I'm glad the EU want's an internet safe space. I know that's trite, but I'm really shocked by the calls to censor information on the internet.
I grew up when the internet was just becoming commonplace for the average person, and we had it hammered into our heads that people on the internet can (and will) lie for no reason. It was our responsibility to look at information from multiple sources, and draw our own conclusions. Skepticism is healthy, and should be encouraged.
Limiting the conversation does a disservice to everybody. You can learn just as much about someones goals and agendas by the lies they tell as by the truths. All of this is also predicated on the verification process working flawlessly and never being used to limit discussion of views that the current majority disagrees with. That's a whole other can of worms.
I think the second rationale you provide, basically that the power is too easily misused to be conferred upon anybody, is much more persuasive than the first.
The notion that there is some benefit to lies and misinformation being spread on the internet is not only highly questionable, just like in theory, but in practice we've seen no benefit to this. Like, what evidence could you really bring forth to support the idea there has been some benefit to it? And even if you had some, do you really believe the alleged benefits outweigh the demonstrable harms?
One's lies and misinformation is another's facts. And vice versa.
You may want to think you have a crystal ball to truth, but the undisputed historical fact is that most authority figures in the past have been dead wrong about many things they thought were absolutely true and yet they would have thought whoever questioned them were idiots or liars.
It's really hard to determine whether something is true. Philosophers have known this for a long time (starting with doubting whether this "reality" is real in the first place or just an illusion/simulation). Most of what we call "facts" are mere social conventions.
There may be social/political reasons to dictate one common perspective as "truth" and the others as "disinformation", but once you understand what I was trying to point out, then the question goes back to the point about "power is too easily misused to be conferred upon anybody".
Here in Australia, there's a question going around: "are there ongoing negative impacts of colonialism on indigenous people". Some say yes, others say no - including senator Jacinta Price who is of Aboriginal heritage.
How will you determine the "truth"? Will you pick a side, then label the other side misinformation? What happens if 90% of people say "yes", is that enough to lock it in and silence the remaining 10%?
The European warnings seem to blame X for something that's found on the general internet and all platforms. From what I can see, most misinformation does get dealt with either by labels, notes, or replies under the post. Anyone making decisions based on a single piece of unconfirmed social media, isn't doing it right.
> Here in Australia, there's a question going around: "are there ongoing negative impacts of colonialism on indigenous people". Some say yes, others say no - including senator Jacinta Price who is of Aboriginal heritage.
Why do you think this is a good example? That's a bit of a bait and switch. The other poster was like shrug there isn't any such thing as true and false anyways
Do you believe someone can die of Covid? Do you believe humans breathe oxygen? Do you believe Australia is a country located near New Zealand?
Do you believe answers to those questions are susceptible to evaluation in terms of whether true or false?
It's a good example because it challenges your idea about a "thing" called truth.
> "The other poster was like shrug there isn't any such thing as true and false anyways"
They didn't say that. You've changed their words, which is ironic given your position on truth. Obviously things like "how many sides does a triangle have" are not the kinds of questions people are worried about when it comes to misinformation. It's the sensitive stuff, like my example. Heightened emotion or political bias around such questions can align with efforts to quell whatever answer you don't agree with, beyond respectful disagreement.
> "You don't believe there is such a thing as truth?"
For basic binary questions like the ones you put forward, yes I "believe" in truth. For complex questions, the "truth" can be a bundle of sometimes contradictory items that need sorting and prioritising, relative to fundamental values we strive to unite on - such as human rights, protection of environment etc. Misinformation then becomes far more troubling to determine. Any legislation against it therefore is dangerous.
> > "The other poster was like shrug there isn't any such thing as true and false anyways"
> They didn't say that.
FWIW I did basically mean that. Specifically I don’t believe in any single universal objective truth. Even for “simple” things, they can have a lot of depth if you are willing to go down the rabbit hole. The complexity is inherent if only because you can’t really separate “one simple thing” from the rest of the messy, infinitely complex universe.
Of course there’s not much to debate about the truthfulness of trivial tautologies like in the triangle case but many things are more subjective than a naive person would assume.
We can all maybe agree on a lot of obvious “truths”, but IMHO it is a kind of arrogance to assume that if three reasonable people reach agreement among themselves, then everyone else should also accept the conclusion.
And if I may comment on this as well:
> If so, that's an incoherent philosophical belief none of us need to bother engaging.
I thought the common struggle of many famous philosophers was on how to be sure that they have found and described truth. Descartes was only sure about “I think therefore I am”. Kierkegaard thought it requires a “leap of faith”, and Wittgenstein thought communications is just a language game and does not have inherent meaning. Those are just a few examples.
I don’t think any of those people would just summarily accept that truths can be easily found by everyone and doubting it is philosophically incoherent.
Nobody is talking about benefits. There will be mis-/disinformation on the internet, that is an inevitable fact. It would be more damaging to suggest a false sense of authenticity.
People will learn and adapt to the environment where information is provided. Harm from information control can be more easily demonstrated by a few margins, read propaganda.
To ask what benefits misinformation provides is just skipping the relevant discussion in the first place.
This is a mix of a witch-hunt against Musk and political maneuver as Breton is said to be eyeing the job of President of EU Commission in next year's EU elections.
Not actually a witch hunt, as explained in the letter it’s in response to the new DSA laws which they have been told would be enforced for a long time coming now.
Of course it can be both... It would be naive to think this is all perfectly neutral and that there is no game being played, as per my previous comment.
I grew up when the internet was just becoming commonplace for the average person, and we had it hammered into our heads that people on the internet can (and will) lie for no reason. It was our responsibility to look at information from multiple sources, and draw our own conclusions. Skepticism is healthy, and should be encouraged.
Limiting the conversation does a disservice to everybody. You can learn just as much about someones goals and agendas by the lies they tell as by the truths. All of this is also predicated on the verification process working flawlessly and never being used to limit discussion of views that the current majority disagrees with. That's a whole other can of worms.