zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
It is sometimes easy to say in retrospect we shouldn’t have demoted the story. But they did and they trusted the US Administration.

Facebook is international. Do they allow all speech even that which could be viewed as propaganda in the US?

Who makes the ultimate call on whether it be Russian disinformation or COVID-19?

We have tried many different moderation models and not all of them work.

If we try the Reddit route, then we could have incredible bias in moderated communities.

What about fitting the StackOverflow model to social media?

Another route is how X provides for the Community Notes feature. Would that have worked? Is Community Notes still susceptible to the same bias?

>>firest+H2
The shocking answer to this moderation question is not what most people want i.e free speech.

>>Timber+P3
Most people don’t want free speech, and no country has free speech anyway.

The question is what limits are made.

>>chgs+S6
The United States has free speech by all but the most extreme definitions. The 1st Amendment is well-tested and supported by the courts. Sometimes, like in Citizens United, to an extremely flexible definition of speech (political campaign donations by corporations.)

>>tyre+D7
The right to speak, but not the right to be heard.

That costs money.

Speak in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and you can be placed in a "free speech zone" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Let others say the wrong thing on your platform, be it advocating against a narrative or revealing evidence of war crimes, and you can be tortured.

>>mandma+j8
> Let others say the wrong thing on your platform, be it advocating against a narrative or revealing evidence of war crimes, and you can be tortured.

Do you have any examples of this happening?

>>hiatus+qe
The most high profile examples are Assange [0] and Chelsea Manning [1]. Daniel Hale. [2] John Kiriakou*. [3] Sami al-Hajj [4].

Snowden chose exile over torture, and so has been separated from his family for over a decade.

Many people were tortured that didn't even work as journalists; just victims of bad metadata or the wrong name.

Many countries and organizations even consider so-called "standard practice" in American jails to constitute torture. Solitary confinement, sometimes for years. Refusal of basic medical care, nutrition, sanitation. Physical abuse from guards. Unmarked graves behind the jail [5].

Nowadays even environmental lawyers can get put in jail for the crime of winning judgments against fossil fuel companies (Donziger [6]).

* - Wasn't physically tortured, but he did reveal torture and was heavily retaliated against for his trouble.

...

0 - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

1 - https://theintercept.com/2020/01/02/chelsea-manning-torture-...

2 - https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-dd3111dc6...

3 - https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/us/former-cia-officer-is-...

4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_al-Hajj

5 - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/families-in-disbelief-afte...

6 - https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-lets-chevron-...

>>mandma+uy
You said "Let others say the wrong thing on your platform, be it advocating against a narrative or revealing evidence of war crimes, and you can be tortured." The "you" refers to the owner of the platform. Which platform owners got tortured for things others said on their platform?

>>hiatus+O21
Julian Assange; did the "war crimes" and "torture" part not give that away?

Chelsea was published on Wikileaks as well.

Daniel Hale was published on The Intercept. They faced no consequences, but they also failed to protect Hale's identity. Hale was then made into something of an example (despite many honors from people praising his bravery).

Al Jazeera (Sami al-Hajj's publisher) have been repeatedly lethally targeted lately (with US made and funded weapons) without much comment from US media.