Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What would be the libertarian solution to fake news and election interference?

What would be the libertarian solution to fake news and election interference?
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2018, 02:38 PM
 
Shower thought I had today. Yes, I expect this thread will end with me mocking it some more.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2018, 03:39 PM
 
“YEE HAW!”
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2018, 03:54 PM
 
With more words.

Fake news means information flows freely. Though unpleasant, it’s an indicator the marketplace of ideas is functioning properly.

As for elections, we reserve the right to interfere in the elections of other countries as it suits us. Every other country operates in a likewise manner. It’s ancap uptopia.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2018, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Fake news means information flows freely. Though unpleasant, it’s an indicator the marketplace of ideas is functioning properly.
How is people believing verifiable falsehoods demonstrate the marketplace of ideas™ is functioning "properly"?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for elections, we reserve the right to interfere in the elections of other countries as it suits us. Every other country operates in a likewise manner. It’s ancap uptopia.
I guess that leaves me wondering what libertarians think is the proper response to Russia's meddling in 2016.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2018, 04:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
How is people believing verifiable falsehoods demonstrate the marketplace of ideas™ is functioning "properly"?
The barrier to fake news used to be gatekeepers. A properly functioning marketplace of ideas doesn’t have gatekeepers. The gatekeepers fell victim to an extinction level event, which is a triumphant victory for progress.

I’m not going to lie though. This transition is going to be the worst part of the whole experience. We face unfamiliar challenges right at the time we have the least experience coping with the gatekeepers’s absence.



I’m actually a bad person to argue the libertarian view on foreign election meddling. I think we should aggressively stick our nose in world affairs, so the party and myself probably wouldn’t see eye to eye on things. Personally? I’d give my best mind**** people carte blanche.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2018, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With more words.

Fake news means information flows freely. Though unpleasant, it’s an indicator the marketplace of ideas is functioning properly.
Our future selves will laugh piteously at us for even thinking this is a worthwhile thing.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2018, 11:35 AM
 
libertarians are annoyed by the russian interference, but not as annoyed as they are by the 2party system and how hard it is for 3rd parties to get invited to debates.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2018, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Our future selves will laugh piteously at us for even thinking this is a worthwhile thing.
The marketplace of ideas?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2018, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
libertarians are annoyed by the russian interference, but not as annoyed as they are by the 2party system and how hard it is for 3rd parties to get invited to debates.
Libertarians are annoyed by lots of things, and I think ranking them has enormous entertainment value.

Are they more annoyed by no third party invites to debates, or no 14-year-old hookers?

All replies must begin with “well, ackshually...”
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2018, 02:21 PM
 
well ackshually, the libertarians I know, while in theory being pro-hooker, do not have an issue with the age of adulthood! "consenting adults"
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2018, 03:32 PM
 
Well, ackshually I don’t think I know any libertarians.

With 14-year-old hookers, I stacked too many fringe positions on top of one another.

There’s a small portion of libertarians who think the age of consent should be 14. I think most would consider them creepy.

There’s a much larger contingent whose almonds get activated by there being two flavors of consenting adult. The real kind, which is 18 or older, and the lesser kind, usually between 16 and 18, where someone can only consent to certain kinds of sex. Namely, the kinds without people too old, photographs, or getting paid. The age of consent should be 16, and that’s the end of the story.

There’s some merit to this, but like many libertarian arguments, it’s kind of oblivious to what could go wrong.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2018, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The barrier to fake news used to be gatekeepers. A properly functioning marketplace of ideas doesn’t have gatekeepers. The gatekeepers fell victim to an extinction level event, which is a triumphant victory for progress.

I’m not going to lie though. This transition is going to be the worst part of the whole experience. We face unfamiliar challenges right at the time we have the least experience coping with the gatekeepers’s absence.
Perhaps I'm being semantic here, but functioning seems like the wrong word here. To me a functioning marketplace is one where bad actors are punished for their behavior – let's say like a company that sells a defective product losing customers.

In the case of fake news, we're seeing the exact opposite. So the marketplace isn't functioning, it's merely existing.

