3 ms·

Maybe I’m overly pessimistic about how people collectively behave. But seriously, imagine an article posted on Facebook stating that Planned Parenthood sells b

Maybe I’m overly pessimistic about how people collectively behave. But seriously, imagine an article posted on Facebook stating that Planned Parenthood sells body parts of aborted fetuses (or something similarly likely to elicit reactions). Obviously, that's either factual or it’s not. Yet I'm certain that if Facebook users had the ability to vote on whether the story is true of false, they would vote based on personal beliefs, not on what they would find by fact-checking the story. Likewise, for anything else that in any way touched on an inflammatory issue. Do you actually think otherwise?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Obviously, that's either factual or it’s not. Sure, but unless people actually work at PP or carry out their own individual on-site investigation, their knowledge of the fact is going to be based on what third-party sources they trust (including those acting as fact checkers), which is tightly correlated with viewpoint. > Facebook users had the ability to vote on whether the story is true of false, they would vote based on personal beliefs, not on what they would find by fact-checking the story. They'd probably vote based on their beliefs about the facts, which would often include checking with sources they trust on facts. Of course, those beliefs—and where fact checking is involved, the set of trusted sources—will be strongly correlated with their beliefs about abortion. The ivory tower ideal of a clean separation between how people address fact claims and the value system in which they give significance to facts, where you could then isolate which process was involved in a decision excluding the other, is, while convenient, not at all a reflection of reality.
- ithilglin909 8y ago
  > their knowledge of the fact is going to be based on what third-party sources they trust (including those acting as fact checkers), which is tightly correlated with viewpoint. But that's true of nearly everything. On anything controversial, users will generally vote based on what they like to believe, and such a system of ranking news stories or posters of news stories would never be reliable.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But that's true of nearly everything. Yes, that's my whole point: the claim made that users flag content bases on ideology rather than factual disagreement is essentially impossible to be justified, since perception of facts and ideological viewpoints are deeply intertwined.
    - ithilglin909 8y ago
      I don't disagree, but I'm sure that users will also flag stories as false that are most likely true, but that don't reflect well on their side of an issue.
- hunter2_ 8y ago
  > carry out their own individual on-site investigation This is the crux of the whole issue. Everyone's talking about "facts" but should be talking about "proof". We would need a vouching system where only people who possess evidence or can otherwise demonstrate proof will even have their vote counted. Who watches the watchman yada yada. The whole thing is an impossible feat. The best we as content consumers can do is only trust that which is created by trusted hardware (i.e., is actual live action video and not CGI) rather than that which is created by journalists or reporters of any reputation whatsoever.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Obviously, that's either factual or it’s not. Sure, but unless people actually work at PP or carry out their own individual on-site investigation, their knowledge of the fact is going to be based on what third-party sources they trust (including those acting as fact checkers), which is tightly correlated with viewpoint. > Facebook users had the ability to vote on whether the story is true of false, they would vote based on personal beliefs, not on what they would find by fact-checking the story. They'd probably vote based on their beliefs about the facts, which would often include checking with sources they trust on facts. Of course, those beliefs—and where fact checking is involved, the set of trusted sources—will be strongly correlated with their beliefs about abortion. The ivory tower ideal of a clean separation between how people address fact claims and the value system in which they give significance to facts, where you could then isolate which process was involved in a decision excluding the other, is, while convenient, not at all a reflection of reality.

ithilglin909 8y ago
> their knowledge of the fact is going to be based on what third-party sources they trust (including those acting as fact checkers), which is tightly correlated with viewpoint. But that's true of nearly everything. On anything controversial, users will generally vote based on what they like to believe, and such a system of ranking news stories or posters of news stories would never be reliable.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > But that's true of nearly everything. Yes, that's my whole point: the claim made that users flag content bases on ideology rather than factual disagreement is essentially impossible to be justified, since perception of facts and ideological viewpoints are deeply intertwined.
  - ithilglin909 8y ago
    I don't disagree, but I'm sure that users will also flag stories as false that are most likely true, but that don't reflect well on their side of an issue.
hunter2_ 8y ago
> carry out their own individual on-site investigation This is the crux of the whole issue. Everyone's talking about "facts" but should be talking about "proof". We would need a vouching system where only people who possess evidence or can otherwise demonstrate proof will even have their vote counted. Who watches the watchman yada yada. The whole thing is an impossible feat. The best we as content consumers can do is only trust that which is created by trusted hardware (i.e., is actual live action video and not CGI) rather than that which is created by journalists or reporters of any reputation whatsoever.