this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
841 points (94.5% liked)
Technology
59578 readers
3661 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Look, idgaf about musk or anything he does but why is it on him to fix misinformation on x? Why is it the job of the platform owner? Id really like it if someone explained this to me.
The way I see it, content on these platforms is user generated, misinformed or not, propaganda of one side or the other... If someone decides to put up a plain old text document and let everyone modify it, should the owner of said document really be liable for what others put on it? What if the document has no owner and is hosted in a peer to peer fashion? Who do we give 24 hours to fix it then?
The EU decided that it rather doesn't have any platforms than some which allow hate/propaganda/childabuse. The intent is to fight the mentioned things and ideally remove them from society. By and large, this decision is a democratic one and fine.
Platforms may continue operation, if they promise to remove all stuff. Here there are two options, one stipulating that all content needs to be checked before its published. Thats the draconian approach. Currently its fine to only go after user reported stuff.
Now to your first question: They fon't gaf about musk and don't care if he removes the stuff. But if he choses not to, they will shutdown twitter for europeans. Thats why they adress him, because he as a major shareholder and CEO (is he?) calls the shots there.
The biggest question for me, is who determines what's misinformation? Honestly, it's determined by someone with a bias as to what is real information, and what is false. What if it was the Republicans in the US making that decision? It would completely change what's considered misinformation. This is where the dangers of censoring misinformation come in. It's all about who is making the decisions. Sure, you may agree with the people making the decisions now, but what about in 5, 10 years?
The beheaded babies thing is a good example. People called it misinformation for days, but today they were forced to release images of the dead babies because nobody believed multiple independent journalists from different countries.
it's really just more of a question of moderation of the platform and censorship of speech