4 ms·

At some point you're gonna have to trust an authoritative source. Whether that is APNews or NYT or straight from the government website. The question of "Who g

At some point you're gonna have to trust an authoritative source. Whether that is APNews or NYT or straight from the government website. The question of "Who gets to decide the truth" is extremely tiring to refute - someone has always had the authoritative voice is determining what's true and what's not. You're shifting the burden of truth from one source to the other until there is no one you can trust. Statement: Foo is Bar. [1] [1] Source Baz. You then need to argue, why does Baz gets to decide what's true or not? This goes on ad-infinitum. By asking "Who gets to decide the truth", you're essentially saying "Why should I trust anyone?" and by that logic "I cannot trust anyone, so everything must be false." The society's fabric is based on trust in institutions. Whether it is government, an independent news source or whatever.

symlinkk 6y ago
How about I get to decide who to trust instead of Twitter, Reddit, etc censoring people and deciding for me?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Perhaps you'll go to another source, say ABC news? You can ask them the same thing "Hey ABC news, why are you guys deciding the truth for me?". Literally every source you will use, your own argument will falsify it.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    Okay, so are you supportive of Twitter censoring political speech? Or should we be given the opportunity to view information and decide for ourselves what is bullshit and what isn’t? Anyone who believes everything they see on Twitter is beyond being helped by Jack’s censorship.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      I didn't say that. "Decide for ourselves" - oh boy, good luck in the era of deep fakes, lies and misinformation. I do agree with you on one thing - I don't think we should blindly trust Twitter. I am arguing that before censorship, they need to provide a solid source of truth.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    A journalistic establishment with clear editorial control and clear liability for libel, etc. is not the same thing as a publishing platform.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      Fair point, how do you think we need to control rampant misinformation?
      - humanrebar 6y ago
        I don't feel the need to control others' speech. As far as better information, diversity in viewpoint in journalistic within organizations will help. News that starts within a bubble is probably more distorted. The social media problem is harder, but giving users ultimate control on how to filter fake news is important. Otherwise, social media companies should express editorial positions and advertise editorial services as a core part of their offerings, then consumers and content creators would have clear signals about biases in how information is curated on their platforms.
ck425 6y ago
The difference though is that society is largely aware that newspaper editors have opinions and biases and act as gatekeepers and the editors themselves largely acknowledge their roles as gatekeepers. In tech we still try pretend that these companies aren't gatekeepers and the CEOs adamantly insist that they're largely neutral platforms. That's why it's hard to trust tech as an authoritative source.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I would be fine with Twitter censoring but providing an authoritative source (such as APNews) that justifies their censorship. Transparency is better. I guess I am more concerned about people harping on "Well, I don't trust APNews, why do they get to decide on truth." One can go down a conspiratorial path pretty quickly when theyve already made up their mind to not trust anyone or trust their favorite source that supports their arguments and emotional state.
  - phonon 6y ago
    When you click the blue warning on the tweet, it does exactly that...?
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      I didn't know. Not on twitter as much, I'll inquire further.
      - phonon 6y ago
        Just go on Donald Trump's Twitter feed, and click on all the various warnings...(also note that none were "censored"--some just have a warning appended, and others were hidden by default with a warning, and you have to click it to see the tweet.)
    - ttt0 6y ago
      That's actually pretty funny, I did click on that warning on some voter fraud allegations and here is what it said: What you need to know - Voter fraud of any type is incredibly rare in the US, according to The Associated Press and Reuters - US officials say the 2020 US election will be more secure than the 2016 US presidential election - US officials confirm that foreign governments are trying to influence the US election, but that foreign governments' interference is mostly relegated to launching misinformation campaigns - Experts say US elections are 'resilient' And then it lists some articles, that just like the tl;dr version above, did not disprove anything that was actually being said in tweets labeled with these warnings. It's really bad. Laughably bad. It might only confirms your biases if you already believe that the allegations are false, but if you haven't formed an opinion yet - I assure you, no one is ever going to be convinced by this. A lot of people are now treating those factcheckers as a complete joke that cannot be taken seriously. But I don't know, this is just what I noticed by observing this entire thing, make of it what you will.
jaydenseric 6y ago
> At some point you're gonna have to trust an authoritative source. Whether that is APNews or NYT or straight from the government website. Would you really teach your children "trust the New York Times and whatever the government says"? When both said Iraq had WMDs, did you believe them? In a perfect world we could all look at the source material (photos, videos, data, etc.) ourselves to figure out reality and there would be uncensorable platforms for individuals to call out corruption and reach the masses. This was the original promise of the internet and social media! Sadly the authoritarian left is insistent on defining "reality" and relishes censoring dissenting facts or opinions. Facebook and Twitter wields their "fact checking" and censorship on a might-is-right basis, which disenfranchises 50% of the population and is seriously incendiary to civil discourse.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I am talking about authoritative source of truth. Not arguing which specific source.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    Right. But evidence is more trustworthy than authority.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      I am terrified of the idea that the common public of 70 million people that voted for Trump did not have the basic skills to determine what's true and what's not from the evidence. They've been constantly fed lies - as we speak about election fraud. They're provided with plenty of evidence, they choose to not believe. If you think about the world where 80% of the people are religious, who throw away evidence in favor of faith; you're in for a dark future.
      - ryanSrich 6y ago
        Pompous comments like this only drive people further away. Evidence being presented by a biased media is not evidence to be trusted. MSM “science” and “facts” are just as much a religion as Catholicism. If I’m presented evidence from someone that has routinely lied to me, called me names, destroyed my career, and shipped my job prospects overseas, I’m not believing a single word they say.

