Hacker News Reader

Comment by fallingfrog | Hacker News Reader

They were trying to tamp down on the QAnon stuff and this got caught in the net.

But boy, censoring some opinion and then having it turn out to possibly be true looks BAD!

Seriously though, my boomer parents believe literally every single thing they see passed around on Facebook, no matter how outrageously improbable. Is there any balanced, non-censorship way to curb the spread of stupid bullshit that doesn’t trample on people’s rights and occasionally flag a true fact as a lie?

I’m seriously asking, because I don’t know the answer.

View on HN

Putting a "misleading" label and a source explaining why that is instead of removing or hiding the entry would be a good middle ground.

More importantly, those explanations and labels should change if the concensus changes.

>But boy, censoring some opinion and then having it turn out to possibly be true looks BAD!

Yes, but also no.

People were claiming Facebook and the rest of social media had such an absolute, Orwellian grip on free speech, information and human communication that if they censored it, it was in effect erased from existence, like Stalin erasing Trotsky.

And yet the actual effect of that censorship on public debate and discovery, by the platforms people accuse of acting as "Ministries of Truth," turns out to have been practically inconsequential.

If anything, it's proven that much of the fear mongering around social media, deplatforming and cancel culture is overblown.

That’s true.

Another thought: I’m pretty sure that many of the alternative facts that get passed around are not propagated despite being improbable, but because they are improbable. The bigger lie triggers the amygdala in a way that the little one doesn’t, so that one is paradoxically more likely to get passed on.

Doesn’t help that every once in a while some conspiracy turns out to be true (cointelpro, Snowden documents).

> The bigger lie triggers the amygdala in a way that the little one doesn’t, so that one is paradoxically more likely to get passed on.

That would explain how a conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of blood-drinking satanic pedophiles among the Democratic Party went from 4chan shitposts to a nationwide Christian apocalypse cult to a political platform that actually got someone elected to the House of Representatives. Galaxy amygdala.

Stalin's grip wasn't absolute either. We still know about Trotsky, despite his efforts. That doesn't mean the censorship didn't have very real consequences.

Stalin controlled an entire country, Facebook only controls its own platform.

What "very real" consequences did Facebook have beyond its platform?

Stalin would have killed to have the powerful tools that Zuckerberg has.

Stalin only had control over the speech and thoughts of around one hundred million people in one country.

Zuckerberg has control over the speech and thoughts of around three billion people in countries across the world.

>Zuckerberg has control over the speech and thoughts of around three billion people in countries across the world.

That's ridiculous, Zuckerberg has control over neither.

Does my cellular service provider control my speech and thoughts?

Does Microsoft control my speech and thoughts because I use Windows?

Does the Post Office control my speech and thoughts because they collect and deliver the mail?

No, no and no. I don't think you understand what the word "control" means.

Control: the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

You don't think communication influences or directs people's behavior?

Frankly, that's a load of krapp.

These platforms have had very large societal effects both through the spreading of misinformation with things like QAnon, and from the censorship on information pertaining to elections, and this entire pandemic. It is hard to say what to do for those that so gullible as to believe everything they read or hear.

> Frankly, that's a load of krapp.

Grow up, child.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com