[deadmutex]

This post comes off as being sarcastic. Here is a question: are you OK with hate speech on social media? If yes, then I don't think we can agree on much. If no, then please re-read your statement and see how it applies to hate speech.

My point: There's always a balance, and health misinformation is costing a lot of lives today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MczumO5PHXg.

Disclaimer: My views are my own, and not of my employer.

[BitwiseFool]

>"Here is a question: are you OK with hate speech on social media? If yes, then I don't think we can agree on much."

And now we circle back to the classic question, who determines what constitutes hate-speech and who is responsible for making the judgement? The kinds of people who end up as censors tend to be the most sensitive and the false-positive rate is very high. There is no shortage of partisan activists willing to indiscriminately label things as racist or hateful these days.

Additionally, what constitutes misinformation that costs lives? I remember back when claiming sanitizing surfaces did not reduce the spread of COVID was misinformation and grounds for a ban on social media platforms. Turns out, sanitizing surfaces really doesn't slow Covid at all. So much of what we know to be 'true' is actually in-flux and subject to change as more time and research goes on.

My point is, wanting to restrict hate-speech and misinformation is not a dangerous thing in and of itself, but it should be done with great caution and hesitancy because you run the risk of censoring true information and preventing people from expressing ideas that run against the orthodoxy of the censors. I hope that people don't view things as black and white as 'allow hate-speech, yes or no?'

[deadmutex]

> wanting to restrict hate-speech and misinformation is not a dangerous thing in and of itself, but it should be done with great caution and hesitancy

Agree (This is my personal view, and not of my employers)

[0xDEEPFAC]

> This post comes off as being sarcastic

Indeed. It is.

> and health misinformation is costing a lot of lives today

Thats a pretty cynical view of humanity - should we ban motorcycles because they are costing peoples lives? What is so bad about letting people make their own choices?

> are you OK with hate speech on social media

I believe in "free speech".

For example, is it even possible for you to tell me an objective definition of "hate" speech or "misinformation"? I bet you can't since it ends up being whatever Alphabet, or Meta's truth and morality departments agree on.

Without ways to express yourself the internet will just turn into TV - where people who agree with the megacorps get to hear their own echos all day.

[tapoxi]

> Thats a pretty cynical view of humanity - should we ban motorcycles because they are costing peoples lives? What is so bad about letting people make their own choices?

Ridiculous analogy. We're talking about preventing the spread of a lethal contagious disease. If driving a motorcycle made everyone around them unsafe then it would be a valid comparison.

[0xDEEPFAC]

> driving a motorcycle made everyone around them unsafe

Not totally untrue

> We're talking about preventing the spread of a lethal contagious disease

Getting vaccinated doesn't stop the spread... if you believe everything you hear our government officials say then I have a war in Iraq and a truck-load of cloth masks to sell you.