4 ms·

I think the crux of the question raised here is: "Is there anything wrong, ethically or legally, with a social media site accepting payments in exchange for alg

I think the crux of the question raised here is: "Is there anything wrong, ethically or legally, with a social media site accepting payments in exchange for algorithmically amplifying the amount of people that see the paid-for content? Does the answer to this question depend on the veracity of the information presented in the content? If so, does Facebook have some sort of obligation to ensure that paid-for content is substantiated by facts and evidence?"

_cairn 7y ago
Agree wholeheartedly with how you posed the question, I would like to expand: Should Adult (xxx) sites be held accountable for ads for male enlargement pills/snake oils? I personally don't think so. Is the answer to this problem to teach our population that blindly accepting what you read is safe (you can trust information posted on social media/public internet sites as fact) OR do we instead teach our citizens to filter information analytically and do research the way you are taught to in university for example? Personally I think the former option is an intractable problem. Why try to make it safe for your population NOT to have to think instead of just teaching them how to think critically?
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  > Why try to make it safe for your population NOT to have to think instead of just teaching them how to think critically? Hmmm...a question like that is essentially opening up the gates for speculation - the kind of speculation that may not paint the government (the body that seems to be pushing for, as you say, "trustworthy information") in the most benevolent light. I agree with the essence of what you're getting at - it's the old biblical trope of giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish. But I could think of many possible benefits (for a government) in having a population with a reduced ability or incentive to be analytical and think critically. To be fair, I can think of many possible costs as well - I don't know whether one would outweigh the other.

_cairn 7y ago

Agree wholeheartedly with how you posed the question, I would like to expand: Should Adult (xxx) sites be held accountable for ads for male enlargement pills/snake oils? I personally don't think so. Is the answer to this problem to teach our population that blindly accepting what you read is safe (you can trust information posted on social media/public internet sites as fact) OR do we instead teach our citizens to filter information analytically and do research the way you are taught to in university for example? Personally I think the former option is an intractable problem. Why try to make it safe for your population NOT to have to think instead of just teaching them how to think critically?

FillardMillmore 7y ago
> Why try to make it safe for your population NOT to have to think instead of just teaching them how to think critically? Hmmm...a question like that is essentially opening up the gates for speculation - the kind of speculation that may not paint the government (the body that seems to be pushing for, as you say, "trustworthy information") in the most benevolent light. I agree with the essence of what you're getting at - it's the old biblical trope of giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish. But I could think of many possible benefits (for a government) in having a population with a reduced ability or incentive to be analytical and think critically. To be fair, I can think of many possible costs as well - I don't know whether one would outweigh the other.