[balozi]

Call it what it is: censorship.

Also, there is an interesting recent study from a group at Vanderbilt University that looked at the effect that European speech regulations have in muzzling of online speech. Featured in Reason Mag.

Preventing “Torrents of Hate” or Stifling Free Expression Online? https://futurefreespeech.org/preventing-torrents-of-hate-or-...

[imiric]

They're two sides of the same coin. But, frankly, criticizing this as censorship and stifling of free speech ignores the very real dangers of online {m,d}isinformation, and prevents adoption of efforts to mitigate it.

The reality is that we're flooded with false information, which can be generated by anyone with enough resources and motivation to change how a group of people think and act. We've seen how this can corrupt democratic processes and influence the outcome of elections with the Cambridge Analytica scandal (which still continues today), and how it can be used to rally people and cause social unrest in many countries. Social media is the most effective tool for spreading political propaganda, astroturfing campaigns, and conducting any other kind of mass psychological manipulation, starting with advertising, of course.

The current state of online services is an existential threat to modern civilization, which will only grow larger with the increase of AI-generated content. Governments and companies should be doing _more_ to control this, not less. I'm not saying that I agree with mass censorship and total government control over public discourse, but surely there's some middle ground between that and the current situation.

[largbae]

There is absolutely a middle ground: have multiple choices of user-selectable filters on open platforms.

Subreddits are the closest thing to an implementation of what I want today. Let me go to moderated subsets of the content on a platform without taking away my right to expand my view at any time I wish.

Twitter et al allow you to do some moderation with blocking and follows. But opaque recommendation engines and new accounts present challenges for both.

[imiric]

I'm not sure if giving users control over what they consume would be a solution. If social media apps have proven anything is that the vast majority of people prefer the mind numbing experience of highly curated content, with infinite scrolling and a minimal amount of knobs and tweaks.

Users who want to curate their experience are outliers, and are probably less likely to be susceptible to misinformation to begin with.

I think the solution starts with strict moderation on behalf of companies hosting the content, accompanied by strict regulation of tech companies by governments. Along the way, passing regulation to adopt programs and initiatives that educate people about technology and critical thinking from a very early age will provide new generations with crucial skills to combat disinformation, which could hopefully eventually spread to areas of government and industry to further propel us in the right direction.

Tech approaches alone aren't the solution, and we need major social and political long-term changes as well. But strict moderation and regulation needs to happen as a start to stop the bleeding.

[largbae]

I think we are roughly in agreement here. Even a "default filter" can be ok as long as it can be _turned off_ by the user.

The problem with deplatforming and censorship is that even the savviest users are unable to discuss what they have no way to ever see.

[pstuart]

But you're ok with censorship here, right?