3 ms·
> Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy? If we want to have healthy democracy, it's up to all of us to figure out how to ge
by rgbrgb 10y ago
> Isn't it up to the viewer not the publisher to decide what is trustworthy?
If we want to have healthy democracy, it's up to all of us to figure out how to get every citizen to consume factual information and let them know when they're being lied to. That's a Hard Problem with an incredibly valuable solution. To me it seems like FB is well positioned to play a role here. They've figured out how to get a huge population to consume content on their platform - now they need to figure out how to get people to consume some knowledge along with the cat pictures and avoid outright lies (e.g. dead FBI director [0]). The question is whether that would be counter to their engagement KPIs (maybe some people only want "facts" they agree with). My gut says that eliminating the clickbait/propaganda (internet noise) would make it all the more indispensable as a resource/utility.
[0]: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episo...
- k-mcgrady 10y ago>> "If we want to have healthy democracy, it's up to all of us to figure out how to get every citizen to consume factual information and let them know when they're being lied to." What do you do when the people don't actually care? IMO people don't want their views challenged. They're happier when they accept stuff they agree with and can get up on their high horse about stuff they disagree with (signing the odd petition or two). I've been shocked by people I know who are very well educated that don't know about major news stories, even ones that effect the field they're in. And when I explain the story to them, they don't care.