Who & how to rein in mis/disinfo? How & who gets to even DEFINE mis/disinfo? Can / should USA feds take a global or national approach?

Question

From a widely known periodical: (bold emphasis is mine)

"The problems that social media poses for its users run much deeper than content moderation. Bigger concerns stem from how platforms disseminate content. Tech companies should be helping address these worries by doing far more to reveal their algorithms to the public, allowing for greater scrutiny of their operations. The companies should also grant access to their data so that researchers and policymakers alike can study the effects that social media networks have on users and society.

Insight can be gleaned from the data that online platforms collect. In the right hands, this data could help society identify and cope with the side effects of social media use. Imagine, for example, if public health researchers were able to examine how vaccine-hesitant people consume information and which messages resonate with them. They might be able to develop better strategies to meet vaccine skeptics where they are, and thus combat misinformation more effectively than content moderation does.

It remains to be seen how well Community Notes will combat misinformation. The idea has promise, but X, formerly known as Twitter, has seen mixed results with its model. Some critics say it has trouble keeping up with the tor**** of false claims. It’s also unclear how Meta’s algorithms will promote content that previously would have been removed. Will they allow material to spread unchecked that is, for example, abusive to specific groups of people? Will content that is flagged as inaccurate be deprioritized?"

razelove · Accepted Answer

I don't think this is anything new. More that there used to be just one media, with different takes on the same set of facts with very few exceptions.

Social media has wildly polarized the subjective view, and opened up the floor for suppression of stories that are contrary to your narrative with aggressive promoting of ones that reinforce it.

In the end, even if you are seeking the truth, for most people the start point there is going to begin with their own bias anyway. The answer is most likely to just let different echo chambers exist, because anyone publishing news needs a way to make money and stay operating. If there were a truly neutral news outlet they wouldn't get too much traction because they wouldn't be sensational enough to get the attention and sponsorship to remain relevant or in business.

The only two I can think of with an incentive there to be completely objective would be for sports and finance.

Gospeedracer · Accepted Answer

That's the problem you get when they say they are going combate Misinformation and Disinformation, who gets to define what it is?

blueonblack22 · Answer

Misinformation and disinformation are not the same thing. Disinformation is a form of psychological warfare where a hostile entity (usually a foreign government) manufacturers fabricated propaganda and promotes it to divide and weaken an adversary. This problem has been for a very long time and all major countries have been complicit at one time or another. Communist China is by far the most engaged with disinformation psychological warfare campaigns in the modern era.  Misinformation is false rumors or narratives that are usually born out of ignorance. They can catch on and spread. But misinformation is usually a domestic troll vs. a foreign hostile actor.  But using disinformation & misinformation has lead to censorship of true information. The most notorious example was the social media burying the true Hunter Biden laptop story back in 2020 under orders and coercion by the FBI and other government agencies. That particular censorship was completely illegal and election interference. It was also unnecessary. I believe Biden still would have won in 2020 if the Hunter Biden laptop story was published (just by a lesser margin).  Censorship was even happening on GAG a few years ago. Whenever I posted any criticism of modern feminism (no matter how thoughtful my critique was) a partisan moderator would quickly label my content as “trolling”. But I content would always been reinstated by an admin. But this happened over and over and over again in 2022. It was grossly partisan censorship. But GAG fortunately put an end to that bs about a year ago (thank you GAG).  Anyway the claim we need “protection” against misinformation has just been used and abused to censor content that leftist institutions and activists groups don’t like. Seriously how often do you hear conservatives calling to censor content they don’t like?  Aldo do you know what ultimately motivated Elon Musk to buy twitter? He’s was a fan of the Babylon Bee which is a conservative PARODY publication. Yet far left twitter shut down their account nonetheless. That was the straw that broke the camal’s back for Elon.  Fortunately this censorship bullsh*t is coming to an end. Meta announcing they are going to use community notes vs partisan “fact checkers”. That’s huge and it’s a step in the right direction.  Also if leftists are so confident that the majority agrees with their viewpoints then why would they need censorship anyway?

