3 ms·

I never suggested banning anything. I'm merely asking questions. But sure, to play devil's advocate, is there some precedent here? Maybe with cigarettes for exa

I never suggested banning anything. I'm merely asking questions. But sure, to play devil's advocate, is there some precedent here? Maybe with cigarettes for example? Nicotine cigarettes benefit tobacco companies enormously (by increasing addiction). They'll never voluntarily give them up, either. Yet we have approaches for dealing with addictive consumables; taxes, health warnings, education, etc. I wonder if similar approaches might work when applied to social media.

laughinghan 7y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response; upvoted. I don't think cigarettes are a relevant precedent. It's not like cigarettes cause cancer in some people and make others healthier. (I guess it can make you thinner? But yet it still increases your likelihood of heart disease.) Algorithmic newsfeeds are a much better experience for many people, who don't want thoughtful discussion and wedding and family photos buried under people announcing to the world that they're pooping. You also didn't respond to my point that deadly viral WhatsApp forwards refute your contention that "99%" of disinformation problems are due to algorithmic rather than chronological newsfeeds.
- kikoreis 7y ago
  Other than rate-limiting, I don't know how you can avoid WhatsApp forwards becoming a problem without violating E2E encryption. However, WhatsApp seems to act more as an amplifier than as a net originator of content, so it makes sense to look at places where misinformation is first published. With pure timeline-based views, the ability to reinforce misinformation is diminished -- yes, people can repost and troll news mechanically, but that can be rate-limited. So I don't think we should throw the idea out the window just yet.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean about acting as an amplifier---how is that different from social media like Facebook? You might be right about the reinforcement being diminished, just like misinformation existed before the Internet, but getting rid of the Internet would surely diminish the reinforcement. Like I asked above, so what? There's no going back.

laughinghan 7y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response; upvoted. I don't think cigarettes are a relevant precedent. It's not like cigarettes cause cancer in some people and make others healthier. (I guess it can make you thinner? But yet it still increases your likelihood of heart disease.) Algorithmic newsfeeds are a much better experience for many people, who don't want thoughtful discussion and wedding and family photos buried under people announcing to the world that they're pooping. You also didn't respond to my point that deadly viral WhatsApp forwards refute your contention that "99%" of disinformation problems are due to algorithmic rather than chronological newsfeeds.

kikoreis 7y ago
Other than rate-limiting, I don't know how you can avoid WhatsApp forwards becoming a problem without violating E2E encryption. However, WhatsApp seems to act more as an amplifier than as a net originator of content, so it makes sense to look at places where misinformation is first published. With pure timeline-based views, the ability to reinforce misinformation is diminished -- yes, people can repost and troll news mechanically, but that can be rate-limited. So I don't think we should throw the idea out the window just yet.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean about acting as an amplifier---how is that different from social media like Facebook? You might be right about the reinforcement being diminished, just like misinformation existed before the Internet, but getting rid of the Internet would surely diminish the reinforcement. Like I asked above, so what? There's no going back.