Let me cynically speculate: Libertarians don't see the results as good or bad. If fake news flourishes its because its giving the customers what they wanted. If it ends up being self-destructive, that's it's ok because darwin or something. Please tell me I'm far off
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2018, 02:36 PM
 
Perhaps I'm a year late to the realization, but isn't Facebook the example of why the libertarian approach to information is flawed?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2018, 03:49 PM
 
Like I said in the other thread, the problem with Facebook is it’s a monopoly.

So, the answer is how much leeway the libertarian gives business to engage in anti-competitive practices. The more the libertarian accepts a monopoly, the more faulty the information model.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2018, 10:12 PM
 
This is the libertarian approach to fake news, right?
Accounts like Jones' can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors, so it’s critical journalists document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions. This is what serves the public conversation best.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2018, 07:49 PM
 
My approach is to not think of Twitter as news.

Because it isn’t.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2018, 08:27 PM
 
I'm not sure why the distinction. It's a platform who in large part helps promote and spread news. Just like facebook or reddit.

Anyway, jack finally showed his cards:


So yeah, his reasons do seem to be idealogical even though he won't admit it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2018, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not sure why the distinction. It's a platform who in large part helps promote and spread news. Just like facebook or reddit.
Or text messaging.

Twitter is much closer to that than it is Facebook.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2018, 08:54 PM
 
So should I ask the question again? Isn't Jack's approach to dealing with fake news on his platform pretty much the libertarian answer?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2018, 09:33 PM
 
I honestly thought the question was rhetorical. Sorry about that.

I would say it is. A reasonable summation of the libertarian approach to fake news (along with most everything else) is “hands-off”. With Twitter, that works for me because as a platform it’s basically glorified text messaging.

Facebook is less of a platform and more of an ecosystem. If Facebook claims they’re hands-off, they’re full of shit because their hands are all over that ****ing ecosystem. They’re the ones who built it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2018, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I honestly thought the question was rhetorical. Sorry about that.
Mmm... Given my extreme cynicism towards libertarianism I try to get some feedback on whether I'm painting too bleak or inaccurate a picture.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I would say it is. A reasonable summation of the libertarian approach to fake news (along with most everything else) is “hands-off”. With Twitter, that works for me because as a platform it’s basically glorified text messaging.
I think the argument here is not the medium but the reach. Well, two arguments. It's also morally questionable given the behavior and stories they engage in. I wouldn't have given Apple crap because it essentially hosts an RSS feed rather content. It's sad that it took them acting for SV to grow a set of balls.

Uh, getting back on track, the reach issue is by helping infowars reach a larger audience, they're helping inspire bad beliefs and behavior by users on their platform. It's not victimless, either – the harassment is real. The obvious rebuttal here is they'll police the bad behavior but its a "is it really worth it?" to me. There are no good outcomes Infowars being on twitter, only bad. Like letting people eat expired meat.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Facebook is less of a platform and more of an ecosystem. If Facebook claims they’re hands-off, they’re full of shit because their hands are all over that ****ing ecosystem. They’re the ones who built it.
I'd quibble over terminology but I get you. There's multiple facets to Facebook and content. They're knee-deep in it because part of the system they designed requires them to be.

---

Regarding jack, yes most of the superficial criticism is that he won't ban infowars but I think there's a deeper, valid criticism that he also won't admit why he won't. I don't think it's motivated just by greed or some kind of principled philosophy.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2018, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I honestly thought the question was rhetorical. Sorry about that.
I forgot, I had a follow up which was why I asked. Is it realistic to expect "journalists [to] document, validate, and refute such information directly"?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2018, 05:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Uh, getting back on track, the reach issue is by helping infowars reach a larger audience, they're helping inspire bad beliefs and behavior by users on their platform. It's not victimless, either – the harassment is real. The obvious rebuttal here is they'll police the bad behavior but its a "is it really worth it?" to me. There are no good outcomes Infowars being on twitter, only bad. Like letting people eat expired meat.
This comes down to what I think makes up the core principle of free speech as a philosophy.

