@techsouth saidObjective measures do exist for misinformation. That's why they can be labeled as such. Those objective measures are called facts.
Twitter banned people based on misinformation not political affiliation.
It is nearly impossible to make people believe what they don't want to believe.
There exists no objective measure of "misinformation", especially considering that the vast majority of false information is allowed to be freely posted on social media. Only a tiny subset of "false" informat ...[text shortened]... "groomer". All of these are things that should be allowed in the public sphere of national debate.
The bans were mostly for Covid misinformation, which was believed to be harmful to the public.
The Babylon Bee wasn't banned, just locked until their tweet was deleted, which they refused to do. That wasn't for "misinformation" that was related to code of conduct. However, I don't actually agree with Twitter's actions in the two examples you provided.
361d
@vivify saidIs Rachel Levin a man or a woman?
Objective measures do exist for misinformation. That's why they can be labeled as such. Those objective measures are called facts.
The bans were mostly for Covid misinformation, which was believed to be harmful to the public.
The Babylon Bee wasn't banned, just locked until their tweet was deleted, which they refused to do. That wasn't for "misinformation" that was re ...[text shortened]... f conduct. However, I don't actually agree with Twitter's actions in the two examples you provided.
What objective measure of fact can you provide to answer this that would be operable today? I have a feeling that my opinion of what the "fact" is here differs from the one most likely to be employed by google. One answer may get you silenced, the other most certainly will not.
Was the 2018 Georgia governor's election stolen or not? Regardless of which you say is "fact", either answer can be freely expressed on any social media platform today with little push back. Which one is "fact"? And why hasn't anyone been banned for getting this wrong?
Who decided that you can get banned for saying the 2020 presidential election was stolen, but cannot get banned for saying the 2018 Georgia election was stolen. Why does that sound like an objective decision to you?
Is the Earth flat or spherical? In this case, I'm certain you and I are on the same side. Yet I frequently see claims from Flat Earthers in social media. I've never heard of them being banned.
People were getting banned for posting their own personal bad reactions to vaccines. People were banned for putting forth the lab-leak theory, which at no point was ruled out in an honest way.
One problem with banning is that there is zero accountability. If someone gets banned and you want to know why, you can't even see the post that got them banned. They just disappear and no longer have a public voice. The cases I brought up were public figures. But imagine how many people with < 100,000 followers got banned, shadow banned, or otherwise silenced and we never knew why. Even if they post a screen shot showing why they got banned, they could easily fake that and be lying. Essentially, people disappear from social media and we never really know why unless they are quite prominent.
As luck would have it, people more likely to claim Rachel Levin is a man are also more likely to support Trump. Also opponents of vaccine mandates seem to be more likely to be Trump supporters. Maybe these people were being banned with no political intention in mind, but isn't it interesting that it just so happened to help Democrats.
We are debating the objectivity of social media fact checking and bans. You are seriously splitting hairs between "banning" and locking out. Also, you are splitting hairs between "misinformation" and "code of conduct" (a distinction that was never relevant to my point). Do you think your splitting of these hairs is helping make the point you're trying to make? To me it sounds like you don't understand how bias works in the real world.
I suppose you would have supported literacy tests for voters pre 1960. After all, no one was disenfranchised because they were black. They were only stopped from voting due to lack of reading ability.
@techsouth said"That wasn't for "misinformation" that was related to code of conduct."---Vivify
Is Rachel Levin a man or a woman?
What objective measure of fact can you provide to answer this that would be operable today?
Also, you are splitting hairs between "misinformation" and "code of conduct" (a distinction that was never relevant to my point). Do you think your splitting of these hairs is helping make the point you're trying to make? To me it sounds like you don't understand how bias works in the real world.
Banning for conduct vs. banning for misinformation are two separate issues yet you're conflating the two. Code of conducted is subjective; misinformation is not.
You want to conflate the two in order to make misinformation appear to be a matter of opinion.
361d
@vivify saidAre you seriously just going to ignore my points rather than address them?
"That wasn't for "misinformation" that was related to code of conduct."---Vivify
[quote]Also, you are splitting hairs between "misinformation" and "code of conduct" (a distinction that was never relevant to my point). Do you think your splitting of these hairs is helping make the point you're trying to make? To me it sounds like you don't understand how bias works in the re ...[text shortened]... arate issues yet you're conflating the two. Code of conducted is subjective; misinformation is not.
Did COVID come from a lab or a wet-market?
What is your "objective" answer? Which side gets banned?
And I am not "conflating" misinformation and code of conduct. I am saying the distinction, although real, does not matter to the point I'm making nor the issue at hand.
361d
@techsouth saidIf a claim can be disproven it's misinformation.
Did COVID come from a lab or a wet-market?
What is your "objective" answer? Which side gets banned?
