That still doesn’t answer who would be responsible for deciding what is true.
Take the Ryan Giggs case as an example. What was being said was true but he didn’t like it so attempted to have it hushed up. Multiply that by a government not wanting uncomfortable truths to be spread.

If social media platforms are going to decide between what they consider to be true and what they consider to be lies then they are in affect publishers and come under the rule base for publishers.

As that my friends means that many a maligned individual can sue them to hell....not only for what others have posted but for the political choices made by these 'progressive' platforms.

Any objective reading of what's gone on understands that up to now the social media companies have very much been stretching the interpretation of their role and that pay back is inevitable.

As an aside, placing the responsibility for 'truth and lies' onto social media platforms becomes just another form of censoring the masses.

For example, lets consider the whole, 'Epstein didn't kill himself' meme. In a world where social media platforms are suddenly tasked with policing commentary as truth or lies they become an enforcement for the establishment......and the establishment, or parts of it sometimes lies itself.

What is true and untrue is often just what others want you to believe.

The only, even half way. fair place for the establishment of a 'truth' is in the courts, where representations can be made by both sides and deliberated.....and then only when they themselves are being fairly set up.

Social media companies are not objective and hence aren't suitable for this task.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jan 2020 3.54pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You know this really can't go without additional comment.

The latest report by the IMF on the British economy post Brexit for the next two years brings into ultra bright light the claims and fear mongering that we have seen from remoaners (I won't say remainers because a good number of them accepted the result and moved on).

These people were quite happy to post endless half truths and projections that have since been smoked out as reprehensible nonsense and over stretch.

The IMF itself was a part of this conceit and attempted brainwashing but now with the certainty of Brexit they have to come clean or suffer even further ridicule for producing forecasts that were partly composed with politically baised rather than purely economic contexts.

Still, once an activist, always a activist and now we have the amusing sight of WE posting an article in the Irish Times as some kind of counter to the IMF.

Beyond parody.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I don't think the concern about the power of the social media companies to spread propaganda ought to be seen as being either from the left or the right. It might be that the greatest current threat comes from the right, but that could very easily change. I see large scale beliefs in things I regard as obviously false on both the left and right, resulting from a mistrust of the MSM and an over reliance on unregulated internet platforms.

Having a variety of opinions on what may, or may not, be true is a healthy sign in a functioning democracy. That is not the issue. It is when those opinions are deliberately manipulated by those with an agenda that has nothing to do with the interests of our country which is.

Some may dismiss this as unimportant but I don't. The social media companies being commercial operations are going to respond to where the best returns are to be made. If advertisers are impacted then they will take action. If controversy drives income then they won't. So we as a society need to regulate and demand standards. How to do that on a global scale is very challenging and I don't pretend to have the answers.

What I do know is that it cannot just be ignored because it's difficult.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You yourself have admitted to using your time on forums to change minds....I remember you rather hubrisly stating that you were leaving to seek more 'malleable minds' during the election campaign. That is de facto 'Manipulation towards an agenda'. The fact that you regard your point of view as the right one is just the subjective bias that everyone else has. So, shall we be censoring you as well?

Commercial companies don't always act in terms of pure profit....Mostly I'd say it's an accurate rule but it has exceptions. Companies that contain large amounts of activists such as FB and the other social media companies for example have plenty of policies that cost them more money than the law actually requires of them.

For example, plenty of right wing commentators on Youtube have been banned who were earning shared revenue with Google.....but the sheer profit motive didn't stop Google banning them and losing that cash.

The idea that any one individual can be purely objective is not only wrong it's misleading.

People will always show their biases. All you can ask for is balance and fairness.....and the reality is, without a consequence you can ask all you like....you aren't going to get it.

There has always been a minority mistrust of the MSM. It's larger now because of the nature of the Internet and its 'hate click' nature. Both left and right are far less centralised....for reasons I'd prefer to avoid in this particular exchange.....And this has fed into the MSM machine itself as it struggles to make money in a reducing market.

So people are essentially accurate to be careful and suspicious of mainstream sources in today's news market.

Everyone is selling you an angle....those who claim otherwise are liars at worse or deluded at best.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jan 2020 8.50pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

More misrepresentation I am afraid from the usual suspect. It seems that the spirit of his hero has taken over his mind and affected his capacity to tell truth from lies.

The piece from the Irish Times has no connection at all to the IMF report. It was written by a German and offers an analysis of England and the English and why they voted for Brexit. It was offered as another type of opinion on another subject by another German to that which was touted in the right wing press. Not as a counter to it. That was done separately.

I am not an insider at the IMF or a cheerleader for it. If you want to dismiss it's activities and reports as worthless that's fine with me. I think they give a useful picture of where the world is economically, but that at the moment that must be incredibly difficult. If though you believe their previous reports to have had some political motivations (which seems very unlikely to me) and therefore inaccurate, then it must follow that the current one is too.

From my perspective I think there are just too many unknowns for there to be any kind confidence in such a forecast. I see plenty of people talking things up but so many bumps in the road that I think the optimism to be misplaced. The old phrase that bs baffles brains comes to mind.

Only today I heard a US spokesperson suggesting that not only would a trade deal with the USA not be signed off by Congress if we went with Huawei but that they might also apply sanctions. That doesn't sound to me as though our newly won "freedom" has actually set us free to do whatever we want.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.