4 ms·

> What is the alternative? Improve your informational diet first by consciously discounting whatever you read on Facebook, and second by spending less time on

> What is the alternative? Improve your informational diet first by consciously discounting whatever you read on Facebook, and second by spending less time on Facebook. > Think you're the smartest person on the planet, unaffected by misinformation? There's no need for snark. The issue being discussed is particular to these sorts of platforms. Reputable news sources still exist.

unethical_ban 6y ago
You're substituting reality for your ideal. Sure, I believe we should have public schooling teach more raw critical thinking, rhetoric and civics. But you're not going to get the existing billion people in the online world, many of whom are some combination of hotheaded or ignorant of the wicked ways of misinformation, to suddenly "improve their informational diet". The people who are most likely to take that advice are the ones least in need of it. I am glad Facebook and Twitter are taking what must be very careful, researched actions against clear evidence of powerful forces using social media as a tool against reality.
- glial 6y ago
  > Facebook and Twitter are taking what must be very careful, researched action Sorry but are we talking about the same companies? What track record do they have that helps you to believe this?
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    Because if they deleted 100% of the bullshit on their sites, tweet volume would be much lower. My point is, they clearly aren't removing the majority of disinformed and disinforming nonsense. And I don't think every human at the two orgs are evil. If they say "Look, we found these patterns, these correlations, this forensic data that points at coordinated disinformation", my intuition is that they have done just that.
    - glial 6y ago
      Sure, not every person is evil. You just need evil leaders and employees that need paychecks to be in a bad spot. The core problem is that they have two conflicting incentives. They don’t want to look bad for spreading misinformation so they try to restrict it. But, they are incentivized to make money, and posts spreading disinformation are lucrative because they appeal to eyeballs. I am extremely, extremely skeptical that this is a resolvable problem for them.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > you're not going to get the existing billion people in the online world Your original point, and my response, were both on how an individual can escape the misinformation cesspools of Facebook and Twitter. Of course I agree it's much harder to solve the problem at the societal scale.
  - Groxx 6y ago
    As a passer-by: no, I think their original point was that it's ridiculous to depend entirely on individual actions to address misinformation. On that point they've been consistent across all comments.

unethical_ban 6y ago

You're substituting reality for your ideal. Sure, I believe we should have public schooling teach more raw critical thinking, rhetoric and civics. But you're not going to get the existing billion people in the online world, many of whom are some combination of hotheaded or ignorant of the wicked ways of misinformation, to suddenly "improve their informational diet". The people who are most likely to take that advice are the ones least in need of it. I am glad Facebook and Twitter are taking what must be very careful, researched actions against clear evidence of powerful forces using social media as a tool against reality.

glial 6y ago
> Facebook and Twitter are taking what must be very careful, researched action Sorry but are we talking about the same companies? What track record do they have that helps you to believe this?
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Because if they deleted 100% of the bullshit on their sites, tweet volume would be much lower. My point is, they clearly aren't removing the majority of disinformed and disinforming nonsense. And I don't think every human at the two orgs are evil. If they say "Look, we found these patterns, these correlations, this forensic data that points at coordinated disinformation", my intuition is that they have done just that.
  - glial 6y ago
    Sure, not every person is evil. You just need evil leaders and employees that need paychecks to be in a bad spot. The core problem is that they have two conflicting incentives. They don’t want to look bad for spreading misinformation so they try to restrict it. But, they are incentivized to make money, and posts spreading disinformation are lucrative because they appeal to eyeballs. I am extremely, extremely skeptical that this is a resolvable problem for them.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> you're not going to get the existing billion people in the online world Your original point, and my response, were both on how an individual can escape the misinformation cesspools of Facebook and Twitter. Of course I agree it's much harder to solve the problem at the societal scale.
- Groxx 6y ago
  As a passer-by: no, I think their original point was that it's ridiculous to depend entirely on individual actions to address misinformation. On that point they've been consistent across all comments.