Yes, Facebook is a dumpster fire of misinformation. But that's not Facebook's fault; it's a reflection of the users. This is nothing new. I remember all the stupidly wrong emails my wife's aunt used to forward to us in the early 2000s. If you've spent time on Snopes you've seen them, too. It would have been wrong to try to shut down those email users back then, and it's wrong to try to shut them down on Facebook, too. People don't lose their right to free speech just because they're gullible, or because there are a lot of them, or because they vote for a monster. The right response to bad speech is not banning. The right response is good speech. Let's defend to the death people's right to say that ridiculous, wrong, dangerous, bad stuff that we hate!
This is like saying a single neuron isn't responsible for a bad thought, so the brain can't be responsible either. Facebooks network effects, reduced friction and increased targeting efficiencies is entirely what makes it successful, profitable, and toxic.
Your wife's aunt's emails reached the few people she took the time to email, who gave it exactly the kind of weight a crazy aunt email would get because it wasn't positioned as real news. I remember those emails and they were a joke even then - it probably annoyed those people having to open it and read it. Facebook allows a single post, potentially from a bad actor, to target an expanding network, and users see it and treat it with increased importance because it is leveled with the same visibility as NYT or other real journalism. That post can then exponentially reach millions of people in mere minutes since users have zero friction to sharing and re-posting it, spurred on by Facebook's absolutely irresponsible algorithms that prioritize virality over everything else.
This also has nothing to do with people's right to say things - heck, you're here complaining about "banning" speech in response to a site releasing information - and everything to do with a company profiting off of and actively encouraging misinformation that is absolutely drowning good speech in its noise.
that I don't live in the US. Having to take a laughable piece of crap like the DMCA seriously would be so depressing that I'd be in danger of either slitting my wrists or going postal.
The US (via MPA and other media company lobbying) has been trying to export the DMCA since 1998, through trade agreements like the TPP. It's been successful at exporting other US-centric copyright restrictions that way, since it's a method that (1) is usually negotiated and agreed-to with very little transparency in any of the countries, and (2) sounds very boring and administrative, so doesn't garner much interest.
So all I can say is - stay vigilant if you don't want worldwide DMCA, because there's certainly someone somewhere still getting paid large sums of money to make it happen.
Worse = Civil War breaks out all over the planet with governments externalizing the threat via politics sparking WW3, possibly going so far as total nuclear annihilation. I know of a few bad actors on the plant that would go full retard in that endeavor; either on accident or on purpose.
As stated before. The higher your advancement goes, the harder the fall; and that fall from shutting down the planet is going to be permanent with no chance of recovering for generations from now...if ever!
So the choice we have is either die to save the economy or nuclear annihilation with no recovery...ever? C'mon, work with me here.
If the economy shuts down, we consume less. If we consume less, less money is distributed through the economy. That leads to economic distress due to inefficiencies in that distribution. But the cost of keeping people alive is cheap. Calories are cheap. The US can certainly afford to keep its population healthy and safe until a vaccine is created, as can most other countries, if it came to that and if politicians do their jobs.
But it won't come to that. Because all sane people are doing is advocating is using some sense and listening to the scientists and epidemiologists rather than politicians and political pundits who have a mind-crippling amount of self-interest steering their decision-making. Wear a mask. Don't demand indoor businesses reopen when there is raging community transmission. Distance 6 feet away from each other.
I mean, truly trying to understand, does that sound apocalyptic to you?.
People only think the PRC is "less evil" than the Nazis or the Stalinists because they are willfully blind.
It's the Eddie Izzard sketch:
"But there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there; Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. “Ah, help yourself,” you know? “We've been trying to kill you for ages!” So kill your own people, right on there. Seems to be Hitler killed people next door... “Oh stupid man!” After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FPVH0gZO5lq0%3Ft...
If you don't have time to do it right, where are you going to find the time to do it over?
