“Republicans have no way to communicate with the public anymore!” He yelled into the cameras on america’s most watched news channel.
1 Like
This. If there’s any silver lining to this dark cloud it may be that these companies stick with it and keep the lunatics off of their platforms. They have every right to decide what’s acceptable to post on the sites that they built with their own money. The classic shouting “fire” in a movie theater example applies here as these conspiracy theories have clearly been shown to cause real harm to people and damage to property.
Debate with cultists, conspiracy theorists? GTFO. You don’t negotiate with terrorists and that’s what the most radical members of these cults are.
1 Like
Agreed. @ins, Have you ever tried to “debate” with folks that believe some of these crazy conspiracies (such as flat earth)? These people do not listen to reason or sound evidence. When presented with such, they will tell you that have been breathing in too many “chem trails” and don’t know the truth.
I have tried many times to present rational arguments and just get ad-hominem attacked because a true rebuttal cannot be formed.
1 Like
The thing about conspiracy theories is that the more you point out the errors and counterfactual thinking that go into them, the more their adherents tend to believe in them. Part of the mindset of the people who adopt these theories as truth is the certainty that facts offered in rebuttal are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth.
5 Likes
Do you think there’s a viable solution?
How can someone who arrived at a belief irrationally, be expected to change their minds via a rational argument? They have a cognitive issue.
These people exist on the left as well. I’m sure Antifa has its fair share of conspiracy theories and is very much cultish.
The problem I see with social media platforms, who can do what they want in the end, is that they don’t apply their TOS equally. Plenty of idiots were calling for someone to assassinate Trump on Twitter.
While the idea of Big Tech bringing down the ban hammer on Trump/Parler leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it’s only fair to point out that Trump had remained on Twitter only because elected officials get way more leeway. He probably violated the TOS on a weekly basis.
And people wishing Trump death from Covid were banned.
1 Like
I can not tag you all.
But this is pretty dangerous thinking. You guys are accepting totalitarian silencing and that is more dangerous that conspiracy theorists gone mad. I am not fine with that. Glad I live in Europe to be honest. Most countries here have passed a totalitarian regiment and they have learned from mistakes.
Then these private entities need to be held accountable by the government. And they need to be considered publishers and editors and moderated as such. Currently Facebook, Twitter, Youtube are considered platforms.
Amazon also should probably lose the legal fight with Plarer. As far as I understand they faked Plarer and what is going on, in order to defend their newly signed Twitter deal.
It’s not coming from the government so you would be wrong.
How does that jibe with:
4 Likes
That is a bad example. Shouting fire and calling on action are illegal and should be only moderated by government and is moderated by government. These platforms need to give the required information to government authorities. We elect government, not platforms to moderate us.
What? This is not totalitarianism? You choose to use a platform and you choose to accept their TOS. So yes, you do elect the platform to moderate you.
2 Likes
This is essentially what I realized and decided to focus my cognitive efforts elsewhere.
1 Like
In a democratic republic (such as the US) voters elect other citizens to represent us not to moderate. Voters should be able to trust that their representatives will act in their best interests. (Yes, I know this is not always the case and “honest politician” is often an oxymoron).
I have no problem with a business regulating what is entered/displayed on their platform. Being open to all people/users does not change that.
Why? The government has no business with private entities other than to ensure tax is being payed and employees are treated fairly.
Can publishers and editors not decide what is/isn’t suitable for their platform (WSJ, Forbes, etc…)?
2 Likes
That’s the irony. If they are considered publishers they will moderate even more strictly. Careful what you wish for.
2 Likes
I definitely think these platforms, despite their often toxic nature, should remain as platfoms. Kicking out fringe theories rejected by a large majority of society does not stifle useful debate.
I do wish these companies would make their algorithms show differing opinions instead of the echo chambers the algorithms create now.
1 Like
I think one needs to be intentional about seeking out differing opinions. I’ll visit r/conservative on occasion, and usually find them to be more moderate than expected (however there are occasional crazies).
I agree with you on seeking out other opinions, but most folks are lazy and cognitive dissonance takes some brain power. Maybe putting it right in their faces would get people on all sides to read more.
I am fairly conservative (especially with regards to fiscal policy) and more liberally socially and try to read Fox, WSJ, Forbes, Washington post and even Huff Po to get a broader base of ideas/opinions. I don’t always agree, but that’s the beauty of it. I don’t have to fall in line 100% with anything I read.
1 Like
Setting aside that a platform can do what it wants, if we consider “free speech” as many people think of it (the incorrect way), this is a slippery slope. What’s a fringe theory? Religion could possibly fall under that. I think a distinction needs to be made between believing something ridiculous and inciting people to break the law, especially using violence.
You also have context and nuance that most people are too dumb to notice. Meaning, intent doesn’t matter. You can’t have debate on certain issues because anything you say will be labelled as some sort of ism by those who disagree. Perhaps Twitter isn’t the place to discuss certain topics. Take out the perhaps, it isn’t. If Twitter wants to do something good then it should ban all political speech. Twitter should be a light-hearted place where fans can stalk their favorite celebrities. I could imagine John Wayne being dumbfounded by the idea that the president talks to Americans via something called Twitter.
2 Likes
Good points.
I don’t use Twitter due to the "ism’ issue you mentioned.