@techsouth saidBased on what was said in the interview, Its not possible to prove what Dr. Epstein claims he proved. Even looking at his published manuscripts, the numbers are invented. 0.1% or 14% whatever. It's not a findable fact using the methods he is describing. He wooed you with fancy ephemeral vocabulary.
They dont care. They show you what makes you feel good.
You might be right. But the fact that you assert this with certainty diminishes your credibility.
It was estimated that $14.4 billion was spent on the 2020 election. Political divides run deep. Some believe that one of the candidates was basically Hitler and needed to be stopped to save our count ...[text shortened]... will ever happen in the future?
And you think the person that made the video left some steps out?
361d
@wildgrass saidDoes that mean you support Nikki Haley?
Based on what was said in the interview, Its not possible to prove what Dr. Epstein claims he proved. Even looking at his published manuscripts, the numbers are invented. 0.1% or 14% whatever. It's not a findable fact using the methods he is describing. He wooed you with fancy ephemeral vocabulary.
“When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms”
https://nypost.com/2023/11/14/news/nikki-haley-proposes-requiring-social-media-users-to-verify-their-identities/
361d
@vivify
" Code of conducted is subjective; misinformation is not."
Misinformation is subjective. The Pandemic taught us all that. The covid vaccines with EUA in the USA utilized gene therapy technology and facebook falsely claimed it was misinformation and removed it. Remember when mRNA vaccines could not possibly change your DNA? You can still find endless fact checkers saying that is misinformation. Recently it was revealed mRNA vaccines were contaminated with DNA making changes to your DNA possible.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccines-dna-contamination/
Now that I posted that link someone is going to double down on the claim it is misinformation because I got it from RFK jr.'s CHD website because they heard he was public enemy no1 for spreading misinformation. That will only prove rumor drives perception of misinformation instead of facts.
Misinformation is extremely subjective.
@metal-brain saidThere’ll be a lot of Russian, Chinese and N Korean names popping up then.
Does that mean you support Nikki Haley?
“When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms”
https://nypost.com/2023/11/14/news/nikki-haley-proposes-requiring-social-media-users-to-verify-their-identities/
Whatever these tech companies do they do it for commercial reasons.
The vast majority of people are not right wing conspiracists ergo the loose the algorithm battle. What they are demanding is that their views get artificially promoted by search engines
361d
@kevcvs57
Oh, so anything Trump says has to be wrong. He is 100% wrong all the time. Republicans can never be right....ever. Common knowledge to democrats, right?
Anything Trump says must be the opposite. It is the democrat way.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/trump-says-google-search-results-are-rigged-hes-not-wrong.html
361d
@vivify saidYou would have made a good KGB agent in the old Soviet Union.
If a claim can be disproven it's misinformation.
You neither question nor are you capable in seeing flaws in the party line even when they're staring you in the face.
You would have happily banned those pushing the lab leak theory in 2020 and not even felt slightly guilty a year or two later when scientists began taking it seriously again.
361d
@metal-brain saidWtf are you babbling about, has google banned trump? You cannot force people to listen to what that fascist pig has to say but I just googled ‘Trump’ and pages of 💩came up.
@kevcvs57
Oh, so anything Trump says has to be wrong. He is 100% wrong all the time. Republicans can never be right....ever. Common knowledge to democrats, right?
Anything Trump says must be the opposite. It is the democrat way.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/trump-says-google-search-results-are-rigged-hes-not-wrong.html
Take your freaking meds you lying piece of 💩
@techsouth saidA conspiracy theory isn't misinformation unless they're based on falsehoods, or are being treated as fact when there's no evidence for it.
You would have happily banned those pushing the lab leak theory in 2020 and not even felt slightly guilty a year or two later when scientists began taking it seriously again.
Conservatives offered no evidence for the lab leak which is why it was dismissed. Joe Biden was among the first to suggest it may be true following evidence from an investigation. Key word here: evidence.
Are you proud that one of countless baseless assertions from conservatives happened to have merit? Never mind that it's your side that includes QAnon and a woman who claimed "Jewish space lasers" were causing wildfires, right? Ignore Pizzagate, Lizard People, Tom Hanks eating babies, climate change being a "Chinese Hoax" and all the other right-wing nonsense....all that matters is the one time when by pure luck you happened to be on to something.
Your side is rife with misinformation and your side gets banned from platforms as a result. Deal with it.
361d
@techsouth saidStudies have shown that even before Elon took over the Twitter algorithm is biased towards conservative viewpoints.
You would have made a good KGB agent in the old Soviet Union.
You neither question nor are you capable in seeing flaws in the party line even when they're staring you in the face.
You would have happily banned those pushing the lab leak theory in 2020 and not even felt slightly guilty a year or two later when scientists began taking it seriously again.
It's a myth that these tech companies only shadowban conservatives.