6 ms·

The problem is the "regular open discussion", which has turned into a cesspool of fact-free ranting, and has created serious societal virality and negative impa

The problem is the "regular open discussion", which has turned into a cesspool of fact-free ranting, and has created serious societal virality and negative impact. You can rant against the mainstream media, but at least there is a modicum of fact checking and research there -- how many independent YouTube sources do the same?

quotemstr 6y ago
Why should regular people trust the Bay Area perspective on what counts as "fact-free ranting"? Tech has no legitimate authority to decide what is true. The mindset and moral system that's overwhelmingly dominant in tech is abhorrent to much of the rest of the country and the world. Why should this prominent but fringe Bay Area mentality dominate? It's simply not tech's place to be making these calls. It's arrogance and hubris and it's going to lead to a backlash.
- drchopchop 6y ago
  Who, then, decides what is true? Random YouTube commenters? Joe Rogan? Rush Limbaugh? The QAnon Twitter-sphere? Perhaps we can just vote on whether gravity exists.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    Why does anyone need to decide what is true? Each person can decide for himself in his own heart what he believes. We reach consensus through discussion. There is never, not once, in any situation whatsoever a justification for forcing a particular perspective on the public instead of letting the marketplace of ideas function and find the truth organically. This idea that certain ideas are dangerous and must be suppressed is the mark of every insecure tyranny. Secure beliefs don't need to be propped up with censorship, and a belief isn't secure, it's because it's just not adequately backed up by facts.
    - drchopchop 6y ago
      The marketplace is broken. A non-trivial amount of people believe the earth is flat. People are becoming immune to fact-based evidence, because they get to immerse themselves in an alternate universe which tells them that they're right. Soon the ramifications won't be restricted to people shooting up pizza parlors.
      - quotemstr 6y ago
        The marketplace is not broken merely because one party's goods aren't selling. If I make scratchy toilet paper and people don't buy it, it's my fault, not the market's. The fact is that the media elite have little credibility these days among the general public, their wares suck, and people are investigating alternatives. The solution isn't censorship. It's becoming more credible.
        thelastwave 6y ago
        But all the little monkeys don't understand science.
        cpursley 6y ago
        > The solution isn't censorship. It's becoming more credible. This is great. Is it a quote?
        quotemstr 6y ago
        No. I wrote it just now.
        status_quo69 6y ago
        Why should credibility matter? That is to say, how can the average person know that what they're reading is credible or not to make that determination and say "oh, CNN reported this and it's credible! Must mean that CNN is becoming more credible and I should watch it more because they have a better product" rather than "CNN is reporting this but it doesn't line up with what I want to believe, they must be wrong and not credible". Your metaphor doesn't make sense in a world where news stories are looked at skin deep, where someone doesn't even know that the toilet paper is scratchy it just _looks_ scratchy from the label or uncle Joe told me that it must be scratchy because it's made by Proctor & Gamble.
  - brentm 6y ago
    The problem really is that many people know the truth but they choose the truth that feels right.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >Who, then, decides what is true? Let me decide for me. I'm not outsourcing thinking to YouTube interns.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    The people. They should watch all of it, and decide for themselves. What's wrong with Rogan? His podcast is incredible. Let's listen to everything. Hell, let's go outside and talk to each other again! This continual lockdown has deeply hurt our ability to actually communicate with one another in any meaningful way. We're viewing the world through a straw.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      Individuals do not have the capacity to inspect facts. Do you inspect how the cake flour met the FDA standards? You trust authority, in this case, the FDA + Store Owner + Distributor + Manufacturer. This is so ridiculous. I think you mean we need to have the information so if an individual wants to verify, they can and if they can spend the energy and rigor to know the research/data. Please stop requiring individuals to verify truth. Truth has always been escorted by authorities with checks and balances. Reputable media is an authority of similar civic responsibility. Next time you buy a measuring tape, you're gonna sound ridiculous to ask for a NIST certificate at Home Depot.
