4 ms·

> Tech is just one of the vehicles through which we share it. It's the fastest, most powerful, and most virulent vehicle we've found for it yet. This seems

> Tech is just one of the vehicles through which we share it. It's the fastest, most powerful, and most virulent vehicle we've found for it yet. This seems to be worthy of independent consideration, as we may have unknowingly crossed some sort of threshold.

beaner 9y ago
As powerful as it is for sharing misinformation, it is equally powerful for sharing correct information. When involved in a debate, if someone says the wrong thing, the audience does not interrupt and say "Moderator, you let the wrong thing be said. The debate must cease and you are fired." The correct thing is simply allowed to be said afterward. There is a subtle draconian undertone to this anti-fake news rhetoric. We want tech to be responsible for our own actions, to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice the natural flow of point/cointer-point of human discussion. Something about it just smells.
- nl 9y ago
  It’s not as powerful for sharing correct information. There are plenty of credible studies showing how people have a bias to believe things which confirm their beliefs. That means it takes more information to convince someone something they believe is wrong. So base fears of “the other” are always going to be easy targets for fake news purveyors.
- runesoerensen 9y ago
  Right, but this isn't about point/counter-point or any kind of civil debate, it's about straight-up constructed lies and actual information. Also, debate moderators have increasingly been calling out falsehoods during debates. There's a difference between being "wrong" and intentionally lying. I think it's great if the audience and moderators shut down verifiable lies, but of course wouldn't want them to shut down people I just disagree with.
- mekkkkkk 9y ago
  The "algorithm" takes that kind of meaningful exchange and extracts the parts that are controversial (as judged by other users behavior). Those parts of the exchange is what will be presented to you, in hopes of an emotional response. In the end, I suppose the human condition is to blame. After all, the "algorithm" is based on the collective actions of its users. But the tech companies facilitating this race to the bottom share some responsibility as well. Profiting (intentionally or otherwise) on the darker aspects of human psychology isn't unproblematic.

beaner 9y ago

As powerful as it is for sharing misinformation, it is equally powerful for sharing correct information. When involved in a debate, if someone says the wrong thing, the audience does not interrupt and say "Moderator, you let the wrong thing be said. The debate must cease and you are fired." The correct thing is simply allowed to be said afterward. There is a subtle draconian undertone to this anti-fake news rhetoric. We want tech to be responsible for our own actions, to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice the natural flow of point/cointer-point of human discussion. Something about it just smells.

nl 9y ago
It’s not as powerful for sharing correct information. There are plenty of credible studies showing how people have a bias to believe things which confirm their beliefs. That means it takes more information to convince someone something they believe is wrong. So base fears of “the other” are always going to be easy targets for fake news purveyors.
runesoerensen 9y ago
Right, but this isn't about point/counter-point or any kind of civil debate, it's about straight-up constructed lies and actual information. Also, debate moderators have increasingly been calling out falsehoods during debates. There's a difference between being "wrong" and intentionally lying. I think it's great if the audience and moderators shut down verifiable lies, but of course wouldn't want them to shut down people I just disagree with.
mekkkkkk 9y ago
The "algorithm" takes that kind of meaningful exchange and extracts the parts that are controversial (as judged by other users behavior). Those parts of the exchange is what will be presented to you, in hopes of an emotional response. In the end, I suppose the human condition is to blame. After all, the "algorithm" is based on the collective actions of its users. But the tech companies facilitating this race to the bottom share some responsibility as well. Profiting (intentionally or otherwise) on the darker aspects of human psychology isn't unproblematic.