5 ms·
If it at least amplifies awareness in the general public about the problem, it's done it's job.
by aswanson 10y ago
If it at least amplifies awareness in the general public about the problem, it's done it's job.
- farright 10y agoIsn't that exactly what the fake news sites works say?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- devoply 10y agoPeople read what they want to read. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning You can get rid of the fake news outlets, but you can't get rid of fake news as long as there is free speech.
- pohl 10y agoEliminating it would be an overly ambitious goal. We only need to mitigate its effects.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ZenoArrow 10y agoI'd argue it could end up backfiring for multiple reasons. The most obvious one is that it will undoubtedly end up strengthening filter bubbles. The problems that face us will not be solved by siloing ourselves away from views we disagree with. It might take more effort to filter out bullshit in our current age, but if we're not even aware of the bullshit someone else is feeding off, how are we going to combat it? We need to bring more people into public debate, not isolate them.
- ahartman00 10y agoCounterpoint: if it provides a false sense of security, then it might have made things worse. Also, confidence in the press is at an all time low, so there is already awareness. [1] 1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/192665/americans-confidence-newspapers-new-low.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/192665/americans-confidence-newsp...