Social media is a key source of news and information around the world. Leave up too much bad content and users may be misinformed. Take down too much and users will begin to distrust the platform. What's the answer?

This is just a potentially unpopular opinion here, but I say that we leave the information as it is, and let the people wise up and do the background checking on certain posts to determine their authenticity. That is the appeal of social media for me, everybody can post and react to each other's content. But, when one relies on social media for real and reliable news, that's when things become questionable. If you want reliable news, go to reputable news agencies (though, still take it with a grain of salt) or even go as far as to certain websites of specific government agencies for verifiable and timely information. Relying on social media for such is like relying on hearsay for real information - it has grains of truth but it is usually hard to verify.

When feeling overwhelmed, I often stay offline awhile to (re-) gain perspective.

Avoid sensational yet unconfirmed breaking news or take it with a grain of salt before reacting. Be responsible on SNS.

Toshihiro is correct. We need to get used to social media and learn to place what we see on it, on the appropriate place of the trust spectrum. The phrase 'Never believe anything you read in the papers' is common in the UK. Unsurprising given the nature of the UK's tabloid press. People will get used to not trusting social media without qualification from a reliable source the way they have got used to not trusting politicians, print media, radio and TV. It'll be a bumpy ride at the start. We need to hold our nerve and not let the endless scare stories in the media lead us to accepting state censorship of it. Because that would be a massive leap backwards to a dark time in our history.

Most social media offers users the ability to block material, self-censoring their feed, so they don't see anything they do not want to. This is really good, as it gives people who feel they need one, the ability to create a personalised filter that is right for them. These options will improve, and for those who want them, individual or communal filters will become available.

If someone said the Earth was flat in a book or in a pub, you wouldn't believe them. So would you believe them if they said it on social media? It's just a new media. We have had them before: books, newspapers, telegraphy, radio, TV. Social media is no more the end of civilisation than early, flickering, monochrome TV was. We will all get used to it. Keep calm and carry on.

As long as it is not attacking other posters leave it all up!

If someone said the Earth was flat in a book or in a pub, you wouldn't believe them. So would you believe them if they said it on social media?

It’s a good point but I think there is a difference here.

The bloke in the pub telling you about flat earth, pizza parlours, building 7, scamdemics and stolen elections can easily be identified as a someone you don’t take seriously. He’s probably smells awful for a start and wants you to buy him a pint. Similarly, the books probably wouldn’t be published by reputable publishing houses.

One thing with social media posts is they look the same as any other. We can’t see the person in the basement. However, some spammers can be easily identified by similar writing styles.

I remember reading that the recruiting website for ISIS was very professionally done and very well written.

I’d say getting a better grip of spammers/sock puppets/those banned and coming back under different names is a good start.

Throw the rubbish out. It stinks the place up.

every country have own constitution and law.

Japan is no difference.

to be exact everyone in Japan have guaranteed freedom of speech and religion bu japanese constitution.censorship is illegal in Japan.

if we are talking about social media,they should follow law of country they are operating in/say FB have to follow japanese law/so they cant do censorship of any contents published at their platform,as long as was published by user located in Japan.in case if this goes against law in some country they may block that content if its against law of that country.

as reality is that social media largely ignoring freedom of speech and are practising open censorship/by so called "fact checkers"/ and openly meddling in elections,human right issues ...list is endless...as logical result of that people are leaving these platforms as looking for places where freedom of speech is still honoured and not opressed.this means less users,less revenue from paid ads and less impact on public,dont need to mention lower value of stock of these companies.

freedom for me is no 1 important thing in this world and thanks to facts written above i have left FB,twitter,instagram long time ago and have never regretted it.now using other social media platforms without any censorship.and yes-many of my close friends and classmates did same thing.

in principle social media are private companies with own rules.i believe they should honour valid laws of countries they do business and do not practice open censorship of any kind.i believe each of us have own way of thinking and can use own common sense to believe to posts published on social media or not believe .if they will not change they may have lesser impact on human lives day by day,month by month,year by year.

same situation is with media and news.let people openly express their opinions and let them freely discuss various topics.you will not loose readers-you will not loose your revenues from ads as well.

The problem arises when certain tech companies that control advertising and own social media platforms function as virtual monopolies. The problem is compounded when this small handful of companies acts on a similar ideological bent.

