Decades ago when Rotten Tomatoes had one of the biggest chat forums and i was a member they dealt with the earliest incidents of this type of problem.

An evolving movie chat forum that branched out into a General Chat forum suddenly found itself inundated with CT chatter. More and more Cters arriving and posting.

What CTers often found is their messages die in echo boxes. Their circle jerk sites often can be sustained. What they ultimately need to thrive is a sounding board that fights back.

it is the conflict that drives the CT's.

I think Cuepee's narrative is like a bit too reductionistic and implies that there is some sort of "conspiracy hive mind" at work, and at least from my personal experiences, that is not the case. I mean while I was definitely already pre-disposed to conspiracy theory, when I first came to 2p2. But I was only 23 and basically a nothing CTer...I had some ideas about JFK and that was it. And yeah do I like to argue, sure. But thinking that's it's the conflict that drives it definitely has to miss the mark greatly.
Cuepee is saying basically: what are places to do when the conspiracy people show up? And I'm saying they're your family members, friends and neighbors. They're already there. Any online community focused on any topic except maybe how great neoliberalism is, is going to have them, tennis, anime, it doesn't matter.

I tried to post on a qanon page once and had my IP blocked. Not interested in hearing it's a psy-op, apparently. We're seeing "conspiracy" weaponized right now in the divide-conquer aspects of the culture war, and that's what's driving Cuepee's and lots of other's perceptions. I do expect deep fakes will play a factor in the future there.

NO i don't think that is important all.

Sites should be able to decide what they want to host regardless of a finding of 'truth'.

It might end up being that a CT proves out correct later. That does not mean the site was wrong in banning any such chat of it prior.

I am not lumping anything.

I am saying 2+2 gets to decide full stop.

So you asking me "allow what" or me asking you for your list is silly.

If 2+2 says no 'chat of X' is that enough reason or should it be the gov't deciding or gov't appointed moderator?

Who decides?

If it becomes about you and me debating about what should be allowed then you are saying users should decide.

No we don't want the government getting involved on 2p2.
Gov't appointed moderator? Yikes...where am I?
Of course 2p2 decides.
Is it problematic when it comes to places like twitter and Facebook that have service more similar to a public utility....yeah sure.

Are you offering that tangentially or stuffing a strawman as i certainly never said or suggested they are.

I will take it further. Assume 100% of the conspiracies being put on Rotten Tomatoes or 2+2 are true. Are they still obligated to be a host for that chat or can they refuse it?

If they choose to moderate it whose standards do they have to use? Yours? Mine? Gov'ts? Govt appointed Mods? Or their own within their own discretion?

? That's what I said

Sites decide (within regulation/law) what is acceptable to the site. They dont decide what is true.

We're having two different conversations here. Sites are going to do what is in their best interest though most of the time.
I don't think places should be obligated to host chat.
I think it gets problematic to censor at the twitter level but I don't have answers there, maybe rico charges.

If government decided that sites could not moderate their own content, that would be abandoning the principle of a free press.

Please do not speak for me as you are not good at it.

My point was not about CT specifically. The point was about 'who should be judge of the what content can be posted on your website/social media site.

I cited an example with CT's as I think it is obvious why Rotten Tomatoes did not want that proliferation. So again should they have been allowed to make that decision? Would you prefer gov't block that type of decision?

2+2 might say no, in the early days to groups wanting to expand it to video game chat out of fear of being too inundated by those nerds and losing their poker niche. Should they be allowed to make that type of decision?

My question is if you are not going to allow sites to decide on and moderate their own content what is the mechanism you want to see to force them to do other? Gov't laws and decrees? Gov't appointed moderators?

Explain?

So you want gov't moderators on those sites?

Or just a totally open, any thing goes and can be said forced style?

OR do you think you and i and a select few others can craft a set of rules for them to follow that everyone else would then be happy with.

I cannot figure out what is the solution people are suggesting, if you say any site, cannot decide for itself and moderate itself as someone else (group) then must decide. WHO????

i honestly see only two options.

Companies decide on their own focus and what content they will allow. Full stop.

Or Gov't says no content focus is allowed and no moderation is allowed and all sites must just let the weight of discussions decide and go where they may.


We see sites like the later getting sued into oblivion now so the gov't would also have to indemnify them.


Anything in between where the gov't is trying to dictate what is allowable or not to be included or excluded would require gov't mods. And while I am sure the pensions would be better than what you get now, i do not see that as the way to go.

I don't have an answer to twitter/facebook. Let them censor.

You dont have government mods or editors but there can be regulators. People can complain to the regulator who can investigate and may require the site/press to take action, face penalties etc.

Beyond that there's the law and people can call the police or sue.

We have precedence for both, so it isn't that difficult to review. There are regimes that which go to rather detailed lengths to dictate not only what you can print, but also what you must print.

There also exists websites where expression is completely unregulated. On the surface web these tend to be either be short-lived or quickly adopt moderation practices, but on the deep web, or more specifically dark web, they can exist relatively freely.

I don't think either is a very enticing proposition. The former because the room for corruption and abuse is too high, and the latter because most of us can do without the most extreme fringes of society right in our faces.

yup which is why allowing sites to decide and then letting user who support their site decide if they are happy or not by taking their business elsewhere is best.

If a site become anti competitive then break it up anti trust style but that is not about controlling content.

And as chez says, if they can be sued (which is good) then no third party can dictate their content (you must not delete that lie or CT) and then it be fair that they get sued after.

All this whinging currently is simply a result of the fact that Trump lies were silenced and he has a group of supporters who want his lies spread. It is not about fairness. They have no desire for fairness when they have the controls.

The regulator might dictate some content. A very minor issue on this site because it is small and mostly anonymous is a right to reply. Common decency demands it but that's about it. In the press/major sites real people might have a right to reply if they are attacked. There could also be a requirement for political balance.

Where the limits of this are are a matter of practice not principle.

Yes the sanction is fines/removing licenses/breaking up etc but it is still dictating content.

Right to reply is usually governed by press ethics, not regulation. There are some exceptions, I think Germany has it in law for example.

It is my understanding that in the US this disappeared from regulation with the repeal of the fairness doctrine.

Establishing the principle as amtter of reality is my point. It's a real political issue in Europe/UK at least. Relying on voluntary press/site ethics is coming under incresingly serious pressure.

The debate is about how much we should do and how we should do it. Not whether it's a real thing or not - it definitely is.


The right to reply is a matter for Ofcom, the regulator, in the UK. it's not just left to press ethics.
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguideli...right-of-reply

Well, when it comes to “reality” or “truth”, death does a good job. Eat those berries you die, eat those berries you live. Most other things extrapolate from there.

Seem's like a response to a different post but yes there's the hard smack of reality. Or 'reality is a *****'

Huge skeptical gap though between most beliefs and reality. Reducing that gap to zero is impossible - apart from the 'I drink' thing.

They always have been weaponized at least to some degree. We're just now seeing it in the context of greatly increased comms and people engaging online constantly. Was very different back in the day when you actually had to find people to interact with as well as info--now it's available at all times at the tip of your fingers.

I think of the internet as the utility. What channels we like are a different story. Twitter and Facebook are just some of the big ones. We just happen to be on this one further down the list.