4 ms·

> I also question Microsoft's decision to include the plugin at all. I'd rather not have an arbiter of truth looking over my shoulders, reminding me what i shou

by gfo 8y ago

> I also question Microsoft's decision to include the plugin at all. I'd rather not have an arbiter of truth looking over my shoulders, reminding me what i should or shouldn't read This is such a tricky point. On the one hand I almost agree with you in the sense that it could have a dangerous outcome: ceding control to an entity who essentially influences what content users should read. On the other hand, the amount of misleading information on the web is having a very real, very serious impact on the world. If used responsibly this might influence positive change.

kodablah 8y ago
> the amount of misleading information on the web is having a very real, very serious impact on the world I'm not convinced this is true. I'm more convinced many really want it to be true to explain results they otherwise can't. And as expected, they have convinced others this is true. It's just another in the long line of bogeymen.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Considering I have caught my mother on more than one occasion sharing fake information from groups that fit the Russia propaganda angle to a tee (whether or not they actually are Russian ops), I would say it is in fact having a very real impact. And for reference, the group was called 'American Warrior Revolution', so you too can take a peek into the insanity I'm referring to.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    What "Russia propaganda angle"? Almost everything published about Russia in western media is wrong or outright fraudulent. Go read Glenn Greenwald's articles on the Intercept for many very clear examples. Maybe your mother is sharing fake information, or maybe your own information is fake and the problem is the inverse (or maybe you're both wrong in different ways).
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      You're objectively wrong, and the information she shared from that group was the very definition of fake. Here's the exact comment that was shared from that group: "R.I.P. Justin Allen 23, Brett Linley 29, Matthew Weikert 29, Justus Bartett 27, Dave Santos 21, Jesse Reed 26, Matthew Johnson 21, Zachary Fisher 24, Brandon King 23, Christopher Goeke 23, and Sheldon Tate 27.... All are Marines who gave their lives this week for you. There's no media for them... not even a mention of their names. We’re too busy talking about trying to get “Baby It’s Cold Outside” off of the radio. Please honor them by copying and pasting this post." Except obviously, they didn't die last week as of that post. They died seven years ago. Now why would a large group share literally fake information like that? And why would you immediately jump in and attempt to discredit my argument given that I even gave you the name of the group? Take a cursory glance at them and their actions.
      - repolfx 8y ago
        I may be missing something fundamental here, but I'm not sure what that post has to do with Russia or propaganda. You say it's obvious they didn't die last week, but it wasn't obvious to me upon reading - perhaps because I'm not American. But if there's no date in the text, maybe your mum just didn't remember the original event, thought some soldiers had died, and she would be honouring them with some copypasta? I guess I don't see a need for a conspiracy, Russian or otherwise, to get people re-sharing posts on Facebook that explicitly say "if you don't reshare this you're a bad person".
  - kodablah 8y ago
    No offense, but what your mother shares does not determine what is a very real impact. Also, whether something is shared does not mean it is impactful.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > whether something is shared does not mean it is impactful Actually, I think whether something is shared and how prevalent that sharing is among the populace is a better indication of impact than many others. For example, one (fairly binary) way of measuring individual impact might be whether it's viewed as worth spreading to other people. Things not worth sharing may or may not be impactful, but things worth sharing almost definitely are. Scaled up, if a high enough percentage of people in a group view something as worth sharing, then it is impactful.
      - kodablah 8y ago
        > Scaled up, if a high enough percentage of people in a group view something as worth sharing, then it is impactful. Disagree, but impactful can be seen as an overloaded term. We need to accept in modern situations that the ease of sharing something might be more of a reason it is shared than whether the sharer/recipient is impacted by it. Or there might be many other reasons. The important thing is accepting that we don't know what is impactful and not running to the heavy-hand of the law/censors assuming we do.

by gfo 8y ago

kodablah 8y ago

> the amount of misleading information on the web is having a very real, very serious impact on the world I'm not convinced this is true. I'm more convinced many really want it to be true to explain results they otherwise can't. And as expected, they have convinced others this is true. It's just another in the long line of bogeymen.

fzeroracer 8y ago
Considering I have caught my mother on more than one occasion sharing fake information from groups that fit the Russia propaganda angle to a tee (whether or not they actually are Russian ops), I would say it is in fact having a very real impact. And for reference, the group was called 'American Warrior Revolution', so you too can take a peek into the insanity I'm referring to.
- repolfx 8y ago
  What "Russia propaganda angle"? Almost everything published about Russia in western media is wrong or outright fraudulent. Go read Glenn Greenwald's articles on the Intercept for many very clear examples. Maybe your mother is sharing fake information, or maybe your own information is fake and the problem is the inverse (or maybe you're both wrong in different ways).
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    You're objectively wrong, and the information she shared from that group was the very definition of fake. Here's the exact comment that was shared from that group: "R.I.P. Justin Allen 23, Brett Linley 29, Matthew Weikert 29, Justus Bartett 27, Dave Santos 21, Jesse Reed 26, Matthew Johnson 21, Zachary Fisher 24, Brandon King 23, Christopher Goeke 23, and Sheldon Tate 27.... All are Marines who gave their lives this week for you. There's no media for them... not even a mention of their names. We’re too busy talking about trying to get “Baby It’s Cold Outside” off of the radio. Please honor them by copying and pasting this post." Except obviously, they didn't die last week as of that post. They died seven years ago. Now why would a large group share literally fake information like that? And why would you immediately jump in and attempt to discredit my argument given that I even gave you the name of the group? Take a cursory glance at them and their actions.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      I may be missing something fundamental here, but I'm not sure what that post has to do with Russia or propaganda. You say it's obvious they didn't die last week, but it wasn't obvious to me upon reading - perhaps because I'm not American. But if there's no date in the text, maybe your mum just didn't remember the original event, thought some soldiers had died, and she would be honouring them with some copypasta? I guess I don't see a need for a conspiracy, Russian or otherwise, to get people re-sharing posts on Facebook that explicitly say "if you don't reshare this you're a bad person".
- kodablah 8y ago
  No offense, but what your mother shares does not determine what is a very real impact. Also, whether something is shared does not mean it is impactful.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > whether something is shared does not mean it is impactful Actually, I think whether something is shared and how prevalent that sharing is among the populace is a better indication of impact than many others. For example, one (fairly binary) way of measuring individual impact might be whether it's viewed as worth spreading to other people. Things not worth sharing may or may not be impactful, but things worth sharing almost definitely are. Scaled up, if a high enough percentage of people in a group view something as worth sharing, then it is impactful.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      > Scaled up, if a high enough percentage of people in a group view something as worth sharing, then it is impactful. Disagree, but impactful can be seen as an overloaded term. We need to accept in modern situations that the ease of sharing something might be more of a reason it is shared than whether the sharer/recipient is impacted by it. Or there might be many other reasons. The important thing is accepting that we don't know what is impactful and not running to the heavy-hand of the law/censors assuming we do.