Should Social Media shut down Conspiracy Theories?

[Emergent]

I understand that private entities can control what speech is put on their media. But is that a wise idea not to air alternative points of view on huge powerhouses such as Youtube, facebook, Twitter Etc?

I'm thinking specifically of this Plandemic lady. I, personally, have not viewed her video. I'm not interested in her particular point of view. I have never felt the need to investigate every conspiracy theory out there.

I do think there is a lot of paranoia in sothat might be well earned. Social media such as facebook and Youtube wield enormous power and influence over public opinion.

The government has pulled a lot of sneaky tricks on the public over the years. I don't trust them. I also don't trust the Chinese government.

I don't trust large pharmaceutical companies or the mega-corporations. Their lust for money, power and influence is insatiable.

Should we give social media giants, who practically hold monopolies on the public form, the abilities to shut down conspiracy theories? I'll bet there are some true ones out there.

[TheDudeWithTheBigDog, ADN, RN]

2 hours ago, hherrn said:

I have a doctorate in philosophy, and believe that the best course for parents is to deliberately expose their children to Covid, and to withhold all fluids, antipyretics or food in in febrile infants. When I post my convincing video explaining how this will confer immunity, is there any obligation to take it down, or should it be left up?

Are you presenting it in a Ron Swanson style, or that crazy guy from Ancient Aliens style, or that weird really fast whispering that people do on Youtube videos? I could deal with a Ron Swanson style bad idea video, since the smarter people will take it as a joke, since ironically that character was created to make fun of the people who keep using him in their memes.

[Guest219794]

4 hours ago, TheDudeWithTheBigDog said:

Are you presenting it in a Ron Swanson style, or that crazy guy from Ancient Aliens style, or that weird really fast whispering that people do on Youtube videos? I could deal with a Ron Swanson style bad idea video, since the smarter people will take it as a joke, since ironically that character was created to make fun of the people who keep using him in their memes.

When I had to shave for my N95 compliant face, I offered to my wife that I go stache only- she declined. So I don't think I could pull of the Ron Swanson thing.

Nope, completely serious. The kind of thing that any simple minded anti-vaxxer, birther movement type would easily buy.

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

9 hours ago, hherrn said:

Social media is not private space and is actually public space and should be defined and treated as such.

You just posted this on a social media site which you voluntarily agreed to TOS that restricts what you can and can not say.

As far as social media sites taking down conspiracy theories- You believe that should be allowed. Should there be any restrictions?

I have a doctorate in philosophy, and believe that the best course for parents is to deliberately expose their children to Covid, and to withhold all fluids, antipyretics or food in in febrile infants. When I post my convincing video explaining how this will confer immunity, is there any obligation to take it down, or should it be left up?

I am planning to wear my white coat, stethoscope over the shoulder- whole shebang.

Yes, I posted on a social media site that has "terms of service". I would not actually call the terms of service a voluntary agreement, but I also don't think that niche sites like allnurses should be considered public spaces the same way that the social media giants like facebook and Twitter should be, so that is just a different topic.

I think that the internet has both private and public space. And we ought to take the time to really define where it is public and where it is private and thus who has the right to restrict what happens where. In the real world, we have a better demarcation of public and private space. If you start a nazi tirade at a party at my house, I clearly have the right to tell you to leave and that is not an infringement on your free speech rights. You have the right to speak and I have the right to tell you to leave. If you go on the same tirade at the capitol building, I can't make you leave because that is public space. There are some places that are both public and private and we have had some discussions about how to treat those but some disagreement remains: shopping malls are an example. We have not taken the time to define public space and private space on the internet, and it is past the time when we should have done so, and now we are in a human rights dilemma.

I am not sure why you think I believe that we should take down conspiracy theories from social media, because I don't think that we should.

Also there is a line between what I think should happen, and what I think should be allowed and I think you are conflating those.

Your last point about the PhD video was a little confusing to me. I'm not sure what you meant; but I think you are asking me if a video like the one you described should be taken down.

If the video was posted to your facebook page, a place that you control for content, then you should be able to make a choice to take it down. That should be allowed. Whether you should do that or not is a different matter, as you also might choose to refute the video and we could have a very good discussion about which is the better choice. But right now we are talking about what should be allowed. I believe that your personal facebook page is the part of facebook that is private, and it is your private space. Not facebook's private space, but yours. If you are asking me if facebook as an authority of the space, should take the video down from everywhere it could be within the facebook paradigm, because the video is wrong, I would say no as I am opposed to censorship for many reasons, one of which is the infringement of free speech. But we come back to problem 1, which is that we have not had the discussion about what counts as public and private space on the internet and this makes the other problem about free speech difficult to discuss. I strongly disagree that the social media giants should be considered owners of all the social media space. And I think the internet needs to have public spaces and we need to define those.

[HandsOffMySteth]

Yes, we should ban all dangerous posts ,videos, and anything we disagree with because people cannot be held responsible for doing stupid things if they are exposed to such horrible and unavoidable dangers. To further that, we need to make certain thoughts a crime because of their inherent danger. The government shall remove all personal responsibility from everyone and we shall be told what and how to think. After all, we can't let people decide things for themselves. Choice is far too complex for people and so they shall have none.

