4 ms·

> If you really want to fight the root of the problem, it's not likes and comments, but education. I agree, but it's impossible to educate everyone on any subj

> If you really want to fight the root of the problem, it's not likes and comments, but education. I agree, but it's impossible to educate everyone on any subject. I think in this case, people who are experts in the matter, should give a reputation rating on the article. That would be really great. For example, I am no expert in theoretical physics, but I may enjoy an article about it, but how do I know it's not a bunch of bullshit I am reading? If I see that Stephen Hawking gave it a 5 star reputable source rating, I "know" I can believe it.

pizza234 9y ago
> I agree, but it's impossible to educate everyone on any subject. Critical thinking is universal though. It's not a necessity to have a solid judgment of a piece. "Critical abstention" is a possibility, and primarily formal analysis is another (eg. search for common communication red flags). I don't think that the parent idea of removing likes and counts is realistic (in any imaginary scenario I can think of).
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  > Critical thinking is universal I'm assuming you don't spend a lot of time on Facebook?
  - yAnonymous 9y ago
    I'm assuming you do. Otherwise you would have understood the comment.
icelancer 9y ago
>> If I see that Stephen Hawking gave it a 5 star reputable source rating, I "know" I can believe it. People everywhere are going away from this model as "experts" are consistently bribed through various means. There is no good short-term fix. People need to become more educated and adapt. If the argument is that they can't, well, maybe our brains have been defeated entirely by advertising and messaging. It wouldn't be the first time a complex problem was mostly solved.
- bildung 9y ago
  One way to work against that is proper antibribery laws and their enforcement. Compared to other industrial countries, the US allows many forms of corruption and disinformation, that, once forbidden, would sustainably change the educational and political landscape (most notably bribes (officially donations) to political parties.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dagw 9y ago
But that still requires that you have knowledgeable baseline of who is and isn't a "good" theoretical physicist. For a lot of people for example Dr. Oz is a "good" medical doctor and Gwyneth Paltrow is a trusted source on women's health and with that as a baseline you haven't solved anything.
yAnonymous 9y ago
An educated person can judge the trustworthiness of a source well enough.
- pixl97 9y ago
  No they cant. See, I can make things up too. Furthermore the amount of education necessary to judge the trustworthiness of all potential subjects is not obtainable by an individual, meaning they have to hope the experts they choose to listen to aren't making it up.
  - yAnonymous 9y ago
    Yes, they can. If all you do to measure trustworthiness is check if the person has an expert tag, I can see your problem.

pizza234 9y ago

> I agree, but it's impossible to educate everyone on any subject. Critical thinking is universal though. It's not a necessity to have a solid judgment of a piece. "Critical abstention" is a possibility, and primarily formal analysis is another (eg. search for common communication red flags). I don't think that the parent idea of removing likes and counts is realistic (in any imaginary scenario I can think of).

SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
> Critical thinking is universal I'm assuming you don't spend a lot of time on Facebook?
- yAnonymous 9y ago
  I'm assuming you do. Otherwise you would have understood the comment.

icelancer 9y ago

>> If I see that Stephen Hawking gave it a 5 star reputable source rating, I "know" I can believe it. People everywhere are going away from this model as "experts" are consistently bribed through various means. There is no good short-term fix. People need to become more educated and adapt. If the argument is that they can't, well, maybe our brains have been defeated entirely by advertising and messaging. It wouldn't be the first time a complex problem was mostly solved.

bildung 9y ago
One way to work against that is proper antibribery laws and their enforcement. Compared to other industrial countries, the US allows many forms of corruption and disinformation, that, once forbidden, would sustainably change the educational and political landscape (most notably bribes (officially donations) to political parties.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dagw 9y ago

But that still requires that you have knowledgeable baseline of who is and isn't a "good" theoretical physicist. For a lot of people for example Dr. Oz is a "good" medical doctor and Gwyneth Paltrow is a trusted source on women's health and with that as a baseline you haven't solved anything.

yAnonymous 9y ago

An educated person can judge the trustworthiness of a source well enough.

pixl97 9y ago
No they cant. See, I can make things up too. Furthermore the amount of education necessary to judge the trustworthiness of all potential subjects is not obtainable by an individual, meaning they have to hope the experts they choose to listen to aren't making it up.
- yAnonymous 9y ago
  Yes, they can. If all you do to measure trustworthiness is check if the person has an expert tag, I can see your problem.