we need strategies to address the issue of information pollution. Here's a recent example of people deliberately copying a tweet for the purposes of mockery and/or dilution of its original impact: https://theweek.com/coronavirus/1003095/the-making-of-a-vacc...
Since there' no real cost to such strategies, and it's easy to poison social graphs with bots or teams of like-minded people, there' an incentive to employ such tactics to spread false information for purposes ranging from pure entertainment to financial fraud or political manipulation. It seems to me that one of the big problems we have is the lack of good instrumentation and systems for measuring information authenticity/ originality/ reliability that would make it easier for people to efficiently evaluate information flows.
From the offset Twitter is collaborating with two entities, entities who themselves may promote the very sort of content and situation Twitter is trying to avoid with this post. That aside-
The very idea of a reliable source is dependent on the situation and subject matter at hand. Given the lack of consensus in the media or among so-called experts to begin with I’m not sure how much this will do other than reinforce the notion of a correct opinion, which you can rephrase as propaganda depending on your inclination.
No matter how many sources or information you have to prove your point, it seems what’s considered misinformation is often a matter of opinion.
A perfect example of this might be:
“People vaccinated with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine still die from the delta variant. Therefore I do not believe it’s worth getting the vaccine.”
Perhaps it’s true that there exists people who are vaccinated who still die. Perhaps their opinion is indeed that it’s not worth it. Is the above quote misleading or misinformation?
——
Personally I wish Twitter would take a political position based on whatever they believe to be true and just flag things they disagree with, rather than continue with the guise of stopping misinformation which without a perfect understanding of truth is likely to be an equally counterproductive action. So in the above example they could just say “for now we will flag all posts that discourage vaccinations as we believe it’s best for you to be vaccinated”
Maybe your example can be ignored and my example can be removed without wondering into that borderline area.