[toomuchbaloney]

54 minutes ago, juniper222 said:

Yes, we should ban all dangerous posts ,videos, and anything we disagree with because people cannot be held responsible for doing stupid things if they are exposed to such horrible and unavoidable dangers. To further that, we need to make certain thoughts a crime because of their inherent danger. The government shall remove all personal responsibility from everyone and we shall be told what and how to think. After all, we can't let people decide things for themselves. Choice is far too complex for people and so they shall have none.

Who is "we"? Are you talking about the government as in We The People?

[Hoosier_RN, MSN]

7 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Who is "we"? Are you talking about the government as in We The People?

The response from @juniper222 was sarcasm. Jeez

[toomuchbaloney]

5 hours ago, Hoosier_RN said:

The response from @juniper222 was sarcasm. Jeez

Thanks for identifying it clearly. Funny how crazy and not uncommon thinking is not always sarcasm...we've seen a good variety of ideas expressed publicly in the past few years (and weeks) that are difficult to understand outside of sarcasm.

[Guest219794]

On 5/17/2020 at 6:25 AM, FolksBtrippin said:

Yes, I posted on a social media site that has "terms of service". I would not actually call the terms of service a voluntary agreement, but I also don't think that niche sites like allnurses should be considered public spaces the same way that the social media giants like facebook and Twitter should be, so that is just a different topic.

I think that the internet has both private and public space. And we ought to take the time to really define where it is public and where it is private and thus who has the right to restrict what happens where. In the real world, we have a better demarcation of public and private space. If you start a nazi tirade at a party at my house, I clearly have the right to tell you to leave and that is not an infringement on your free speech rights. You have the right to speak and I have the right to tell you to leave. If you go on the same tirade at the capitol building, I can't make you leave because that is public space. There are some places that are both public and private and we have had some discussions about how to treat those but some disagreement remains: shopping malls are an example. We have not taken the time to define public space and private space on the internet, and it is past the time when we should have done so, and now we are in a human rights dilemma.

I am not sure why you think I believe that we should take down conspiracy theories from social media, because I don't think that we should.

Also there is a line between what I think should happen, and what I think should be allowed and I think you are conflating those.

Your last point about the PhD video was a little confusing to me. I'm not sure what you meant; but I think you are asking me if a video like the one you described should be taken down.

If the video was posted to your facebook page, a place that you control for content, then you should be able to make a choice to take it down. That should be allowed. Whether you should do that or not is a different matter, as you also might choose to refute the video and we could have a very good discussion about which is the better choice. But right now we are talking about what should be allowed. I believe that your personal facebook page is the part of facebook that is private, and it is your private space. Not facebook's private space, but yours. If you are asking me if facebook as an authority of the space, should take the video down from everywhere it could be within the facebook paradigm, because the video is wrong, I would say no as I am opposed to censorship for many reasons, one of which is the infringement of free speech. But we come back to problem 1, which is that we have not had the discussion about what counts as public and private space on the internet and this makes the other problem about free speech difficult to discuss. I strongly disagree that the social media giants should be considered owners of all the social media space. And I think the internet needs to have public spaces and we need to define those.

Quote

Yes, I posted on a social media site that has "terms of service". I would not actually call the terms of service a voluntary agreement,

How is the TOS not voluntary?

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

On 6/7/2020 at 6:21 PM, hherrn said:

How is the TOS not voluntary?

For something to be voluntary, people must be able to choose yes or no on that particular thing. The terms of service are not voluntary because we can't choose no on any of the terms of service. They are a boundary for behavior, which if violated, will result in an admin removing your post or possibly banning you from the site.

The usual argument is that the fact that you can just choose not to be a member makes the TOS voluntary. But it doesn't. Being a member is voluntary, the TOS are not.

[Hoosier_RN, MSN]

46 minutes ago, FolksBtrippin said:

For something to be voluntary, people must be able to choose yes or no on that particular thing. The terms of service are not voluntary because we can't choose no on any of the terms of service. They are a boundary for behavior, which if violated, will result in an admin removing your post or possibly banning you from the site.

The usual argument is that the fact that you can just choose not to be a member makes the TOS voluntary. But it doesn't. Being a member is voluntary, the TOS are not.

If you choose to be a member and TOS is part of it, then yes, its voluntary. No one is forced to join, thus agreeing to TOS

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

16 minutes ago, Hoosier_RN said:

If you choose to be a member and TOS is part of it, then yes, its voluntary. No one is forced to join, thus agreeing to TOS

That's just not how I define voluntary. Like I said, being a member is voluntary. The terms of service are not.

It's an important distinction that has been blurred by predatory "contracts" that aren't really contracts. A contract is an agreement negotiated and created by two people or entities. Terms are different. One party draws up the terms and the other must either submit to the terms or not participate. They can't both participate and also not submit to the terms. Therefore terms are not voluntary, even though participation is.

[NICU Guy, BSN, RN]

On 6/7/2020 at 12:50 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

Thanks for identifying it clearly. Funny how crazy and not uncommon thinking is not always sarcasm...we've seen a good variety of ideas expressed publicly in the past few years (and weeks) that are difficult to understand outside of sarcasm.

Such as "We should just disband the Minneapolis police department and replace the police officers with social workers"?