Lliam · Answer

Governments and the few corporations that own all mainstream media have a vested interest in promoting certain narratives. Every outlet repeats those narratives, often verbatim and, at the same time, withholds critical facts and perspectives, and also blocks, censors, and deride those who challenge the desired narrative.
They call it "fake news" and "conspiracy theory" in an effort to destroy credibility. They are like the Wizard of Oz warning people not to look behind the curtain.
They want to limit people's information to a one sided point of view so that people's opinions will reflect the desired narrative. They don't want people to think for themselves. They want to tell people what to think. It's 100% Orwellian.

For instance, during the covid campaign, they told people to "trust 'the' science". But a scientist's job is to question the science. Scientists don't base their conclusions on consensus. They want to see the proof for themselves. That is the basis of the scientific method.
They charlatans promoted one single narrative and acted like there was a scientific consensus. But in reality, they were blocking, banning, threatening, slandering and firing those thousands of doctors and top global experts whose findings conflicted with the desired narrative. They didn't want people to have access to factual information that would derail their highly profitable plans.
If they hadn't hidden information, they wouldn't have gotten emergency authorization for the experimental gene therapy jabs and all their plans would have been wasted.

That is just one example of the way people are manipulated by the massive misinformation/disinformation machinery of government and mainstream media.

It's absurd to think that they want to be the arbiters of what is true, what is false, and what is misleading. That is the fox guarding the hen house.

Unit1 · Answer

To me they are called CNN, Fox news,   , The Guardian and many, many others. Even in Germany the first news i watched back in 2005 or so was blaming video games for violence and school shootings. It was the first and last news I actively watched. Quit TV completely by the end of 2009. Interestingly the video game Mirror's Edge in 2009 predicted this to happen. Not, that it takes a lot of brilliance to see it coming. Orwellian 1984 too predicted this.  And of course everybody will dismiss this point, not giving it any thought and what I say only because the name Andrew Tate is in it and go right back to the matrix. Very well.

AManOnTheWeb · Answer

Teach critical thinking in school from a young age. Kids learn their times tables, the ABC's, they should also be able to identify and explain logical fallacies and cognitive biases e. g.:

AviatorTom · Answer

Mis/dis-information has been around for centuries. More recently, social media and the Internet has made it easier to create and distribute.

It's important for the individual user to determine what is, and is not, mis/dis-information. Problem is that many people are too lazy to do that, they just believe whatever they see.

No algorithm is going to correct that. Education and training is key.

But even with that, this is something we will have to continue to live with.

Anonymous · Answer

Information is not a new problem, every deposit in history had tried to control and dictate what information was true and what was not.

This was true on everything from the outcome of war to what you should believe. Controlling that information is the key to most of their power.

If you really want the truth you have to take the scientific approach and NOT try to limit information of any kind, Instead simply demand they make good predictions with that information.

shortster · Answer

Nobody should regulate speech. The truth can withstand the presence of lies; but lies cannot withstand the presence of the truth. Nobody in power worries about regulating speech to protect the truth; they do so to protect the lies they wish to tell.

Likes2drive · Answer

So much is censored and then there’s also so much propaganda. You never know what to think anymore

goaded · Answer

Streamline defamation cases and enforce verdicts with jail time for people who don't pay up or treat courts with contempt. Simultaneously, punish people bringing frivolous defamation claims.

dustybiker2 · Answer

Deport all people who share misinformation.

Juxtapose · Answer

The free and open marketplace of ideas is literally all you need. All this censorship crap is Un-American and completely unhelpful.

JesseP1nk · Answer

Mark Zuckerberg had same dillema with covid

ABC1x1x · Answer

You rain in dis info by eleminating the department of education and reinstating the law forbidding the media in partaking in propaganda.

Kingofkings1992 · Answer

@drpepper12 your questions make my head spin

Anonymous · Answer

Sounds like nazi censorship

seeyounexttuesday · Answer

Community notes do a great job.

Dongie · Answer

Coming in like this

Who & how to rein in mis/disinfo? How & who gets to even DEFINE mis/disinfo? Can / should USA feds take a global or national approach?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Who & how to rein in mis/disinfo? How & who gets to even DEFINE mis/disinfo? Can / should USA feds take a global or national approach?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.