      - esja 6y ago
        How should we decide whether to believe your comment? By appeal to some authority?
        systemvoltage 6y ago
        Do you trust your doctor? Do you consider the court as a misplaced authority? They make judgements, often nuances of interpretation based on their moral compass - they arbitrage truth from application of laws against evidence. In many cases, there is subjective interpretation and the "spirit of the law".
      - the_optimist 6y ago
        "Truth has always been escorted by authorities with checks and balances." This statement stands in direct opposition to the primary founding principals of liberal democracy.
- rat87 6y ago
  Most of the media isn't located in Silicon Valley It is techs responsibility to moderate the forums they operate
djsumdog 6y ago
> but at least there is a modicum of fact checking and research there No. No there absolutely is not. The fact that you trust the Legacy Media at all is part of the problem. It's independent analysts who have been the only ones to do any real research. Viva Frei does a great piece on how the New York Times contradicts their own headlines in their article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA
- jjeaff 6y ago
  They absolutely do. They get things wrong sometimes. But by and large, they operate on journalistic principles and standards.
  - the_optimist 6y ago
    This is an unjustified statement, but also one that admits to tipping the scales upon mere convenience. "The full source material is what keeps journalism honest," said a man who is now in prison somewhere.
  - billti 6y ago
    They choose how to spin stories based on biases to the point where they are effectively reporting different "facts". The other week I posted the below, which are headlines for the same 3 stories on the same day from CNN and Fox, arguably 2 of the biggest "news" sources in the U.S. These headlines are effectively opinions with the aim of gaslighting their respective audience. It's not healthy. FOX: Trump touts historic stock market jump as Dow tops 'sacred number,' CNN: Dow tops 30,000 for the first time ever as Biden transition begins FOX: Biden's pick for national security adviser defended anti-Trump Steele dossier CNN: 'The team meets this moment:' Biden introduces top admin nominees FOX: Happy Thanksgiving! State relaxes gathering limits ahead of holiday CNN: Doctor fights back tears describing single day of heartbreaking losses
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      Neither of those cable entertainment channels are what many would consider "journalism".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Solvitieg 6y ago
How did we get to the point where what we say needs to be factual? Factually correct speech has its place. But when you're making Youtube videos, podcasts, writing comments, talking with friends, you don't need to be factual. That's not a necessary ingredient to a good conversation. I have a Youtube channel where I sometimes talk about Space and Biology. I'm not educated in these subjects. No doubt a lot of what I say is factually incorrect. That doesn't mean my speech is misinformation, deceitful, or dangerous.
- esja 6y ago
  It's even worse than you describe. Hyperbole is being flagged as "disinformation" or "lies". All the nuance of human communication is being squeezed into a lowest-common-denominator straight-jacket, based on what's easiest to censor. And the "progressives" are the cheerleaders this time. It's depressing.
- gjulianm 6y ago
  > But when you're making Youtube videos, podcasts, writing comments, talking with friends These things are not the same. When you talk with friends or when you write a comment, you have a limited audience and counter viewpoints are readily available. When you make a video or a podcast, you might have a pretty large audience and no immediate counterpoints. You should do your best to avoid spreading factually wrong statements.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >When you make a video or a podcast, you might have a pretty large audience and no immediate counterpoints. You should do your best to avoid spreading factually wrong statements. Here's a comment snippet you wrote 3 days ago: "Facebook basically wanted to take monetary sovereignty away from states and give control to private companies. Are you really doing your 'best to avoid spreading factually wrong statements'? Because I'm sure you have no evidential basis for that statement and therefore promulgating misinformation. Alternatively, we can have YouTube Interns decide what you can and cannot say online. Regardless, perhaps you should take your own advice?