Allowing Alex Jones and his ilk to have the reach of Twitter is unquestionably dangerous. What I posit is that’s less dangerous than anointing someone to decide who gets to have reach.

With Twitter, like the market, this job gets decentralized to the users, and I think that’s the superior, if imperfect option.

Facebook is different because they couldn’t decentralize it even if they wanted to.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2018, 05:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I forgot, I had a follow up which was why I asked. Is it realistic to expect "journalists [to] document, validate, and refute such information directly"?
If it isn’t, all I have is a tiny violin.

Freedom entails responsibility.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2018, 05:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Mmm... Given my extreme cynicism towards libertarianism I try to get some feedback on whether I'm painting too bleak or inaccurate a picture.
Going back to something I think I touched on at the beginning of the thread but I’m too lazy to look.

The reason regulating news sounds appealing is because we had a quite remarkable 50 year stretch where regulation turned out not particularly bad. In fact, I think this recently past era will be viewed as the golden age of American journalism.

The thing is, in my opinion, regulation didn’t make it great. What made it great is the news bureaus of the three networks had budgets completetely detached from their revenue, and were competing for a national audience.

Regulation, at least of the kind we’re talking about, won’t bring those back. Those aren’t coming back until we’re post scarcity.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2018, 08:15 AM
 
Post scarcity = no incentive to monetize news = unbiased journalism?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2018, 08:36 AM
 
Well, I should have said if those are coming back, it won’t be until post-scarcity.

It’s not so much post-scarcity will bring about those conditions, I just don’t see how we get them without it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 07:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This comes down to what I think makes up the core principle of free speech as a philosophy.

Allowing Alex Jones and his ilk to have the reach of Twitter is unquestionably dangerous. What I posit is that’s less dangerous than anointing someone to decide who gets to have reach.

With Twitter, like the market, this job gets decentralized to the users, and I think that’s the superior, if imperfect option.

Facebook is different because they couldn’t decentralize it even if they wanted to.
Perhaps this will be apples vs. oranges but this argument doesn't really apply to other platforms like TV or print, does it?

Should channels have to carry ads as long as someone is willing? Should print have to carry any op-eds they receive?

I think the distinction here is Infowars still gets their sites and individual users on twitter can still share their articles (as long as said articles don't infringe on twitters rules).

Originally Posted by subego View Post
If it isn’t, all I have is a tiny violin.

Freedom entails responsibility.
That's crazy. Journalists don't owe jack fighting spreading disinformation on his platform.

It's also wildly unrealistic, IMO. The amount of time and effort it takes to spread FUD is an infinitesimal fraction of what it takes to properly research and debunk those lies. This libertarian approach to free speech condemns ethical society to a endless war where they will always being catch-up.

I guess that shouldn't be that surprising since it's as unrealistic as the libertarian expecting every consumer to due diligence on every ****ing thing they buy and every Terms & Conditions they sign.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Going back to something I think I touched on at the beginning of the thread but I’m too lazy to look.

The reason regulating news sounds appealing is because we had a quite remarkable 50 year stretch where regulation turned out not particularly bad. In fact, I think this recently past era will be viewed as the golden age of American journalism.

The thing is, in my opinion, regulation didn’t make it great. What made it great is the news bureaus of the three networks had budgets completetely detached from their revenue, and were competing for a national audience.

Regulation, at least of the kind we’re talking about, won’t bring those back. Those aren’t coming back until we’re post scarcity.
We're not regulating news, however. We're asking companies to put some thought into what they're letting occur on their platforms and if its both wise and/or in good faith. I'm not asking for the government to step in here.

We have reddit and we have voat. Let conservatives and crazies make their own twitter platform (I think one already exists) if InfoWars and white supremacists are that important to them.

