4 ms·

Let's be frank here: Free speech and facebook never go together. They want to present as a respectable forum where prominent people like politicians can have th

by Kenji 10y ago

Let's be frank here: Free speech and facebook never go together. They want to present as a respectable forum where prominent people like politicians can have their platform (same with Twitter). That needs some kind of filtering. And, as we saw with pretty much the entire American press, as soon as you start filtering and selecting, you start to induce gross biases and distortions of the truth. The truth only comes out in a clutter of contradicting opinions, engaging discussions, pieces of evidence and leaked materials. Of course, that is an ugly mess not many people want to put up with.

matt4077 10y ago
> The truth only comes out in a clutter of contradicting opinions, engaging discussions, pieces of evidence and leaked materials It feels like we're way beyond that. It's degenerated to the point of two tribes who no longer have any "shared truth" from which to argue. If I see a post of Facebook saying that Obama has instituted martial law in New York, how can I convince the 4364 people liking it that it's a lie? If I point out that the New York Times would probably write about it, I'll just get laughed at. The truth seriously fared a lot better in times where newspapers and a few TV stations acted as completely undemocratic arbitrators.
- Kenji 10y ago
  I disagree. I think things like Wikileaks and independent, small blogs and feeds contributed a vast amount to this election - knowledge about Clinton that we would have never had otherwise. (And I say this as someone who supported neither candidate, and if I was an US citizen I would have probably thrown my vote away)
- gibrown 10y ago
  I think it may be worse than two tribes. Its a million tribes with limited overlap in what they consider the truth, but all having a large megaphone that cuts across tribal lines while still building bubbles. My analogy is breaking down. I don't think we understand how the complete removal of barriers to publishing are changing society. Nor do we understand how to cope with it. A bunch of folks just elected an authoritarian to "guide" the way.

by Kenji 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

> The truth only comes out in a clutter of contradicting opinions, engaging discussions, pieces of evidence and leaked materials It feels like we're way beyond that. It's degenerated to the point of two tribes who no longer have any "shared truth" from which to argue. If I see a post of Facebook saying that Obama has instituted martial law in New York, how can I convince the 4364 people liking it that it's a lie? If I point out that the New York Times would probably write about it, I'll just get laughed at. The truth seriously fared a lot better in times where newspapers and a few TV stations acted as completely undemocratic arbitrators.

Kenji 10y ago
I disagree. I think things like Wikileaks and independent, small blogs and feeds contributed a vast amount to this election - knowledge about Clinton that we would have never had otherwise. (And I say this as someone who supported neither candidate, and if I was an US citizen I would have probably thrown my vote away)
gibrown 10y ago
I think it may be worse than two tribes. Its a million tribes with limited overlap in what they consider the truth, but all having a large megaphone that cuts across tribal lines while still building bubbles. My analogy is breaking down. I don't think we understand how the complete removal of barriers to publishing are changing society. Nor do we understand how to cope with it. A bunch of folks just elected an authoritarian to "guide" the way.