[MichaelCollins]

> social media platforms aren't (currently) legally liable for misinformation spread by their users.

They're politically liable for it. The misinformation warnings on social media aren't there to protect dumb people from misinformation; those people won't heed the warnings. The misinformation warnings are there to keep political heat off the company.

Do you think any would-be flat earther has ever been saved by a warning "Fact check: the earth is actually round"? If somebody was going to fall for a flat earther video, a content warning from youtube won't change their mind. I don't believe that.

[krapp]

would be? yes.

I do think there is a point where the effects of radicalization and indoctrination can be mediated by exposure to facts. I seem to differ from most people in that I don't believe that the effect of "sunlight as a disinfectant" is constant, rather I think it's far more effective early on than after someone has already built a bubble of normalized hyperreality around themselves, and is subject to a law of diminishing returns.

To this end, I think fact-checking and deplatforming can be effective tools against the already unbalanced bias towards disinformation provided by social media platforms. At least more effective than simply letting it spread unchecked and hoping things just sort themselves out.

[MichaelCollins]

The radicalization is driven by the recommendation engines that are the central premise of these platforms. Every would-be flat earther already knows that the roundness of earth is the officially designated truth, putting that warning label on flat earth videos isn't going to change a thing. The only purpose of that label is to take political heat off the platform that is recommending flat earth videos.

These warnings are ass covering, plain and simple. They aren't a service to idiots, they exist to excuse the platform from being fundamentally hazardous.