Page 12 is especially interesting, IMO. They are calling on technology platforms to suppress and silence misinformation and "amplify communications from trusted messengers and subject matter experts."
My concern is what about when experts are wrong? Like when the surgeon general tweeted last year, "STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
This is just apologism for blatant and inexcusable censorship.
"Misinformation" is the new code word for wrong-think. It's none of their business what "incorrect" information people may or may not choose to consume. It's the people that decide.
Saying that the Earth is not flat, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun used to considered "misinformation" too.
Nothing just snaps into existence with full consensus of everyone. They start as "misinformation" by people who are ahead of the curve, and slowly gain mainstream attention and acceptance (e.g. "Lab leak theory" used to be "misinformation and disinformation" and people got suspended for mentioning it ... now the loudspeakers talk about it too).
> This is just apologism for blatant and inexcusable censorship.
No it's not. It's saying that this stuff has a lot of nuance and you aren't going to have a rule to classify it.
Sorry, that's just how the world and its laws and policies have worked for centuries. You aren't making a point by saying "it's impossible to 100% differentiate an expert being wrong from misinformation."
> Sorry, that's just how the world and its laws and policies have worked for centuries.
And that's why we created the first amendment, because we found out how bad of an idea is for gov's to censor.
How well do you think this is going to go over with the moderates and the right? The only reason you're supporting this atm is because it supports your side's group think.
Parent poster is right, in normal discussion you'll have disagreements. Only one side is calling it misinformation.
Considering the platforms have to prioritize content based on something (and since pretty much all of them have sworn off timelines) do you really think expertise of the source on the subject matter is a criteria that takes it into censorship.
Since we are all about curbing misinformation these days, when are we going to start censoring government officials for misinforming us about the dangers of misinformation? After all, it was government health officials responsible for "...confusion and lead[ing] people to ... reject public health
measures such as masking" in the critical early days of the pandemic. No need for conspiracy theorists when we have our very own super-spreaders running things.
My concern is what about when experts are wrong? Like when the surgeon general tweeted last year, "STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"