quotemstr 6y ago

Why should regular people trust the Bay Area perspective on what counts as "fact-free ranting"? Tech has no legitimate authority to decide what is true. The mindset and moral system that's overwhelmingly dominant in tech is abhorrent to much of the rest of the country and the world. Why should this prominent but fringe Bay Area mentality dominate? It's simply not tech's place to be making these calls. It's arrogance and hubris and it's going to lead to a backlash.

drchopchop 6y ago
Who, then, decides what is true? Random YouTube commenters? Joe Rogan? Rush Limbaugh? The QAnon Twitter-sphere? Perhaps we can just vote on whether gravity exists.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  Why does anyone need to decide what is true? Each person can decide for himself in his own heart what he believes. We reach consensus through discussion. There is never, not once, in any situation whatsoever a justification for forcing a particular perspective on the public instead of letting the marketplace of ideas function and find the truth organically. This idea that certain ideas are dangerous and must be suppressed is the mark of every insecure tyranny. Secure beliefs don't need to be propped up with censorship, and a belief isn't secure, it's because it's just not adequately backed up by facts.
  - drchopchop 6y ago
    The marketplace is broken. A non-trivial amount of people believe the earth is flat. People are becoming immune to fact-based evidence, because they get to immerse themselves in an alternate universe which tells them that they're right. Soon the ramifications won't be restricted to people shooting up pizza parlors.
    - quotemstr 6y ago
      The marketplace is not broken merely because one party's goods aren't selling. If I make scratchy toilet paper and people don't buy it, it's my fault, not the market's. The fact is that the media elite have little credibility these days among the general public, their wares suck, and people are investigating alternatives. The solution isn't censorship. It's becoming more credible.
      - thelastwave 6y ago
        But all the little monkeys don't understand science.
      - cpursley 6y ago
        > The solution isn't censorship. It's becoming more credible. This is great. Is it a quote?
        quotemstr 6y ago
        No. I wrote it just now.
      - status_quo69 6y ago
        Why should credibility matter? That is to say, how can the average person know that what they're reading is credible or not to make that determination and say "oh, CNN reported this and it's credible! Must mean that CNN is becoming more credible and I should watch it more because they have a better product" rather than "CNN is reporting this but it doesn't line up with what I want to believe, they must be wrong and not credible". Your metaphor doesn't make sense in a world where news stories are looked at skin deep, where someone doesn't even know that the toilet paper is scratchy it just _looks_ scratchy from the label or uncle Joe told me that it must be scratchy because it's made by Proctor & Gamble.
- brentm 6y ago
  The problem really is that many people know the truth but they choose the truth that feels right.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Who, then, decides what is true? Let me decide for me. I'm not outsourcing thinking to YouTube interns.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  The people. They should watch all of it, and decide for themselves. What's wrong with Rogan? His podcast is incredible. Let's listen to everything. Hell, let's go outside and talk to each other again! This continual lockdown has deeply hurt our ability to actually communicate with one another in any meaningful way. We're viewing the world through a straw.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Individuals do not have the capacity to inspect facts. Do you inspect how the cake flour met the FDA standards? You trust authority, in this case, the FDA + Store Owner + Distributor + Manufacturer. This is so ridiculous. I think you mean we need to have the information so if an individual wants to verify, they can and if they can spend the energy and rigor to know the research/data. Please stop requiring individuals to verify truth. Truth has always been escorted by authorities with checks and balances. Reputable media is an authority of similar civic responsibility. Next time you buy a measuring tape, you're gonna sound ridiculous to ask for a NIST certificate at Home Depot.
    - esja 6y ago
      How should we decide whether to believe your comment? By appeal to some authority?
      - systemvoltage 6y ago
        Do you trust your doctor? Do you consider the court as a misplaced authority? They make judgements, often nuances of interpretation based on their moral compass - they arbitrage truth from application of laws against evidence. In many cases, there is subjective interpretation and the "spirit of the law".
    - the_optimist 6y ago
      "Truth has always been escorted by authorities with checks and balances." This statement stands in direct opposition to the primary founding principals of liberal democracy.
rat87 6y ago
Most of the media isn't located in Silicon Valley It is techs responsibility to moderate the forums they operate

djsumdog 6y ago

> but at least there is a modicum of fact checking and research there No. No there absolutely is not. The fact that you trust the Legacy Media at all is part of the problem. It's independent analysts who have been the only ones to do any real research. Viva Frei does a great piece on how the New York Times contradicts their own headlines in their article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmgMu5sefzA

jjeaff 6y ago
They absolutely do. They get things wrong sometimes. But by and large, they operate on journalistic principles and standards.
- the_optimist 6y ago
  This is an unjustified statement, but also one that admits to tipping the scales upon mere convenience. "The full source material is what keeps journalism honest," said a man who is now in prison somewhere.
- billti 6y ago
  They choose how to spin stories based on biases to the point where they are effectively reporting different "facts". The other week I posted the below, which are headlines for the same 3 stories on the same day from CNN and Fox, arguably 2 of the biggest "news" sources in the U.S. These headlines are effectively opinions with the aim of gaslighting their respective audience. It's not healthy. FOX: Trump touts historic stock market jump as Dow tops 'sacred number,' CNN: Dow tops 30,000 for the first time ever as Biden transition begins FOX: Biden's pick for national security adviser defended anti-Trump Steele dossier CNN: 'The team meets this moment:' Biden introduces top admin nominees FOX: Happy Thanksgiving! State relaxes gathering limits ahead of holiday CNN: Doctor fights back tears describing single day of heartbreaking losses
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Neither of those cable entertainment channels are what many would consider "journalism".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Solvitieg 6y ago

How did we get to the point where what we say needs to be factual? Factually correct speech has its place. But when you're making Youtube videos, podcasts, writing comments, talking with friends, you don't need to be factual. That's not a necessary ingredient to a good conversation. I have a Youtube channel where I sometimes talk about Space and Biology. I'm not educated in these subjects. No doubt a lot of what I say is factually incorrect. That doesn't mean my speech is misinformation, deceitful, or dangerous.

esja 6y ago
It's even worse than you describe. Hyperbole is being flagged as "disinformation" or "lies". All the nuance of human communication is being squeezed into a lowest-common-denominator straight-jacket, based on what's easiest to censor. And the "progressives" are the cheerleaders this time. It's depressing.
gjulianm 6y ago
> But when you're making Youtube videos, podcasts, writing comments, talking with friends These things are not the same. When you talk with friends or when you write a comment, you have a limited audience and counter viewpoints are readily available. When you make a video or a podcast, you might have a pretty large audience and no immediate counterpoints. You should do your best to avoid spreading factually wrong statements.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >When you make a video or a podcast, you might have a pretty large audience and no immediate counterpoints. You should do your best to avoid spreading factually wrong statements. Here's a comment snippet you wrote 3 days ago: "Facebook basically wanted to take monetary sovereignty away from states and give control to private companies. Are you really doing your 'best to avoid spreading factually wrong statements'? Because I'm sure you have no evidential basis for that statement and therefore promulgating misinformation. Alternatively, we can have YouTube Interns decide what you can and cannot say online. Regardless, perhaps you should take your own advice?