If there were a robust internet advertising and social media market, different platforms would set different levels of filters, and people could choose the ones that suit them.

As it is, the likes of Google, Twitter, and Facebook seem very wrapped up in being official government mouthpieces on various issues, even when the “fact checks” they use to discredit and delete posts are themselves demonstrably false. On some issues, there is little space to speak out on any platform where one will get widely heard.

Taking in social media and reading the internet will make you stupid.

That’s the point, @Peter Neil . All those SNS are very much overestimated and the virtual bits and bytes taken for real news or the new hyped reality itself. But it’s in fact all only and really nothing else than some moving electrons in cables or electronics wirings and chips, then clustered into bits and bytes. It’s of no real influence if someone reads this here or if I write now intentionally something like ‘736893d67f92’ or ‘war in Ukraine has just ended’ or whatever. It’s of no real use or significance if someone takes these information out of the number or text string or if someone tags it now as true or false, or even puts attributes like truth or lie onto it. They are only virtual bit patterns, not more not less. The reality is completely outside of SNS , Internet etc and only to find in reality and real life.

The irony of some on here saying that being on the Internet or getting your news from the Internet makes you stupid is just too delicious.

I say free speech. Lei it all stay online and allow people to make up their own minds.

I know it's contradictory and social media tend to promote speed and immediacy, but that's really not needed.

I don't even understand the term 'too much bad content'. the truth is sth like it is, no?

KaerimashitaAug. 23  02:07 pm JST

The irony of some on here saying that being on the Internet or getting your news from the Internet makes you stupid is just too delicious.

I just come here for the entertainment value. Some of the strangest things are written here.

I say free speech. Lei it all stay online and allow people to make up their own minds.

I agree, whoever spreads obvious misinformation will become irrelevant. Look at what's happening at CNN; nobody is watching them anymore and they got rid of Cuomo, Stelter, and their airport channel. The same is true on social media...

I agree, whoever spreads obvious misinformation will become irrelevant

People like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have been spreading obvious misinformation repeatedly debunked for decades and he still misleads people, when you let people repeat falsehoods you put in risk people that can make wrong decisions because they will think "if this was obviously false it would not be allowed here"

In reality people that have no interest in being truthful can simply make more and more lies to be kept relevant, it will not matter if they contradict themselves, propose impossible conspiracies or make personal attacks instead of arguing to defend their beliefs. Some people will end up ensnared by the false information and become victims so any company is well justified in stopping this to protect those people.

It is the same as letting people promote obvious fraud and scams. There is a reason why this is not allowed.

I agree, whoever spreads obvious misinformation will become irrelevant

People like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have been spreading obvious misinformation

That is just your opinion. He backs up everything he says. He has a large following, and a best-selling book. His popularity could very easily be put to an end by debating him, but nobody wants to debate him...

repeatedly debunked for decades

No, nobody has debunked him. All they do is claim that he is wrong with sophistry. Unfortunately, whenever you search anything related to RFK, Malone, or others, Google will first provide all these "debunkings"; very difficult to find their actual content.

That is just your opinion

Of course not, it has been proved that he and the organization under him repeatedly lie to mislead people, it is not "Just an opinion" when it can be proved with ease.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-propaganda-robert-f-kennedy-jr

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-became-anti-vaxxer-icon-nightmare

https://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-false-claims-conspiracy-theories-robert-kennedy-jr-2022-8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

He has a large following, and a best-selling book.

The fallacy of appeal to popularity, things can be very popular and still be completely false and demonstrably so.

No, nobody has debunked him

Nobody except anyone that has tried to do it, because it is very easy. He keep making claims that are contradicted by evidence, so anybody that can get a hold on that evidence (that is easily available, being related to matters in public health) has already debunked most of his claims. His claims are written all over the internet for anybody to try.

Do you actually think any of those sources are credible?!!

They'll put lots of resources to write hit pieces, but never actually debate him...

They'll put lots of resources to write hit pieces, but never actually debate him...

What of what is written in the sources is false? his claims and how they can be debunked can easily be found there, is your argument that he never said any of those things?

The reasons why social media followed traditional media and refuse to give him a forum to repeat debunked information is because he keeps trying to do it, never even arguing against the proof that he is using false information (understandably, since he has no arguments to do it).

What debate is there against someone that just repeat the same thing after his opponent gives proof it is false?