texasbb
Trail Wise!
Hates chicken
Posts: 1,221
|
Post by texasbb on Nov 21, 2020 21:06:20 GMT -8
Then consider my post as speaking out against the forum terms. I came back from a nice snow-camping overnighter and scanned quickly through the thread(s) only to find in bold letters a notice of something I'm not allowed to see. And it came in one of very few posts with an opinion a bit off the consensus. It's very hard to take that any way other than as an attempt to discredit the contrary view. Once shown what the statement was, I could evaluate things logically.
This is nothing like yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's about the practical impossibility of honoring truth by silencing people. If you're hiding something from me, I have reason to distrust you.
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,911
|
Post by BigLoad on Nov 21, 2020 21:19:16 GMT -8
Then consider my post as speaking out against the forum terms. The mods have no choice about those terms. If you don't like the owner's terms, take it up with the owner directly and leave the rest of us out of it. I don't see good reason to risk consequences to this site over the matter.
|
|
zeke
Trail Wise!
Peekaboo slot 2023
Posts: 9,876
|
Post by zeke on Nov 22, 2020 4:37:02 GMT -8
It might be censoring, but lies do not belong on the same level of acceptance as truth. Mods use different fact checking sites to verify something is not true. This is just how it is. In an effort to abide by ProBoards policies,and keep this little community thriving, it is just something that needs to be done.
|
|
|
Post by cweston on Nov 22, 2020 4:56:19 GMT -8
It might be censoring, but lies do not belong on the same level of acceptance as truth. This is the key, IMHO. No one likes "censoring"—but every single message board I've ever participated in that didn't "censor" with some at least semi-active moderator action has fairly quickly fallen on ruin, as the providers of quality content quickly dropped out after it became clear that lies and attacks could be posted with impunity. There are two things that bother me about your initial post about this, texasbb: 1) The strong implication that the moderators were exercising some sort of ideological control, when in fact they were simply executing the ProBoards policy by removing a falsehood about Covid. I'll extend the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know this was the ProBoards policy, although it seems widely known here. 2) The lack of concern about potentially dangerous/slanderous lies being posted here. As to rebeccad's point about falsehoods flourishing even when they are tagged as false: the findings of this study corroborate this concern: The Atlantic: The Grim Conclusions of the Largest-Ever Study of Fake News
|
|
driftwoody
Trail Wise!
Take the path closer to the edge, especially if less traveled
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by driftwoody on Nov 22, 2020 5:24:49 GMT -8
Thank you for the link to that article, cweston. The rapid spread of verifiably false information is doing real damage. Attempts to limit that spread are inadequate, but I applaud the efforts of our web site owners and moderators in that regard.
|
|
jazzmom
Trail Wise!
a.k.a. TigerFan
Posts: 3,059
|
Post by jazzmom on Nov 22, 2020 7:05:55 GMT -8
Truth is one thing. Facts are another. For America to unite in common cause to defeat this deadly pandemic requires an agreed upon set of facts. That much I believe is true. Right now we are in a place where people deny the facts with their dying breath, and anger is directed at those trying to save them. While I don't disagree, I think it's also true that there's just as much anger directed at the "them" who are denying what we believe are "facts", who obviously don't appreciate what is being done to "save them". I also believe that the way our anger has been directed or used hasn't been all that productive, since COVID numbers are rising. And, as they rise, our natural reaction has been to get angrier, for the vitriol to get uglier, for people to dig their heels in deeper. It's not a one-sided thing, even if each side believes it is and believes that the other side to be politically duped.
|
|
driftwoody
Trail Wise!
Take the path closer to the edge, especially if less traveled
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by driftwoody on Nov 22, 2020 7:56:43 GMT -8
Truth is one thing. Facts are another. For America to unite in common cause to defeat this deadly pandemic requires an agreed upon set of facts. That much I believe is true. Right now we are in a place where people deny the facts with their dying breath, and anger is directed at those trying to save them. While I don't disagree, I think it's also true that there's just as much anger directed at the "them" who are denying what we believe are "facts", who obviously don't appreciate what is being done to "save them". I also believe that the way our anger has been directed or used hasn't been all that productive, since COVID numbers are rising. And, as they rise, our natural reaction has been to get angrier, for the vitriol to get uglier, for people to dig their heels in deeper. It's not a one-sided thing, even if each side believes it is and believes that the other side to be politically duped. Hence the dire need for an agreed upon set of facts if we (as in all Americans) are to successfully quell a deadly virus that is killing so many friends and family members. Can success in the real world be achieved with a compromise that accepts some but not all verifiably false information? I think not. I agree that anger is not productive in this common cause, but emotion is unavoidable when family and friends are dying in part due to the spread of false information and the ensuing misguided beliefs which impede efforts to save lives. I don't know how we can bridge the gap between diametrically opposed beliefs in a polarized climate of anger but I think stopping, slowing, or effectively countering the spread of false information has to be part of the solution if we are ever going to have something approaching that critically important agreed upon set of facts.
|
|
jazzmom
Trail Wise!
a.k.a. TigerFan
Posts: 3,059
|
Post by jazzmom on Nov 22, 2020 8:35:40 GMT -8
I don't know how we can bridge the gap between diametrically opposed beliefs in a polarized climate of anger but I think stopping, slowing, or effectively countering the spread of false information has to be part of the solution if we are ever going to have something approaching that critically important agreed upon set of facts. So, how do you define or evaluate "effective" here? Because I think the measures being put in place currently, to "counter the spread of false information", may feel "effective" to us (speaking for us "commies" ) because it's giving us a feeling of having some control toward what you describe as "approaching that critically important agreed upon set of facts." But if we get to decide what's true or false, how does that prove effective toward *agreeing* on a set of facts? Don't get me wrong, you and I are on the same "side" as facts go, and I think you know this. I'm not disputing what the facts are. All I'm saying, in the context of this discussion which I think is about why we're treating each other this way, is that even if we think we're on the higher ground, it's not working in achieving the outcome we say we want.
|
|
driftwoody
Trail Wise!
