3 ms·
This conundrum is no different than the moderation conundrum of social media. If you leave things to themselves and allow a social media forum to "evolve," it b
by braythwayt 8y ago
This conundrum is no different than the moderation conundrum of social media. If you leave things to themselves and allow a social media forum to "evolve," it becomes a dumpster fire.
If you leave a publishing journal to optimize for views and/or clickthrough revenue, it becomes a dumpster fire.
If you don't want dumpster fires, somebody has to establish a set a of values and enforce them, even if they have "costs" in terms of popularity/clicks/attention.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoYes agreed. But my point is, between all the shady data practices within too many studies, and the click-bait "journalism", I find science's faulting of various non-believers (e.g., anti-vax, climate change is a myth, etc.) to be misplaced. That is, you can't do crap science and crap journalism and then blame the public their misunderstanding and/or lack of trust. It doesn't work that way.
- selestify 8y agoScientists aren't the ones doing crappy journalism