3 ms·

Plus ... when it comes to "better" information sources. There we simply know for sure they're adult trolls and propagandists. People will need to learn to deal

Plus ... when it comes to "better" information sources. There we simply know for sure they're adult trolls and propagandists. People will need to learn to deal with them, protecting them is not possible. As if that's not bad enough, any attempts to protect them simply creates better tools for people to feed bad information to more people, and might result in outright censorship (if it hasn't already) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

freeflight 8y ago
> There we simply know for sure they're adult trolls and propagandists. This is a much-underestimated factor that didn't exist, on that scale, previously. When I was hanging out in chat groups in the late 90's I didn't have to worry about my conversational partner having, financially motivated and sinister, motives to change my opinions about certain topics. Except for straight up scams, but nobody had a vested financial interest in "convincing" me about something. These days there's a whole industry built around exactly that (social media marketing), the web is full of dishonest information players, even on a governmental level, on literally all sides. This isn't even that new, it's a development that the US military caught on years ago [0]. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...