News Forum - Is TikTok disinformation threatening ‘democracy’ in Thailand?

[Rookiescot]

Misinformation. Regardless of the platform or topic is something that seriously needs addressed. 

We cannot allow for the current posting of such rubbish go unchallenged any longer.

Individuals or indeed countries are posting this stuff and the sole aim is to cause division and mistrust. Especially in western countries.

I am all for freedom of speech. But it needs to be based on facts and reality. This is why countries, governments, companies and indeed groups need to start being more proactive and take these people to the one place they fear to tread. A court of law.

Because in a court you have to present facts to defend yourself. Not hearsay. Not tortured logic. Not some conspiracy theory.

Look how Alex Jones folded when dragged into a court to defend his malicious lies and attacks on people who were already suffering from the loss of their kids. 

Needs to be more of that.

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, KaptainRob said:

Going well off-topic gents, please end it here.

So can I just clarify? You don't think most of my post was about the harm that misinformation causes?

[JohninDublin]

32 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Misinformation. Regardless of the platform or topic is something that seriously needs addressed. 

We cannot allow for the current posting of such rubbish go unchallenged any longer.

Individuals or indeed countries are posting this stuff and the sole aim is to cause division and mistrust. Especially in western countries.

I am all for freedom of speech. But it needs to be based on facts and reality. This is why countries, governments, companies and indeed groups need to start being more proactive and take these people to the one place they fear to tread. A court of law.

Because in a court you have to present facts to defend yourself. Not hearsay. Not tortured logic. Not some conspiracy theory.

Look how Alex Jones folded when dragged into a court to defend his malicious lies and attacks on people who were already suffering from the loss of their kids. 

Needs to be more of that.

Fully agree with you, but the problem is that the bad actors are usually beyond the jurisdiction of the courts where they are trying to influence the outcomes. 

[Soidog]

9 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

Fully agree with you, but the problem is that the bad actors are usually beyond the jurisdiction of the courts where they are trying to influence the outcomes. 

And that’s exactly my point really John. Of course I would love to be in a world where I was presented with genuine trustworthy facts and data, but in this internet world, that is simply impossible to police and legislate against. The only way I can see is if you limit by geography who can view and post articles which your citizens have access to. But isn’t that what the CCP do and indeed Thailand do? I can access certain website in the U.K. that I can’t access while in Thailand. Other than that form of censorship then I just fail to see how it can be controlled. Perhaps a better option is to have more “Fact checking” services available that are truly independent (can that ever truly exist)? The BBC run a section which aims to Fact Check things and in general I think they do a very good job with it. But if you told many people they could trust the BBC, then they would laugh at you.

We certainly have a polarised and an increasingly divided society in many western countries. It is indeed damaging our societies and people like the CCP and Iran are exploiting it. I’m sure the CIA and other western security services are doing the same to Chinese and Iranian sites?
 

I don’t have an answer other than perhaps to learn to live with it and educate people to look and check details for themselves.   

[Rookiescot]

51 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

Fully agree with you, but the problem is that the bad actors are usually beyond the jurisdiction of the courts where they are trying to influence the outcomes. 

Absolutely agree. But the first step is to get rid of the domestic purveyors of fake news then we can think about going after or restricting the foreign ones.

[JohninDublin]

9 minutes ago, Soidog said:

And that’s exactly my point really John. Of course I would love to be in a world where I was presented with genuine trustworthy facts and data, but in this internet world, that is simply impossible to police and legislate against. The only way I can see is if you limit by geography who can view and post articles which your citizens have access to. But isn’t that what the CCP do and indeed Thailand do? I can access certain website in the U.K. that I can’t access while in Thailand. Other than that form of censorship then I just fail to see how it can be controlled. Perhaps a better option is to have more “Fact checking” services available that are truly independent (can that ever truly exist)? The BBC run a section which aims to Fact Check things and in general I think they do a very good job with it. But if you told many people they could trust the BBC, then they would laugh at you.

We certainly have a polarised and an increasingly divided society in many western countries. It is indeed damaging our societies and people like the CCP and Iran are exploiting it. I’m sure the CIA and other western security services are doing the same to Chinese and Iranian sites?
 

I don’t have an answer other than perhaps to learn to live with it and educate people to look and check details for themselves.   

I personally find the BBC very trustworthy. I've written this before, and possibly on this forum, but every time I see a group with an agenda such as gay rights, it is not uncommon to see the LGBT community talk about the BBC being anti-gay. On the other side, the homophobes will describe the BBC as being too pro-gay. BBC is for the elite. Anti the elite. Feminist or Misogynyst. Right wing, Left wing The list goes on. The fact that both sides attack the Beeb's impartiality in nearly debate tells me that they are getting it right most times. 

Fact checkers are a great idea, but the problem is that they only check the claims of the major players. Did you see  the part in the original article about TikTok removing over 9 mill posts in two months related to the PH elections. Just how many people are posting stuff in PH to make that many posts amazes me, but I'd doubt that many of these were fact checked. So what happens when an election receives 9 mill new threads? Factchecking is impossible, and selectively removing posts leads to claims of political bias. 

I am in favour of blocking access to some sites, but then again, I would worry that this may lead to political censorship. But I am also aware that most people will quickly learn about accessing banned sites through proxy servers.

