I've just articulated the logic by which that principle can produce the outcome.

If you disagree with the logic, then identify which part you disagree with. Here are your options:

1. Content moderation teams should not have been suspicious of an unsourced, anonymous story on NYPost based on allegedly stolen material

2. Content moderation teams should not impede content that they suspect are election interference attempts

Which is it?

▲

howunfortunate 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The part I disagree with is that ""misinformation"" is ever a valid reason for censorship, period.

Even if some speech is known to be false (insofar as your epistemology allows), it should be criticized and proven to be false by more speech, not silenced through censorship.

In any case, I'm still baffled by how you think you've articulated logic that can supports that they "didn't put their finger on the scale". Obviously they did, obviously they knew they did. What other reason could they have for doing it? If your principle were instead "they should put their finger on the scale when opposing actors intentionally spreading false information" at least you'd be consistent.

Though then the irony of this whole thing is that the story was true the whole time.

▲

estearum 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

So that would be option (2), correct? Is there a reason why you didn't just say "Option 2: Content moderation teams should not impede content that they suspect are election interference attempts"

▲

cowlevel 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a good principle but it's been empirically proven that it doesn't work out that way in reality. Misinformation does not get effectively countered by spreading true information after the misinformation has spread. Even spreading it alongside (like with community notes) gives mixed results.

▲

howunfortunate an hour ago | parent [-]

Certain misinformation "works", but censorship also "works", so unless you can detect false information with 0.0% bias, that puts the platform's finger on the scale.

I'd much rather deal with information assymetries from individuals within the community than information assymetries from whoever happens to have control over the platforms, and is willing to use censorship.

I'd also like to add that a lot of these misinformation studies ironically wound up using information now accepted to be true or likely (such as that COVID most likely originated from a Chinese lab) as their "misinformation" - so in a way I'm glad that countering with "true" information didn't unilaterally work.

	▲	estearum 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I'd much rather deal with information assymetries from individuals within the community Ah this must be why you're confused. You think the hazard that platforms are trying to manage is from "individuals within the community" and not, for example, foreign intelligence services. > information now accepted to be true or likely (such as that COVID most likely originated from a Chinese lab) Lmao uh oh. The mark of the terminally-online has been revealed! Hilarious how many Twitterites have come to simply believe that COVID originated from a lab over the last year or two despite zero new evidence emerging in favor of that theory, and actually tons of evidence against it emerging since then. It's almost like if read false information enough times, you'll just presume it to be true... Curious ain't it?