Just 5 minutes ago I read someone from here commenting[1] that "Spotify spread lies about COVID" which of course is about the Joe Rogan controversy. The answer summarize all I think about this: «Are there alternatives to Spotify that can only provide me the right information so that I don't have to think by myself?»
This is not about Trump or Joe Rogan, I don't care about that. It's about how people are fine with removing or hiding content for the sake of «It's misinformation».
I'm not making an statement for those cases, but what will happen when it isn't misinformation what we are hiding from the people? Can't people think for themselves that they have to be shelled from what they see on the internet?
All of your questions are irrelevant in the US because the First Amendment guarantees Spotify and YouTube the right to speech. They can't be forced by the government to broadcast Trump or Rogan.
It's like asking if it's better for the government to take away everyone's guns. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it doesn't matter because of the Second Amendment.
If you want to prevent corporate censorship, the solution is to break up near-monopolies like YouTube, Google, and Audible, not to force private companies to stop curating their content catalogs.
Well, I agree with your last sentence. Regarding American laws, I'm a foreigner.
But my worry is the phenomenon of people support to deleting what they consider "misinformation". That seems like something that would hinder the possibility of breaking up said near-monopolies.
Unfortunately, no. There are too many sources of misinformation and disinformation in the world, and no one person on the planet can possibly know them all, or defended themselves against all of them.
At this stage, we are forced to depend on others to protect us against the majority of the worst offenders, and even then > 99.999% of the people are not equipped with the tools necessary to do the job, or the knowledge and ability to use the tools, even if they did have them.
4 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 22.7 ms ] threadThis is not about Trump or Joe Rogan, I don't care about that. It's about how people are fine with removing or hiding content for the sake of «It's misinformation».
I'm not making an statement for those cases, but what will happen when it isn't misinformation what we are hiding from the people? Can't people think for themselves that they have to be shelled from what they see on the internet?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30647382
It's like asking if it's better for the government to take away everyone's guns. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it doesn't matter because of the Second Amendment.
If you want to prevent corporate censorship, the solution is to break up near-monopolies like YouTube, Google, and Audible, not to force private companies to stop curating their content catalogs.
But my worry is the phenomenon of people support to deleting what they consider "misinformation". That seems like something that would hinder the possibility of breaking up said near-monopolies.
At this stage, we are forced to depend on others to protect us against the majority of the worst offenders, and even then > 99.999% of the people are not equipped with the tools necessary to do the job, or the knowledge and ability to use the tools, even if they did have them.