[lucidone]

Only allowing "true" information on any platform (or in any form of discourse, really) is effectively impossible given the subjective nature of truth. Philosophers have spent their lives arguing this topic, a tech giant isn't about to answer that question.

[protonfish]

Agreed there is no guaranteed way to only allow truth. However, there are many easy ways to remove utter nonsense. Maybe we should start with that and see how it goes.

[lucidone]

I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me. The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.

[krapp]

>I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me.

No one has delegated "the arbitration of facts" at any universal or societal scale to Facebook, nor is Facebook attempting to arbitrate all "facts" or "truth" on their own platform. The principle with which you agree appears to be the principle Facebook is actually using, and I see no "dangerous territory" in them moderating their own platform. There are plenty of other platforms where Pizzagate and other such conspiracies are taken as fact.

> The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.

This is not an inconvenient answer so much as a thought terminating cliche.

[lucidone]

I don't think Facebook has the public good in mind when they develop their product, but their bottom line first and foremost. They're a private company, they're beholden to their shareholders.

I also don't think that shifting responsibility from software to humans is a "thought terminating cliche" but a necessary step in how we orient the conversation about the mass dissemination of propaganda via tech platforms. There's a reason folks are eager to believe conspiracy theories and misinformation.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[protonfish]

That does not sound like a good solution to the problem of powerful bad actors using social media to spread conflict and misinformation. In fact, it is not a solution at all. I don't understand this attitude of defeatism. Clearly how things are is bad. We should explore solutions. Is that too radical for you? Asking private companies to discern between nonsense of good facts is something that is commonly done with all publications - newspapers, magazines, TV, radio. This is nothing new. Healthy moderation has always been a key part of civil discourse - and FB's moderation is utter garbage. The solution? Demand they moderate less bad.

[lucidone]

I pay a newspaper to discern the "truth" of real world events. They sell credibility. They have an interest (both ethical via their staff - most journalists want to tell the truth, and financial - why pay for a garbage paper) in being credible.

Facebook sells ads and has a history of poor decision making with regards to their platform. Would facebook improve the credibility of their platform at the expense of their bottom line? I doubt it. Facebook won't solve this problem for us. This is a human issue, not a technological one.