Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

I once got a strike on social media for posting an article about a German doctor that recommended whiskey to cure covid19. It was a joke, and any reasonable adult would know this is false.

It's hard for me to feel sorry for companies that go down the fact checking route with algorithms; It always ends up causing more damage than value.

12 years ago we didn't have this problem, and I think that's mostly related to the fact there was some UX resistance to hitting the "reahare" button.

Well, I don't think it can be see as a positive even if human beings are the ones to fact-check.

Who is someone working for Facebook or anyone else to flag my messages because they think they're not factual?

This is crazy.

If you think the fact checker is wrong, you're welcome to provide your view -- fact checking is better than censorship and absolutely needed on social media to hinder its use for control at the population level (Cambridge Analytica style control).

> I once got a strike on social media for posting an article about a German doctor that recommended whiskey to cure covid19.

You mean I've been taking all this medication for nothing?

Unfortunately the idea that alcohol can kill the virus (if you drink it) is taken seriously by some, and has resulted in more than 700 deaths in Iran https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/iran-700-dead-drinkin...

Literally hundreds of people, including children, have died drinking bootleg alcohol being hawked as a COVID-19 cure. It is simply not the case that “any reasonable adult” knows your joke is a joke - that may be the case in developed countries where people have reliable access to actual doctors. But in developing countries this has been a serious problem.

Misinformation kills innocent people. A harsh no-tolerance policy is acceptable given this is the worst global health crisis in 100 years.

> I once got a strike on social media for posting an article about a German doctor that recommended whiskey to cure covid19. It was a joke, and any reasonable adult would know this is false.

There are a heck of a lot of non-reasonable adults on social media.

Unless something is very explicitly and prominently labeled as a joke or satire, in a way that won't get separated from it when it is re-shared by your downstream viewers, there's a good chance quite a few people will not catch on that it is not intended to be true.

Social media can be particularly bad in this regard because it often encourages only spending a short time reading each individual post. It pushes breadth over depth.

> 12 years ago we didn't have this problem, and I think that's mostly related to the fact there was some UX resistance to hitting the "reahare" button.

I'm not sure that is most of it, but it contributes to increasing volume in people's feeds, pushing the breadth vs. depth balance toward breadth so makes things worse.

Not sure algorithms are the problem in this case. I haven't seen your post of course, but as you describe it I'd have flagged it as covid19 misinformation.

I'd probably understand that you posted it as a joke, but I'd also know that regardless of your intentions, many people would not understand the joke.

I think you probably earned your strike.

We could fine/punish people if they post misinformation, even implement a kind of points system where the person has some societal rights given or taken, like being banned from sharing, commenting, doing any type of publishing on the internet.

Would that be too harsh? For sure it would prevent needless deaths.

alcohol does kill viruses, so it should be taken seriously. the falsehood is that drinking alcohol will kill viruses in your body without doing other harm. the missing intuition is the deleterious effects on the body and the lack of targeting once therein.

our biological systems are infinitely complex and shouldn't be arbitrarily subject to whims of fashion or fear. the panic and frenzy whipped up by media and politicians, rather than information and intuition-building, are principally at fault here.

Let’s address the reality of the situation first. I am not interested in playing this stupid game where the private acts of private corporations suddenly become the acts of government.

A private content publisher is allowed to moderate the stuff they publish. Simon and Schuster rejecting my novel is not censorship. This principle includes highly permissive content publishers like Facebook and Twitter. I don’t think anyone here is seriously arguing that the Klan deserves a Facebook group. Obviously it’s well within Facebook’s rights as both an online business and a publicly-accessible service to kick the Klan out. So I am really not seeing what is so authoritarian about removing misinformation about public health - the only way your argument is even remotely defensible is if you wrap it up in a ridiculous thought experiment. And being banned from Facebook for posting conspiracy theories is no more Stalinist than being banned from Chuck-E-Cheese for booing Munich’s Make Believe Band.

To get to your actual point:

Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire will land you in jail. Lying about the efficacy of your pharmaceutical company’s medications will (or should) land you in jail. And a successful libel/slander lawsuit can ruin you. Some of these legal issues are thorny and I have mixed feelings on them (until recently Canada has highly repressive libel laws). But certainly lying pharma executives who get people killed should go to jail. Certainly the guy who pranked the crowded theater should be held criminally liable for the resulting stampede. Free speech is not and had never been the same thing as freedom from consequences of speech.

If it’s just some guy ranting on the street then yes, congratulations, the state should leave him alone.

Completely disagree.

My audience, my friends and family, are all educated reasonable adults.

There's no way for a moderator to know all that, and take it into account.

People are now seriously arguing that jokes should be censored, and by algorithms no less? This is an extreme position.

Why not put them in jail as well, at least until the danger is passed? I mean, they're killing innocent people with their misinformation and this is the worst global health crisis in 100 years.

I don't think its as simple as that. Many of these large companies do so much business with the government, and comply to so many government rules already, at some point you have to wonder to what degree they are separate at all. If lockheed Lockheed Martin, Planatir, or Boeing ceased getting government money, they would probably not exist. And if Facebook and Twitter really became anti establishment, their stock would tank, and most likely would quickly be taken over or bankrupted.

I guess the issue is "getting a strike". Sure, if your posts are misinformation, why not add a label that says so.

But giving a strike? That's going too far and your case highlights why: you can't make a joke anymore.

A strike is stifling free speech whereas a label is just informative. It might be biased, it might not be, but it doesn't prevent you from expressing yourself, be it by making a joke or spreading accurate information or spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Wow. I was going to ask for a source since your mention of hundreds of deaths sounded so unbelievable, but it was very easy to find: > Iran: Over 700 dead after drinking alcohol to cure coronavirus https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/iran-700-dead-drinkin...

Crazy what people will do due to misinformation.

There were some news reports after Trump's suggestions to use disinfectant as a COVID-19 cure that hundreds of people had called health services to ask if it was indeed a legitimate way to get rid of coronavirus. Now I'm wondering how many didn't call and just went ahead with the "treatment".

Thanks for your permission to provide my view.

If every participant were acting in good faith, it wouldn't be a problem.

Agree. It lacks context. My friends and family know my style of humor and sarcasm. Every situation an algorithm will not be able to determine that.