4 ms·
> neither they nor their users would have an interest in this being established. I'm on the fence about that one. On the flip-side: 1. If they don't police it
by tottenhm 10y ago
> neither they nor their users would have an interest in this being established.
I'm on the fence about that one. On the flip-side:
1. If they don't police it, then Facebook as a whole gets a reputation for disinformation. (When I look at Facebook, I personally ignore most shared articles because they're mostly crap, and I don't want to look at them. I only care about the personal goings-on of friends, and the signal-to-noise gets worse over time.)
2. If you take someone who doesn't care about truth, they're not going to introspectively seek-out a metric which might report "You're misinformed and stupid!" BUT If you're self-righteous about the truth, then you might want some objective metrics which say, "Look I don't spread misinformation or live in an echo chamber! But Cheryl does! Look, Cheryl, I'm smarter than you!" That might provide some basis for a viral dynamic.
- prawn 10y agoTrue on the latter. A bit like the verified tick on Twitter being a desirable thing. Social networks could open additional features for someone with a better record. Remember on your first point though that it might not be a factor for the majority of people. Can also reach people through ad networks, or social networks, etc.