Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



An (almost) censorship-free approach to the challenges of fake news and propaganda in social media
Jesse Richman, 11/16/2021

For the last several years social media and internet companies have grappled with the challenge of how to manage or contain the spread of fake news and propaganda on their sites.  This remains a major problem for the big tech companies.  Some recent research suggests that the degree of populism in democracies around the world is correlated to a significant degree with the extent of market power possessed by Facebook, and the degree to which internet service provision is concentrated.  Facebook and related platforms have historically arguably played a magnifying role in the spread of fake news and propaganda.

More than three hundred years ago, the humorist Jonathan Swift wrote “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.” And so it has proved to be in social media.  The attention-getting exaggeration goes viral.  The fact check often fails to follow, as all too often no one finds the fact check unless they go looking for it.  And the people who most need it don’t go looking at all.

The reaction to this problem began in force after the 2016 presidential election and has involved the selective identification of accounts for removal, and attaching fact checks to posts, linked articles, and tweets that have been identified as potential vectors of fake news.  It has recently expanded to the wholesale removal of apps and websites believed to be vectors of propaganda, radicalization, and misinformation (e.g. the delisting of Parler by Google and Apple, followed by the cancelling of the entire Parler website by Amazon in January 2021.

This censorship strategy for coping with the problem of misinformation involves wholesale removal from the public sphere of specific platforms and voices.  It often entails enormous collateral damage.  A trivial example.  In December 2020 I  was forced to switch from Google to rival search engine DuckDuckGo in order to find fact checks of a viral story about election vote totals being changed because the search filters that seemed to be in place on Google to protect me from finding falsehoods about the election were so aggressive that they also kept me from finding a USA Today fact check of those falsehoods. 

Censorship as a way to protect the integrity of political debate and thwart malign forces has ancient problems.  In Federalist 10, perhaps the most profound of the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrestled with the problem of factions adverse to the rights of other citizens on the long term interests of the community.  Madison noted that one possible strategy for dealing with these evil actors is to try to label and suppress them: to destroy their liberty.  But he rejected this as antithetical to the entire project of liberty – the basic foundations of freedom and self government.  The fundamental challenge once this road is taken is that one person’s ‘faction’ may be another person’s speaking truth to power.  Like the government agents who labeled Martin Luther King a dire threat and set out to destroy him, this approach risks misidentifying threats and undermining liberty.  Madison wrote

“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.” 

Is there an alternative approach that could help thwart radicalization and better connect the public sphere without need for censorship?  I think that there is.  It is to find ways to reconstruct the public sphere in order to curtail the effects of factious misinformation and fake news instead of attempting to eliminate the causes.  Most fundamentally, it is to give truth (or at least rebuttals) wings equal to the falsehoods they pursue.  In this way, fact can balance falsehood more fully.

Most questions in politics deal with issues which are arguable rather than being capable of definitive resolution as facts.  The key goal is to connect the public sphere – to get people to argue with and refute each other.

Components of the solution.

The essential element of an argument is a controversy.  Someone asserts a claim about the world, about politics, about the election…  If the claim is controversial, someone else will likely disagree with this assertion, and they can then frame a rejoinder. This is then responded to, and so forth.  In an ideal public sphere the audience – the rest of us – observe the controversy, and come to a conclusion about which argument is stronger, and we then act on that basis.

What happens instead on social media (and in polarized political media more broadly) is that the sides of the argument often don’t really end up speaking to each other much.  The argument instead gets heard only partially by most observers.  If my friends tend to take one side of the issue, then I will tend to hear that side of the debate echoed back to me much more than any rebuttal of it.  Around the world, as the recent Facebook leaks highlight, the results are polarization and unreality.

The starting point for a solution is a new option to tag a tweet or a post or a link shared on social media.  This is the ‘rejoinder’.  A rejoinder is a counter-argument.  Any post or link tagged with a rejoinder will be shared with the rejoinder paired with it.  When there are multiple rejoinders or links, a system of up and down voting of rejoinders could adjudicate between alternatives, potentially with an editorial role from fact checkers and others to ensure that they system isn’t abused.

There are obviously many important details underlying getting the rejoinder system to work properly.  Most importantly, the key would be to have a system for upvoting and downvoting suggested rejoinders along with metrics concerning quality of sources to prioritize rejoinders from sources with better editorial quality.  While the system could be mostly automated, there would need to be some management from fact-checkers and others working with the social network. 

One of the strengths of this idea is that if implemented correctly, it could provide a profit motive and energy to the process of rebutting arguments.  It would also give partisans of particular (often limited) viewpoints a socially productive activity to pursue – making sure that those they disagree with get appropriately rebutted across media spaces. 

Let’s imagine three scenarios: Facebook-before-censorship, Facebook-after-censorship, and Facebook as it could be.

Facebook before censorship: Jones writes a blog post making a series of questionable claims.  Smith writes an article criticizing the logical fallacies and lack of evidence in Jones’ argument.  Jones and friends share links to Jones, and mostly ignore Smith.  Smith and friends mostly share links to Smith’s article.  Everyone ends up sure they are right.  And they start to hate each other.

Facebook after censorship: Jones writes a blog post making a series of questionable claims.  Smith writes an article criticizing the logical fallacies and lack of evidence in Jones’ argument.  Jones and friends share links to Jones until they are de-platformed by Facebook fact checkers.  Smith and friends mostly share links to Smith’s article.  Everyone ends up sure they are right.  And they start to hate each other.  Jones and friends start to hate Facebook too and start looking for new platforms to share their questionable claims.

Facebook as it could be: Jones writes an article or blog post or a social media post making a series of questionable claims.  Smith writes an article or a social media post criticizing the logical fallacies and lack of evidence in Jones’ argument. Smith tags Jones’ article with Smith’s rejoinder.  Smith and Jones’ friends all see both articles because every time Jones’ article gets shared, the network automatically attaches a link to the leading rejoinder (by Smith).  Jones writes a rebuttal to Smith’s rejoinder and tags it as a rebuttal to Smith’s article.  Smith writes a rejoinder to Jones’ rebuttal.  Their friends still see everything.  Some people conclude that Jones is mostly right (in fairness some recognize that Smith has a few good points.)  Some people conclude that Smith is mostly right.  Others conclude that since neither side had very good arguments they probably had better wait for more information or better arguments.  Smith and Jones eventually become rich from advertising revenue generated by their controversy but are also eventually convinced that the other did have a few good points.  They become friends and go have coffee or a beer together. 

Which world would you rather live in? 

Your Name:

Post a Comment:


Comment by note, 11/24/2021:

https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/how-many-times-must-facebook-be-caught-censoring-the-truth/:

"Justice Louis Brandeis, in his famous 1927 concurrence in Whitney v. California, hit upon the essence of robust speech as its own corrective measure. “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies,” he wrote, “the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”"




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Jan 2022
    Dec 2021
    Nov 2021

    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Last 100 Years
    Politics

    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]