zlacker

I think this view is hopelessly naive in the real world. You could easily make "moderation" (as defined by the article) the same as "censorship" (as defined by the article) by producing a lot of false, semi-false and nonsense content to drown out the signal in the noise.

Our concepts of free speech, censorship and moderation are simply outdated on modern social media - when you have systems designed to encourage and spread low-effort, novel, emotional and manipulative content (e.g. twitter), no amount of "tweaks" to such systems can fix the problem.

Instead of trying to fix systems originally designed for marketing, why not actually design systems meant for disseminating and checking information from the ground up? I bet that would look way different compared to twitter or facebook.

It doesn't have to involve moderation or censorship - it could just mean giving disproporitonately more powerful voice to experts willing to explain disinformation, for example (rather than having their voice drown in the retweet popularity contest).

>>spion+(OP)
> Our concepts of free speech, censorship and moderation are simply outdated on modern social media - when you have systems designed to encourage and spread low-effort, novel, emotional and manipulative content (e.g. twitter), no amount of "tweaks" to such systems can fix the problem.

Hilariously enough, this is what people said about the invention of both writing and the printing press.

>>spion+(OP)
> Our concepts of free speech, censorship and moderation are simply outdated on modern social media

I disagree wholeheartedly. These concepts are now more important than ever in human history.

>>spion+(OP)
>Instead of trying to fix systems originally designed for marketing, why not actually design systems meant for disseminating and checking information from the ground up? I bet that would look way different compared to twitter or facebook.

There's a solution for this, based on prediction markets. Essentially experts make "bets" on various things and are rewarded for correct predictions. The more correct predictions they make, they more "points" they have to get their viewpoints broadcast. And conversely, quacks and charlatans that cannot model the world scientifically make few accurate predictions and get drowned out.

>>logicc+jg
How is correctness assessed?

>>disgru+M4
Not sure why you are getting downvoted since you are spot on.

>>logicc+jg
Heh, so how many users will be jumping out the windows come Black Monday?

Also, how many times have markets been severely manipulated?

>>spion+(OP)
> by producing a lot of false, semi-false and nonsense content to drown out the signal in the noise.

This is the natural state anyway because most people are idiots about most things.

>>disgru+M4
> writing and the printing press

TV, film, radio, and comic books, too.

>>disgru+M4
And it was true. Media changed what free speech means; the "yellow press" almost caused wars. Both humans and media have had to learn how to do better with this, and we are struggling to get accurate, unbiased content that isn't controlled or at least partially coloured by special interests.

I have no doubt we can do better, if we actually tried to build social media with the right tools and incentives.

>>Andrew+Za
What does free speech mean if its drowned in novelty, half-truths and a popularity contest? Is it free speech if the network itself blocks people from elaborating by artificially limiting the number of characters, thereby causing only the most provocative and shallow takes to take hold?

We could (and should) demand better.

>>EricE+tr
No, he isn' spot on. Printing presses spread ideas and misinformation at a much more human speed than today's Internet based platforms. So, they're a poor analogy for the problem we're discussing.

(I didn't down vote him, BTW. His comment is relevant)

>>ripe+V11
I dunno, Europe post the printing press was pretty crazy for a few decades. More generally I think that it's the rate of increase that causes the problems, not the baseline.

>>spion+YY
I'd start with slapping Google and Apple really hard to stop them from even thinking to remove apps from their platforms that they don't like for one reason or another.