3 ms·
I don't understand why the big players such as Facebook and Google keeps insisting on using (appeals to) authority as a proxy to truth, when we have rules and s
by eivarv 8y ago
I don't understand why the big players such as Facebook and Google keeps insisting on using (appeals to) authority as a proxy to truth, when we have rules and systems for critical thinking.
It seems to me that if the claims and stories in question could be re-posed (e.g. as falsifiable, logically coherent statements or arguments) the worst of "fake news" could be weeded out.
The rest (and biases, etc.) would likely have to be left as an exercise for the (critical) reader.
- drb91 8y agoMaybe because it’s cheaper than being regulated like other broadcast media is, a likely response to non-action to widely harmful content.
- eivarv 8y agoSure, but what they do is really a "non-action" – as the entire premise is built upon a logical fallacy it can't guarantee truth, won't end the problem, and can (obviously) be gamed.
- unparagoned 8y agoThe tools and systems we have around critical thinking and logical statements are nowhere near sufficient to solve the problem let alone computer. Give it a try you'll never get people to agree what the logical consistent statement best represents an article.
- chongli 8y agoGoogle and Facebook want to have their cake and eat it too: billions of users without having millions of customer service workers. What they're trying to accomplish, to my mind at least, would require the invention of general AI. Automatic content moderation sounds very close to a Turing test to me.
- MichaelKSpencer 8y agoGoogle Home is maybe years ahead of what Facebook voice-AI will feel like.