symlinkk 6y ago

How about I get to decide who to trust instead of Twitter, Reddit, etc censoring people and deciding for me?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
systemvoltage 6y ago
Perhaps you'll go to another source, say ABC news? You can ask them the same thing "Hey ABC news, why are you guys deciding the truth for me?". Literally every source you will use, your own argument will falsify it.
- jtdev 6y ago
  Okay, so are you supportive of Twitter censoring political speech? Or should we be given the opportunity to view information and decide for ourselves what is bullshit and what isn’t? Anyone who believes everything they see on Twitter is beyond being helped by Jack’s censorship.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I didn't say that. "Decide for ourselves" - oh boy, good luck in the era of deep fakes, lies and misinformation. I do agree with you on one thing - I don't think we should blindly trust Twitter. I am arguing that before censorship, they need to provide a solid source of truth.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  A journalistic establishment with clear editorial control and clear liability for libel, etc. is not the same thing as a publishing platform.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Fair point, how do you think we need to control rampant misinformation?
    - humanrebar 6y ago
      I don't feel the need to control others' speech. As far as better information, diversity in viewpoint in journalistic within organizations will help. News that starts within a bubble is probably more distorted. The social media problem is harder, but giving users ultimate control on how to filter fake news is important. Otherwise, social media companies should express editorial positions and advertise editorial services as a core part of their offerings, then consumers and content creators would have clear signals about biases in how information is curated on their platforms.

ck425 6y ago

The difference though is that society is largely aware that newspaper editors have opinions and biases and act as gatekeepers and the editors themselves largely acknowledge their roles as gatekeepers. In tech we still try pretend that these companies aren't gatekeepers and the CEOs adamantly insist that they're largely neutral platforms. That's why it's hard to trust tech as an authoritative source.

systemvoltage 6y ago
I would be fine with Twitter censoring but providing an authoritative source (such as APNews) that justifies their censorship. Transparency is better. I guess I am more concerned about people harping on "Well, I don't trust APNews, why do they get to decide on truth." One can go down a conspiratorial path pretty quickly when theyve already made up their mind to not trust anyone or trust their favorite source that supports their arguments and emotional state.
- phonon 6y ago
  When you click the blue warning on the tweet, it does exactly that...?
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I didn't know. Not on twitter as much, I'll inquire further.
    - phonon 6y ago
      Just go on Donald Trump's Twitter feed, and click on all the various warnings...(also note that none were "censored"--some just have a warning appended, and others were hidden by default with a warning, and you have to click it to see the tweet.)
  - ttt0 6y ago
    That's actually pretty funny, I did click on that warning on some voter fraud allegations and here is what it said: What you need to know - Voter fraud of any type is incredibly rare in the US, according to The Associated Press and Reuters - US officials say the 2020 US election will be more secure than the 2016 US presidential election - US officials confirm that foreign governments are trying to influence the US election, but that foreign governments' interference is mostly relegated to launching misinformation campaigns - Experts say US elections are 'resilient' And then it lists some articles, that just like the tl;dr version above, did not disprove anything that was actually being said in tweets labeled with these warnings. It's really bad. Laughably bad. It might only confirms your biases if you already believe that the allegations are false, but if you haven't formed an opinion yet - I assure you, no one is ever going to be convinced by this. A lot of people are now treating those factcheckers as a complete joke that cannot be taken seriously. But I don't know, this is just what I noticed by observing this entire thing, make of it what you will.

jaydenseric 6y ago

> At some point you're gonna have to trust an authoritative source. Whether that is APNews or NYT or straight from the government website. Would you really teach your children "trust the New York Times and whatever the government says"? When both said Iraq had WMDs, did you believe them? In a perfect world we could all look at the source material (photos, videos, data, etc.) ourselves to figure out reality and there would be uncensorable platforms for individuals to call out corruption and reach the masses. This was the original promise of the internet and social media! Sadly the authoritarian left is insistent on defining "reality" and relishes censoring dissenting facts or opinions. Facebook and Twitter wields their "fact checking" and censorship on a might-is-right basis, which disenfranchises 50% of the population and is seriously incendiary to civil discourse.

systemvoltage 6y ago
I am talking about authoritative source of truth. Not arguing which specific source.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  Right. But evidence is more trustworthy than authority.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I am terrified of the idea that the common public of 70 million people that voted for Trump did not have the basic skills to determine what's true and what's not from the evidence. They've been constantly fed lies - as we speak about election fraud. They're provided with plenty of evidence, they choose to not believe. If you think about the world where 80% of the people are religious, who throw away evidence in favor of faith; you're in for a dark future.
    - ryanSrich 6y ago
      Pompous comments like this only drive people further away. Evidence being presented by a biased media is not evidence to be trusted. MSM “science” and “facts” are just as much a religion as Catholicism. If I’m presented evidence from someone that has routinely lied to me, called me names, destroyed my career, and shipped my job prospects overseas, I’m not believing a single word they say.