14 ms·
I like the idea, but the author doesn't seem to care enough for the root cause of dissinformation. That is, at it's core, the existence of conflicting interests
by gtsop 6y ago
I like the idea, but the author doesn't seem to care enough for the root cause of dissinformation. That is, at it's core, the existence of conflicting interests. Because if literally everyone was on the same page, there wouldn't be a reason to lie about anything (of importance), right? Although distributed fact checking sounds like a good idea (however problematic it could be, even in a world without interest conflicts) how does the author prepare for the inevitable moment when a lie will get the seal of a Fact™ because big players push towards that direction? How would you protect your ecosystem against that? You are back to square 1.
- will4274 6y agoThere's an angle here of [conflict theory vs mistake theory](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/). Your post seems to take a conflict-theory only perspective - that disinformation is caused only by conflicting interests, and never by incorrect analysis. Is that your opinion or is it enough to say there are some conflict theorists, therefore fact checking can't solve all the problems?
- gtsop 6y agoInteresting article. I think black and white is never a good rule, so although I would side on the conflict-theory perspective it would be very naive of me to claim that incorrect analysis doesn't ever contribute to dissinformation. Same goes with many of the points in the article that the author assigns to "mistake-theorists" but I can see myself subscribing to these. With those in mind, I'd say that although not the sole cause of dissinformation, conflict of interests is the most important and impactful factor.
- Siira 6y agoEveryone knows different beliefs happen because of mistakes, conflicted interests, and that differing models can still embody one truth (E.g., Newtonian physics vs relativistic), with different tradeoffs. Also, mistakes happen in even recognizing your own interests. A lot of mistakes are also practically unsolvable. Any moderation algorithm that assumes conflict away is hopelessly naive.
- smsm42 6y agoThat's essentially what already happened to the whole "fact checking site" industry. When journalists committed a mass professional suicide in their desire to help politicians they like, there was a perceivable need for non-propaganda information. Thus, "fact checking" gets into fashion. Big players immediately move in anf fact checkers start first getting subtle bias and then just do the same the press did only a short while before - declare that their mission are "bigger than just checking facts", they should serve the noble causes and help people make the right choices - those choices being their preferred partisan points - and surely attacking your own party with the same vigor as you would the opposing one is not helping people making the right choices... and in a short while we're back to the proverbial sq.1 I don't know how to solve this - I have observed several project that started with a noble goal of delivering just facts, away from propaganda and partisan bias - and in a year or two they become as biased as any MSM they wanted to replace.
- gtsop 6y agoThat is very interesting. Can you provide a couple resources?
- smsm42 6y agoSnopes? It has been pretty good and neutral resource when they did urban legends. Once they got into big politics, they became very biased and then made a laughingstock of themselves "fact checking" labeled satire.