3 ms·
For HN crowd I think the best thing we can do is develop platforms and technology that facilitate and encourage unbiased and clearly presented news and informat
by badrabbit 7y ago
For HN crowd I think the best thing we can do is develop platforms and technology that facilitate and encourage unbiased and clearly presented news and information discovery by the masses.
Unltimately, even the best idea is useless without buy-in by the masses and policy makers. Right now most people simply don't understand or accept the situation either due to lack of factual and audience-appropriate information or due to lack of information sources they trust that present the facts to them. Like it or not,tech is how information spreads and technologists have a lot of say in the outcome of this.
Tech aside,like many other factual information, climate change is presented as a fact people have to accept along with other scientific beliefs. What I mean is, people who are not confident in their own ability to objectively assess the facts rely on the trustworthiness of the people presenting the facts. Climate change should not be presented as an "Us vs Them" issue (obviously) and it needs to be presented in a way that does not challenge any other commonly held beliefs people might have. You can't challenge someone's sacred beliefs (whatever that might be) and also present factual information they're not able to independently verify and expect them to accept the latter and reject the former,it just doesn't work that way. This is mostly why I suggested neutral platforms that instill a strong level of confidence for every audience are needed.
Unfortunately, all I see is climate change being presented like any other scientific fact and on platforms that don't have the confidence of the majority of audiences. You need everyone from the cowboy rancher in texas to the lumberjack in brazil working on cutting down trees in the amazon to buy in.
Solutions like mass reforestation by essentially bombing the planet with seed planting pods seem promising and countries are increasingly switching to renewable energy sources. It all just needs mass buy-in so the solutions can take effect before it's too late.
- shishy 7y agoThe problem I see is people seem to be cherry-picking the blogs/websites that tell them what they want to hear, rather than actually search for the Truth. So even if you make a source that presents news in an unbiased way, it might never get discovered because it'll get lost in the sea of "information" out there. And if you have the most unbiased source out there, someone else with an agenda can push it as an us vs. them narrative and cause the potential audience to simply avoid your site (or view it in their lens).
- estebarb 7y agoMaybe it could be pushed as a web browser/crawler feature: mark sites as fake news? But I'm sure it would be used by bad governments to do more harm than good... :'(
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoI miss Jon Stewart. What you need is someone who can present real news as entertainment instead of presenting entertainment as real news, which is what he did in a way that none of his acolytes have faithfully replicated (not even when they were on the same show in the same episode). Because you have to be willing to make fun of anyone for being wrong instead of just making fun of The Other Team for being The Other Team. But in general it feels like there is an answer in that format. Because people want to be entertained. If they're not being entertained then you've lost them. But you can entertain them and inform them at the same time, if you actually take that as a goal and consciously work toward it. A good professor doesn't bore the students yet they still learn the material. But there is a difference between that and just making partisan propaganda humorous enough to get people to watch it.
- badrabbit 7y agoIf there's a platform that rewards neutrality and eliminates partiality,you can at least have something you can point people to. It doesn't need to be a source itself.
- decasteve 7y ago“We” have developed systems that sell fear and controversy above all else. Divisiveness gets more mentions and clicks. Narratives that push those buttons of fear get page views which are linked to advertising revenue. So long as modern information is disseminated via this value proposition, the (often boring) details will be drowned out when presented against emotion evoking news. Separate advertising revenue from news and you’ll get a more honest take on a subject. This system encourages not just fake news but manufactured controversy.