this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
274 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

59598 readers
4719 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Except there have always been limits on speech, centered mainly on truth. Your freedom of speech doesn't extend to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, for instance.

But we live in an age of alternative facts now, where science isn't trusted if it comes up with conclusions that conflict with your world view. Do you get a pass if you are yelling "Fire" because you are certain there are cell phone jammers in the theater that are setting your brain on fire because you got the COVID shot and now the 5G nanoparticles can't transmit back to Fauci's mind control lair?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you get a pass if you are yelling "Fire" because you are certain there are cell phone jammers in the theater that are setting your brain on fire

Yes. Anyone in good faith attempting to warn others of any potential harm that they believe to be true to the best of their abilities should have their speech protected.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Anyone in good faith attempting to warn others of any potential harm that they believe to be true to the best of their abilities

But what if their beliefs are verifiably false? I don't mean that in a sense of a religious belief, which cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. I mean that the facts are clear that there are no 5G nanoparticles in the vaccine for cell phone jammers to interfere with in the first place. That isn't even a thing.

It's one thing to allow for tolerance of different opinions in public. It's another thing entirely to misrepent things that can be objectively disproven as true, just because you've tied it to a political movement. Can that really still be considered to be in good faith?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But what if their beliefs are verifiably false?

Yes. Because those with perverse incentives in power will falsify the truth to punish critics.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So there is no objective truth anymore, and any fact you don't like can be dismissed by saying the Deep State is at fault? Is there a (((conspiracy))) to hide the fact that the Moon is really an egg?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There are objective truths, the issue lays in the deciding of them. Not to step on your cloak and dagger but I'm not saying we've got a 'deep state' or there's some massive ((((conspiracy with too many parentheses)))).

The Earth may be round but I don't want to have to worry about a flat earther judge ruling otherwise each time I say it.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I wrote a comment about this earlier today. People who have been brainwashed to believe total nonsense often act in ways that are rational to them, but irrational to people who see the world through different eyes.

That's fine until it's violent action.

The alcoholic who thinks he's "fine to drive" believes he's perfectly rational. He's drunk all the time and no accidents. That's wonderful until he kills a family some night.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Technically, it's causing a panic that's illegal. Yelling fire is not. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/28853/is-it-illegal-to-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre

Different states have different laws, of course, and I am not a lawyer, I just googled if it was actually illegal. Don't actually go yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Right, it's perfectly fine to alert people to a fire if there actually is one. Yelling "fire" when there isn't one will be generally interpreted as causing a panic.