According to the British Academy of Advanced Sciences, asking social media sites to remove misleading content (vaccines, climate change, 5G technology, etc.) should be refused.
After investigating the source and impact of incorrect information online Royal Society We conclude that deleting false claims or problematic accounts rarely limits their harmful effects. Instead, the ban could “push false information to awkward places on the Internet and exacerbate distrust of authorities,” the report said.
In the UK, Twitter, Facebook and other platforms are being asked to remove antitax posts from the entire political spectrum. However, “although it may seem desirable to curb non-consensus claims, it can disrupt the scientific process and push truly malicious content underground,” a Royal Society study. Frank Kelly, a professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, who chaired the event, said.
He added that removing content and moving users away from mainstream platforms makes it harder for scientists to engage with people such as anti-bakers. “We need a more subtle, sustainable and focused approach,” he said.
Illegal content that incites violence, racism, and child sexual abuse should be removed, but legal material that violates the scientific consensus should not be banned, the report said. Instead, a wide range of actions are needed to “build collective resilience” so that people can detect and respond to harmful and false information.
Gina Neff, a professor of technology and society at Oxford University and co-author of the report, said: “This means investing in lifelong information literacy programs, provenance-enhancing technologies, and mechanisms for sharing data between platforms and researchers.”
Sir Nigel Shadbolt, executive chair and co-author of the UK Open Data Institute, said the informed majority “collective” to prevent false information and evoke inaccurate information when it is encountered. It can function as “intelligence”. “As you can see on Wikipedia, many eyes can provide a powerful scrutiny of the content,” he added.
Concerns about the amplification of false information on the Internet, such as the existence of “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles,” are exaggerated, and people only encounter information that strengthens their beliefs.
According to a YouGov poll commissioned by the report, the Internet has brought about a huge spread of all kinds of information, but the vast majority of people in the UK have views close to mainstream scientific views. The percentage of 2,000 participants who agreed that the Covid vaccine was not safe was 7% for the BioNTech / Pfizer jab and 11% for the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab, but 90% are changing the climate due to human activity. Said.
Vaccination opponents should ultimately face evidence that their opposition to Covid Jab is wrong. Shadbolt states:for [anti-vaxxers] The evidence is not good. “
Social media sites should not ban misleading content, UK scientists say Source link Social media sites should not ban misleading content, UK scientists say
The post Social media sites should not ban misleading content, UK scientists say appeared first on California News Times.