Anyway, as I've said jack is free to do what he's doing I just don't think he's being honest about it. I think he was honest, twitter would feel even more pressure.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 07:29 PM
 
Case in point about jack:


https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/10/med...nes/index.html
A Twitter spokesperson said that the company concluded that of the more than a dozen tweets included in CNN's Thursday report, seven were found to have violated Twitter's rules. Twitter would have required those tweets to be deleted, if they were to have remained up.
But after CNN's investigation was published, the tweets cited in it were almost immediately deleted from the social media website. Jones said on his program Friday that he had instructed his staff to do so and "take the super high road," though he contested whether the tweets violated any Twitter rules.

Among the seven tweets found to have violated Twitter's rules, the spokesperson said, two of the tweets occurred recently enough that Twitter could cite them in the future to take additional punitive action against Jones' accounts.

The other five tweets occurred before a set of bolstered Twitter rules were put into place in December 2017. While Twitter required those tweets be deleted, the company cannot use them as grounds to take further action against the accounts, the spokesperson said.
The Twitter spokesperson was not immediately able to provide CNN with the specific tweets the company had determined to have violated its rules.
So, twitter was sent a bunch of tweets that violated their rules. They said only two were current enough to take action on, but would wait until more occurred to do so (Why?). Then they didn't explain which ones violated their rules, making it harder for everyone else to both report future violations or call them out for inconsistency.

This doesn't feel like good-faith enforcement.


The Twitter spokesperson said Friday that the executive, Del Harvey, had only intended to specifically reference Jones' personal account, not the InfoWars account as well, and that the company should have "been more explicit about that."
How convenient! Perhaps he could have communicated that better when he was on Hannity.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2018, 07:47 PM
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...=.2aa7df7d1d18
Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey said he is rethinking core parts of the social media platform so it doesn’t enable the spread of hate speech, harassment and false news, including conspiracy theories shared by prominent users like Alex Jones and Infowars.
They've been trying to combat harassment and hate-speech for years. What's the hang-up here?

In an interview with The Washington Post on Wednesday, Dorsey said he was experimenting with features that would promote alternative viewpoints in Twitter’s timeline to address misinformation and reduce “echo chambers.” He also expressed openness to labeling bots — automated accounts that sometimes pose as human users — and redesigning key elements of the social network, including the “like” button and the way Twitter displays users’ follower counts.
Wait – why wouldn't you ban bots? If they have the tech to label them why can't they remove them?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2018, 08:26 PM
 
Milo popped up in the news because he went on a rant against his supporters for not kicking a ruckus for him. I'm guessing he's been watching the furor over InfoWars and feeling he didn't get his due when he was banned way back.

Forgetting he and his terrible views exist kind of points out how these platforms are making things worse. He got himself banned and a year or two later he's basically become a nobody with no real power.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2018, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Milo popped up in the news because he went on a rant against his supporters for not kicking a ruckus for him. I'm guessing he's been watching the furor over InfoWars and feeling he didn't get his due when he was banned way back.

Forgetting he and his terrible views exist kind of points out how these platforms are making things worse. He got himself banned and a year or two later he's basically become a nobody with no real power.
I think I saw that Facebook post on Twitter shared by someone who felt more than a little Schadenfreude. (To be fair, she was a victim of his trolling.) But that's what happens if your only “contribution” to the discourse is trolling “the other side”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2018, 12:23 PM
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-...72402?mod=e2tw
Yet, in some cases, Mr. Dorsey has weighed in on content decisions at the last minute or after they were made, sometimes resulting in changes and frustrating other executives and employees, according to people familiar with the matter.
Last month, after Twitter’s controversial decision to allow conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn’t involved in those discussions.…A similar chain of events unfolded in November 2016, when the firm’s trust and safety team kicked alt-right provocateur Richard Spencer off the platform, saying he was operating too many accounts. Mr. Dorsey, who wasn’t involved in the initial discussions, told his team that Mr. Spencer should be allowed to keep one account and stay on the site, according to a person directly involved in the discussions.
Surprise.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2018, 05:47 PM
 
Alex Jones & Twitter banned from twitter, coincidentally the day after Jones stalked Jack when he testified before congress.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2018, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Twitter banned from twitter
Catching this before you fix it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2018, 12:38 PM
 
Infowars. I'm not in the habit of changing old posts.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,