Take the path closer to the edge, especially if less traveled
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by driftwoody on Nov 22, 2020 9:24:47 GMT -8
"Effective" in the context of the pandemic is when enough people accept facts and the scientific consensus to vastly increase our success in suppressing the virus.
Succeeding in that common cause might also help in reducing the bitter polarization dividing the American people.
No small task on either count.
|
|
jazzmom
Trail Wise!
a.k.a. TigerFan
Posts: 3,059
|
Post by jazzmom on Nov 22, 2020 10:02:50 GMT -8
"Effective" in the context of the pandemic is when enough people accept facts and the scientific consensus to vastly increase our success in suppressing the virus. Well, then, I don't think the current strategy (to make people "accept facts") is effective. Can success in the real world be achieved with a compromise that accepts some but not all verifiably false information? I think not. You call it a "compromise", I call it "picking your battles".
|
|
texasbb
Trail Wise!
Hates chicken
Posts: 1,221
|
Post by texasbb on Nov 23, 2020 7:23:48 GMT -8
There are two things that bother me about your initial post about this, texasbb: 1) The strong implication that the moderators were exercising some sort of ideological control, when in fact they were simply executing the ProBoards policy by removing a falsehood about Covid. I'll extend the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know this was the ProBoards policy, although it seems widely known here. 2) The lack of concern about potentially dangerous/slanderous lies being posted here. I had no idea this site had a censorship policy and this is definitely the first time I've noticed it, perhaps because I usually avoid this kind of thread. I've seen threads move to TPA and advertising posts deleted, that's about it.
My post was intentionally acerbic to convey my incredulity and show the illogic of trying to steer people to truth by keeping them in the dark. And it seemed to work--you immediately solved my info crisis by letting me see the censored statement, the falsity of which was then easily verified. If I hadn't seen it, I'd still be wondering what inconvenient truth might be being hidden from me.
So I now see the policy is the site owner's, though I also perceive from subsequent posts that there is general agreement with it, at least for some of the moderators (disclaimer: I don't know who they all are). Regardless, I'll save any future protests for the front office. I'm glad the censored bit was highlighted rather than silently removed, and hope that is the convention.
As for your second point, yes, I am absolutely less concerned about potentially "dangerous" misinformation being spoken than I am about potentially true information being suppressed. I can easily check out the former on my own and come to a reasoned conclusion. I can do nothing about the latter except maybe hold on to a wary distrust.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Nov 23, 2020 18:07:13 GMT -8
Digital platforms are now constantly wrestling with where to draw the line on what content they inherently promote by providing posting within their (privately owned and operated) software platforms a far cry from the neutral “we simply provide the digital space” with which such social networks as FaceBook and Twitter started out.
The understanding of the digital phenomena has evolved: and it’s more commonly recognized that the damage done by hosting an incorrect “fact” headline is both very real (the reality being people often don’t read past the headline; I’ve noticed many news sites leading with “this isn’t true” before presenting a headline quote to try snd account for that phenomena) and more and more potentially something they can be held liable for. Yes, readers “should” take closer looks at what they read, and they should brush after every meal followed by vigorous flossing. Ask dentists how that goes. And beyond that there’s often a required specialized knowledge not commonly found in the casual reader. (Case in point I’m virtually certain I’m the only forum member who’s had an entire professional carreer at whose very center has been antibodies, the development, production and research and therapeutic use of monoclonal antibodies and interventions to an autoimmune disease while researching the genetic family of ion gated cell membrane channels in muscle and the human nervous system, vaccines produce antibodies, so I’ve insight into that other biologist forum members won’t have, much like I won’t have insight into areas of their expertise or of others such as law).
Hosting a site is less and less being seen as a neutral act with no ownership of the content’s effects. Hence Terms of Service that reflect that potential liability. In the real world the optimum ideal of everyone researching everything is not just not achieved often enough to be the prudent policy.
I’d suggest the current death and hospitalization trends within the United States underline how far off that theoretical ideal we are.
|
|
driftwoody
Trail Wise!
Take the path closer to the edge, especially if less traveled
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by driftwoody on Nov 25, 2020 16:36:19 GMT -8
HSF, your last paragraph is especially pertinent. People are literally dying under the influence of blatant misinformation spread across social media platforms.
In no way can suppression of that misinformation be construed as censorship preventing people from getting at the truth.
|
|
texasbb
Trail Wise!
Hates chicken
Posts: 1,221
|
Post by texasbb on Nov 25, 2020 18:35:01 GMT -8
In no way can suppression of that misinformation be construed as censorship preventing people from getting at the truth. But you have no way of knowing that since, by definition, you don't know what all has been suppressed. (I mean generic, third-person "you," of course.)
|
|
driftwoody
Trail Wise!
Take the path closer to the edge, especially if less traveled
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by driftwoody on Nov 25, 2020 19:09:14 GMT -8
In no way can suppression of that misinformation be construed as censorship preventing people from getting at the truth. But you have no way of knowing that since, by definition, you don't know what all has been suppressed. (I mean generic, third-person "you," of course.) When our moderators state they thoroughly fact checked and verified it was false, I trust them. The alternative is no impediment to the spread of false information which is, literally, killing people. This polcy on privately owned platforms does not prevent anyone from going elsewhere to view false content in search of "truth." YMMV
|
|