3 ms·

The uncomfortable truth is that a large proportion of the population that would formerly have been peripherally interested in current affairs, perhaps watching

The uncomfortable truth is that a large proportion of the population that would formerly have been peripherally interested in current affairs, perhaps watching the news on TV once in a while, and rarely reading newspapers (which had a massive barrier to entry) are now being force-fed information. Many don’t have well-developed critical thinking skills, and rarely needed them before the current era. The idea that the answer to bad speech online, is more speech, is BS, because a truly unfiltered medium would be overwhelmed with spam, as USENET was, so there have always been algorithms on social media curating and controlling what people saw. If these algorithms can’t distinguish satire from reality, neither will many who who consume their outputs. So we’re at the mercy of ignoramuses, fed garbage by algorithms programmed by people with (ahem) limited people skills, and being gamed by sophisticated propagandists. God help us.

keypress 8y ago
But there is a way with the Internet by way of links, to build reference chains of information. If people adopted good referencing - at least we'd have a chance at weeding some of the crap out.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
To be fair - the concept of 'news' as being 'impartial' is a rather modern concept. Maybe as early as 100 years ago, newspapers were just businesses, often used by their owners as propaganda vehicles for their own business interests, and to go on personal slander vendettas. Some of the old-timey insults are pretty funny in retrospect. But yes, the internet poses a challenge, and there are basically no unbiased sources.
- thrwaway8989 8y ago
  To clarify my point, even today, most newspapers have an agenda, in fact, that’s probably a major reason for people owning anything larger than a small local paper. But. it was a pull mechanism, so the newspapers didn’t have a spigot to shove their information down the throats of everyone who walked past the news stand.
lobotryas 8y ago
Your argument against "'more speech" is asinine (unless you consider posts in favor of things you disagree with as "spam").
- thrwaway8989 8y ago
  I meant actual spam..unsolicited advertising. An unfiltered feed will be overwhelmed with crap, so filtering becomes necessary immediately. As soon as that happens, decisions have to be made...(more clicks=“better” etc)...and that opens the door to people manipulating the algorithms.

keypress 8y ago

But there is a way with the Internet by way of links, to build reference chains of information. If people adopted good referencing - at least we'd have a chance at weeding some of the crap out.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

To be fair - the concept of 'news' as being 'impartial' is a rather modern concept. Maybe as early as 100 years ago, newspapers were just businesses, often used by their owners as propaganda vehicles for their own business interests, and to go on personal slander vendettas. Some of the old-timey insults are pretty funny in retrospect. But yes, the internet poses a challenge, and there are basically no unbiased sources.

thrwaway8989 8y ago
To clarify my point, even today, most newspapers have an agenda, in fact, that’s probably a major reason for people owning anything larger than a small local paper. But. it was a pull mechanism, so the newspapers didn’t have a spigot to shove their information down the throats of everyone who walked past the news stand.

lobotryas 8y ago

Your argument against "'more speech" is asinine (unless you consider posts in favor of things you disagree with as "spam").

thrwaway8989 8y ago
I meant actual spam..unsolicited advertising. An unfiltered feed will be overwhelmed with crap, so filtering becomes necessary immediately. As soon as that happens, decisions have to be made...(more clicks=“better” etc)...and that opens the door to people manipulating the algorithms.