4 ms·

>Luckily, Facebook is the perfect arbiter for making such assertions. Only by branding foreign and independent media outlets as such, can the good name and repu

>Luckily, Facebook is the perfect arbiter for making such assertions. Only by branding foreign and independent media outlets as such, can the good name and reputation of Facebook and other altruistic independent sources of information be protected by such evil. Ironically, "facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth/speech" is exactly the defense Zuckerberg made about the decision not to put a disclaimer on Trump's "looting and shooting" tweet. And people are still killing him over it. At this point, I'm not entirely sure what people want.

dnautics 6y ago
I would put it this way: I'm not sure if facebook is trying to have its cake and eat it too, or if facebook is caught between a rock and hard place. (I'm a bit sad this is downvoted)
DFHippie 6y ago
Different people want different things.
- andybak 6y ago
  Quite often the same person wants different things depending on how it's framed and whether it supports their preconceptions. And yes that person is often you or I. None of us are immune to cognitive blind spots. Smart people are sometimes the worst offenders.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Eliezer Yudkowsky's Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People seems relevant. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AdYdLP2sRqPMoe8fb/knowing-about-biases-can-hurt-people https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AdYdLP2sRqPMoe8fb/knowing-ab... So does the concept of dysrationalia, proposed by Keith Stanovich. Ironically, the Wikipedia article quotes Robert Sternberg as saying: > I am afraid that Stanovich has fallen into a trap—that of labeling people as 'dysrational' who have beliefs that he does not accept. And therein lies frightening potential for misuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  But when one group of people say "Facebook should be the arbiter" and the other group says "Facebook should not be the arbiter" then both things cannot happen.

dnautics 6y ago

I would put it this way: I'm not sure if facebook is trying to have its cake and eat it too, or if facebook is caught between a rock and hard place. (I'm a bit sad this is downvoted)

DFHippie 6y ago

Different people want different things.

andybak 6y ago
Quite often the same person wants different things depending on how it's framed and whether it supports their preconceptions. And yes that person is often you or I. None of us are immune to cognitive blind spots. Smart people are sometimes the worst offenders.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Eliezer Yudkowsky's Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People seems relevant. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AdYdLP2sRqPMoe8fb/knowing-about-biases-can-hurt-people https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AdYdLP2sRqPMoe8fb/knowing-ab... So does the concept of dysrationalia, proposed by Keith Stanovich. Ironically, the Wikipedia article quotes Robert Sternberg as saying: > I am afraid that Stanovich has fallen into a trap—that of labeling people as 'dysrational' who have beliefs that he does not accept. And therein lies frightening potential for misuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia
oarabbus_ 6y ago
But when one group of people say "Facebook should be the arbiter" and the other group says "Facebook should not be the arbiter" then both things cannot happen.