4 ms·

I definitely think that dumb content makes the consumer dumber with repeated exposure just like smart/educational content makes them smarter (well, in simple te

by raquo 9y ago

I definitely think that dumb content makes the consumer dumber with repeated exposure just like smart/educational content makes them smarter (well, in simple terms). I don't think there is a baseline intelligence level for each person below which they can't possibly fall regardless of what they do. So yes, platforms making dumb content more available do make people dumber long term. I don't know what to do about it, but at least we have to recognize that this is a legit problem.

dmix 9y ago
> I definitely think that dumb content makes the consumer dumber with repeated exposure Sure, but even if that turns out to be the case what concerns me is how often people automatically take the next step and assume that it should or CAN be controlled top-down, and that doing so will surely result in the average/lowest common denominator consumer suddenly becoming smarter and less ignorant. Basically the assumption that it is such a significant problem, that people would be far better informed/smarter if we just banned/regulated what some central organization or individual mega-corporations deem as not good content. That's a significant leap - and one that I feel is very often disconnected in these discussions. Just because problem X exists, doesn't mean solution Y will solve it. Or that problem X is a significant enough problem that the rewards will warrant the costs/risks of attempting to fix it.
- raquo 9y ago
  I would say the general public's level of intelligence in general, and the effect of dumb content on it specifically is definitely significant enough to need a solution. Many solutions, probably. Of course no one will seriously suggest a gif prohibition (I hope), but regarding fake news specifically, regulation such as the FCC Fairness doctrine could possibly work. The point is not to eliminate undesired behavior entirely, but to make it less available and less desirable compared to alternatives. For example, smoking cigarettes is being largely successfully solved by education, promotion of general health, gross packaging, putting cigarette cases out-of-sight in supermarkets, and taxes, not outright prohibition. I don't think that just because the content is digital you can't do anything about it without introducing worse problems for freedom of speech and such. Tons of industries are successfully regulated, this one is not special enough to be unsolvable.
  - testvox 9y ago
    The Supreme Court ruled that the fairness doctrine was justified given the scarce nature of the radio spectrum. The doctrine never applied to cable TV and certainly wouldn't be able to be applied to the internet.
    - raquo 9y ago
      You can certainly apply and enforce such regulations on mainstream media, both TV and online. The world will benefit even without US getting onboard with it, and without the need to police every last website.
btilly 9y ago
There is actually research showing that exposure to a series of fake headlines - even though you are told that they are fake - makes similar fake headlines more believable to you.

by raquo 9y ago

dmix 9y ago

> I definitely think that dumb content makes the consumer dumber with repeated exposure Sure, but even if that turns out to be the case what concerns me is how often people automatically take the next step and assume that it should or CAN be controlled top-down, and that doing so will surely result in the average/lowest common denominator consumer suddenly becoming smarter and less ignorant. Basically the assumption that it is such a significant problem, that people would be far better informed/smarter if we just banned/regulated what some central organization or individual mega-corporations deem as not good content. That's a significant leap - and one that I feel is very often disconnected in these discussions. Just because problem X exists, doesn't mean solution Y will solve it. Or that problem X is a significant enough problem that the rewards will warrant the costs/risks of attempting to fix it.

raquo 9y ago
I would say the general public's level of intelligence in general, and the effect of dumb content on it specifically is definitely significant enough to need a solution. Many solutions, probably. Of course no one will seriously suggest a gif prohibition (I hope), but regarding fake news specifically, regulation such as the FCC Fairness doctrine could possibly work. The point is not to eliminate undesired behavior entirely, but to make it less available and less desirable compared to alternatives. For example, smoking cigarettes is being largely successfully solved by education, promotion of general health, gross packaging, putting cigarette cases out-of-sight in supermarkets, and taxes, not outright prohibition. I don't think that just because the content is digital you can't do anything about it without introducing worse problems for freedom of speech and such. Tons of industries are successfully regulated, this one is not special enough to be unsolvable.
- testvox 9y ago
  The Supreme Court ruled that the fairness doctrine was justified given the scarce nature of the radio spectrum. The doctrine never applied to cable TV and certainly wouldn't be able to be applied to the internet.
  - raquo 9y ago
    You can certainly apply and enforce such regulations on mainstream media, both TV and online. The world will benefit even without US getting onboard with it, and without the need to police every last website.

btilly 9y ago

There is actually research showing that exposure to a series of fake headlines - even though you are told that they are fake - makes similar fake headlines more believable to you.