FBXL Social

A good parsing of the great censorship vs misinformation debate by #DanWilliams https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/there-is-no-censorship-industrial ht @rajivsethi

@interfluidity @rajivsethi I think—at least right now—it underplays the current harms of
misinformation. To the extent we have data, it’s not just a paranoid fringe anymore m that holds fundamentally wrong understandings; it appears that a large cohort of Trumpist electoral support really is based on objectively false beliefs.

@curtosis @rajivsethi That's certainly true. But it doesn't strike me as remotely new. It's not new that people on the right (and the supposed center left) think that the Federal government is some kind of bloated jobs program, for example, when Federal employment has been capped for decades. 1/

@curtosis @rajivsethi On the one hand, that's surely the result of misinformation. People are badly misinformed. But it's not a new, social media kind of misinformation. It's politics we take as ordinary. As Williams points out, often the most destructive misinformation comes not from fringes, but from "mainstream", often liberal sources. 2/

@curtosis @rajivsethi (Famously, the "liberal" press for years took the claim "cutting the deficit is virtuous and desirable" as a fact demaning no justification by "objective" commentators, even though it is in fact a circumstance specific and high contextual question. To say that has been consequential in our politics is to understate the case.) 3/

@curtosis @rajivsethi One might respond by saying all of that was bad too, someone should have adjudicated lies and misstatements by prestigious economists and Obama Administration officials as much as they should today's conspiracy nuts, we need a bold new regime of information hygiene far beyond what has prevailed historically. 4/

@curtosis @rajivsethi But absent that, it strikes me as special pleading. Both of our major political formations rely on lies, exaggeration, and misinformation to help form their coalitions. My fave Bernie frequently parrots a line about the fraction of Americans living paycheck to paycheck that's probably false. 5/

@curtosis @rajivsethi If we're going to take on misinformation, stories too good to fact check that serve to cement political tribes, we need a pretty bold plan. Taking the status quo as of 2012 as "decent" and eliminating the sorts of disinformation that have emerged since seems less like referreeing a genuinely informative marketplace of ideas and more like taking sides. /fin

@interfluidity @rajivsethi All good points, and I’d largely agree. And to be clear I’m mostly reacting to the information environment where people can firmly believe (for example) that TFG did not say something that he explicitly did, repeatedly, on tape.

I think ultimately it has to come with a recognition that the “marketplace” is like a real one: easily overwhelmed and manipulated by monopolistic actors with wildly disproportionate access to resources. 1/

@interfluidity @rajivsethi And to the extent that’s *new* it’s the combination of a whole new magnitude of inequality and the absurdly low marginal costs of dumping and distributing idea “product” on the digital market. 2/2

@curtosis @rajivsethi yes. we need a Polyanian revolution of the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. like the regular marketplace, it is embedded withing and exists to serve society, not to stand apart from it. at the very least, it needs "antitrust" (limiting disproportionate influence due to wealth). but like product markets, it needs positive structuring as well as after-the-fact policing of monopoly. 1/

@curtosis @rajivsethi from someone's perspective that will always be "censorship" (my view would have prevailed but for how we've structured this system), just as regulation is perceived, not incorrectly, by some parties as a limitation of freedoms they might otherwise enjoy. 2/

@curtosis @rajivsethi are we capable of crafting a regime for managing the reach ("speech" alone doesn't matter, talk to yourself all you want) of political expression that necessary cannot be content neutral, at least *ex post*, that serves society without leading to the blindspots and dogmatism and injustices that historically have persuaded us to err on the side of laissez-faire with speech (and reach)? /fin

@interfluidity @rajivsethi Great question. I’m not optimistic, but it’s worth trying.

One interesting experiment is what we’re seeing with Bluesky’s particular set of tools (not getting into debates about its structure or ownership here). The nuclear block and other tools (like detaching quote posts) *may* be an interesting counter to *some* of the challenges, by significantly raising the costs of bad behavior. There might be seeds there of what effective market interventions might look like.

@curtosis @rajivsethi Yes. I remain concerned about its architecture, it's susceptibility to capture. but for now it's a vibrant space for experimentation like we haven't seen in a while.

@Hyolobrika the government arbitrates truth in jury trials. it does not prejudge it. it sets up procedures that are ex ante viewpoint neutral. ex post, a losing party might call foul (and rights to appeal are part of the procedure). but ultimately this procedure does adjudication truth and falsehood, as a matter of social outcome if not in the eyes of God, over matters of important controversy. of course it sometimes errs.

do you object?

@Hyolobrika No one is arguing people shouldn’t be allowed to say anything. People should be allowed to say overt falsehoods. It’s institutions of authority and potentially of reach that might be regulated.

@interfluidity @Hyolobrika Hmm, regulation is one approach.
Did you consider other approaches, like limiting the reach and/or power?

For corporate stuff, it would be monopoly control. It sounds a bit stange to say "one corpo can't own 50%+ of social media", but that can be a lesson we learn from facebooks desasters. Or maybe social media does not belong in corporate hands, at all. Fediverse or nothing, probably.

With gouvernment institutions, it gets more experimental, like maybe make institutions redundant and have the redundancies check the primary?

We would still need some functions to be performed quickly, thus we need a primary, but the longer term checking could for example have stopped the CDC from the blunder with 5 microns.

@interfluidity @curtosis @rajivsethi What drives me crazy are widely held incorrect facts.
Who writes the tariff check to the US government,.the number of Federal employees over time, the number of deaths in the US before, during, and after Covid. These are now more like urban legends than lies.
Maybe Dems need to focus on fact communication, including to journalists.

@admitsWrongIfProven @Hyolobrika antitrust is a start and absolutely necessary. but i don’t think on its own it’s sufficient. https://zirk.us/@interfluidity/113534160360556906