[dcole2929]

I'm not really sure why this is taking on a political slant from commenters here aside from the fact that Obama as a politician is a polarizing figure. The content of what he said is completely accurate and just about any credible researcher in the field will tell you so. Misinformation and especially Disinformation is a very large problems that will have to be addressed in some way if we're to have an actual functioning democracy.

They certainly aren't the only issues we face, but calling for platforms to take greater accountability isn't and shouldn't somehow be viewed as political. It doesn't matter whether you're for red, blue, putin, Snoop or the Pope. If the places people go to consume information are allowed to become inundated with blatantly false information, that's a bad thing.

There is absolutely an argument that Twitter, FB, etc. should never have become peoples sources for information but the reality is that this is the world we live in and for better and worse and we need to craft policy based on people's actions not what they should do.

[aww_dang]

The problem isn't with who the speaker is. It could be Obama or anyone else. The problem is who gets to define misinformation. Should we have a government ministry of truth?

I hope posters here can appreciate how problematic that is, not just from an epistemological standpoint, but also the practical implications.

[dcole2929]

Yes obviously, that's a problem. But again it's one of policy. There are lots of hard problems. Generally, avoiding hard problems isn't a great solution. Maybe for some things but when the counter is the end of democracy then that's not really an option.

Anyone that set's out to solve this should go in with a really specific definition (something like verifiable false based on expert consensus), make it enforceable with stiff penalties, and appealable to the courts. It's not perfect, it requires constant monitoring and updating, and lot's of work to make sure it's not like every other regulatory body, and get's subverted or otherwise undermined by political activity. But none of that is impossible. Possibly improbable given current conditions, but regardless something we should be having conversations about.

A ministry of truth with a well defined scope isn't any more unreasonable than a ministry of food cleanliness (FDA).

The same way we regulate what technical exports a company can make when it affects our national security, it is completely reasonable to do the same with the telecommunication companies that can affect equally large impacts on our internal security.

[aww_dang]

The premises are undemocratic, yet censorship advocates attempt to appeal to democracy.

>...but when the counter is the end of democracy then that's not really an option.

I've said it elsewhere in this thread. If you do not trust the discernment of voters, how can you trust them to vote?

How is the state tabooing information not the same as the state manipulating the outcome of an election?

A simple and coherent response might be: Authoritarians do not trust the discernment of voters. They do not trust voters to vote "correctly". Propaganda is necessitated. The force of the state is applied to prohibit contrary information.

Democracy as it is used in this case is nothing more than a window dressing, a catch phrase.

>A ministry of truth with a well defined scope isn't any more unreasonable than a ministry of food cleanliness (FDA).

It is 2022 and we are actually having this conversation. We might observe the mission creep present in all gov. bureaus. Although I'm not sure I can connect here. We appear to have very different premises concerning the role of the state.

>Anyone that set's out to solve this should go in with a really specific definition (something like verifiable false based on expert consensus), make it enforceable with stiff penalties, and appealable to the courts.

Who should select and accredit the "experts"? Who's experts have sufficient expertise to claim an exclusive license on objective truth? From where I stand, I don't see this problem as solvable by fallible men. Omnipotence would be a prerequisite.

Humans have subjective opinions. We have a diversity of views. Yet those who would prohibit that diversity of opinion, a prerequisite to democracy as we understand it, claim to do so in the name of democracy.