Personally, I think that a trade war might be the only way to curtail them.

[Soidog]

6 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

I personally find the BBC very trustworthy. I've written this before, and possibly on this forum, but every time I see a group with an agenda such as gay rights, it is not uncommon to see the LGBT community talk about the BBC being anti-gay. On the other side, the homophobes will describe the BBC as being too pro-gay. BBC is for the elite. Anti the elite. Feminist or Misogynyst. Right wing, Left wing The list goes on. The fact that both sides attack the Beeb's impartiality in nearly debate tells me that they are getting it right most times. 

Fact checkers are a great idea, but the problem is that they only check the claims of the major players. Did you see  the part in the original article about TikTok removing over 9 mill posts in two months related to the PH elections. Just how many people are posting stuff in PH to make that many posts amazes me, but I'd doubt that many of these were fact checked. So what happens when an election receives 9 mill new threads? Factchecking is impossible, and selectively removing posts leads to claims of political bias. 

I am in favour of blocking access to some sites, but then again, I would worry that this may lead to political censorship. But I am also aware that most people will quickly learn about accessing banned sites through proxy servers.

Personally, I think that a trade war might be the only way to curtail them.

I agree about the BBC in every regard. I see myself as someone centre right of politics and often think the BBC is left wing leaning. My neighbours are a gay couple and they think the BBC is right wing and homophobic as you say, that suggests they are finding the middle ground and pleasing no one. 
 

 

[JohninDublin]

16 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Absolutely agree. But the first step is to get rid of the domestic purveyors of fake news then we can think about going after or restricting the foreign ones.

And then we are back in the quandary, of whether one side is censoring the other for poitical ends.

My own view is that we have to get people to accept that free speech has responsibilities too, and the first of these is be honest to the best of your ability. If you get it wrong, own your mistakes and either self-correct, or accept the correction of others. 

It actually sound's simple enough, but I think that there are too many people who are beyond such self awareness. The most glaring example of this is the US 2020 elections where a huge number of Americans still believe in the "Stolen Election". They lost 61 out of 62 court cases (the outlier being about how close observers were allowed to stand to the count), many of which were ruled on by GOP judges, and every subsequent appeal, right up to SCOTUS which has 6 GOP appointees on the bench, who refused to hear any of the cases. There were multiple investigations at both state and Federal levels, none of which could find any wrongdoing. But the narrative has since changed to ignore the fact that so many courts rejected the evidence of these cases after they were presented, to "We were not allowed to present our evidence".

And here is the importance of "Fake News" in this story: You can make a case that sources such as The Washington Post, or New York Times may be biased, but being biased does not mean dishonesty. Yesterday Spurs beat Chelsea 2-0. If I read that in today's NYT and I am accusing them of being Fake News, should I believe it? For so many, Fake News is more like "News that does not fit my (biased) view of the world".

Meanwhile purveyors of Fake News target the uneducated in particular. And in the US especially, they do so with the benefit of the 1st Amendment.

[HolyCowCm]

Gullible is the word as one must look at both sides of the road to determine what is credible if at all possible to do. But that makes too much common sense for most to comprehend putting aside emotions and peer pressure.

[Donald]

Using the term "democracy" in the context is already fake news in it's own. Although it does fit in with the new "normal" where everything seems to be inverted. Man can be woman, black is the new white, censorship is free speech, war is good and peace is evil and so on. So if one would like to call a military dictatorship with an abysmal human rights record a "democracy" so be it. By the way as the article did put the word democracy between quotation marks I assume that they wanted to emphasize the same .

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

And then we are back in the quandary, of whether one side is censoring the other for poitical ends.

My own view is that we have to get people to accept that free speech has responsibilities too, and the first of these is be honest to the best of your ability. If you get it wrong, own your mistakes and either self-correct, or accept the correction of others. 

It actually sound's simple enough, but I think that there are too many people who are beyond such self awareness. The most glaring example of this is the US 2020 elections where a huge number of Americans still believe in the "Stolen Election". They lost 61 out of 62 court cases (the outlier being about how close observers were allowed to stand to the count), many of which were ruled on by GOP judges, and every subsequent appeal, right up to SCOTUS which has 6 GOP appointees on the bench, who refused to hear any of the cases. There were multiple investigations at both state and Federal levels, none of which could find any wrongdoing. But the narrative has since changed to ignore the fact that so many courts rejected the evidence of these cases after they were presented, to "We were not allowed to present our evidence".

And here is the importance of "Fake News" in this story: You can make a case that sources such as The Washington Post, or New York Times may be biased, but being biased does not mean dishonesty. Yesterday Spurs beat Chelsea 2-0. If I read that in today's NYT and I am accusing them of being Fake News, should I believe it? For so many, Fake News is more like "News that does not fit my (biased) view of the world".

Meanwhile purveyors of Fake News target the uneducated in particular. And in the US especially, they do so with the benefit of the 1st Amendment.

Neither side of any debate should be censored. What should be reported are facts. Now MSM and other news sources will emphasize points which suit their agenda and somewhat suppress those that don't and that's fine.

Thats why I think these people should be made accountable for what they say. If they are sure it will hold up in a court of law then do so. If not then dont.

The 1st amendment is not freedom to lie. It is freedom of expression. Not the same thing.