4 ms·
It's a first step to see if it's feasible according to the article: > Wojcicki did not specify how many conspiracies were on the company’s initial list, but su
by dewey 9y ago
It's a first step to see if it's feasible according to the article:
> Wojcicki did not specify how many conspiracies were on the company’s initial list, but suggested it would expand over time. “What I like about this unit is that it’s actually pretty extensible,” she said. The company could show additional alternate sources of information under controversial elements in the future, she said.
- thwarted 9y agoThe company could show additional alternate sources of information under controversial elements in the future Part of the problem is that it's really trivial to make something appear to be controversial, especially in the age of "balanced reporting" where both (multiple?) sides are given equal exposure even if one is deep in crackpot realm. Even things like "10/10 scientists agree" are prone to foment controversy -- why are all these scientists agreeing, who's paying them?
- soneil 9y agoBalance truly is a case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". When we see a crackpot on TV, we see cheap amusement. A slow news day. A good idea (balance) gone horribly wrong. But for those who believe the crackpot, it's validation. He must be an authority on the subject, why else would the BBC be talking to him? We're so hell-bent on fairly representing both sides, that we start to forget that the counter to a fact, is a falsehood. Two political commentators may have contrasting viewpoints. Two sports pundits may have differing opinions on who the next transfer should be. But the counter-point to actual fact is fiction.