5 ms·
We won't have that problem here. There will still be New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. More weight should be given to these legit sources than to social
by flowerlad 6y ago
We won't have that problem here. There will still be New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. More weight should be given to these legit sources than to social media. On the internet everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart looks as legit as the BBC. That's a problem. More on that by Sacha Baron Cohen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
- Darmody 6y agoYeah, thank God you'll have a couple big companies owned by the same people to tell you what is the real truth. China has different media as well. I'd like to see one of them saying the CCP should leave or something against them.
- Apocryphon 6y agoWho do you think is the true arbiter of real truth?
- Darmody 6y agoA better question, is there really an arbiter? The only thing we have is freedom of speech to challenge ideas, debate and find what is true by ourselves, if such truth exists.
- flowerlad 6y agoSome say if you disagree with someone else's speech you should not just ban them, you should defeat them by arguing against their ideas. But when state-sponsored actors spread fake news and divisive ads at a massive scale on social media you can’t simply defeat them by arguing against their ideas. How do you counter it? By buying opposing ads on Facebook? Even if you have pockets as deep as Putin’s, what a waste of money that would be! This is a new world and the old methods are no longer applicable. Communities and social media companies will need to engage in some censorship.
- alickz 6y agoLong term I think better education and promoting critical thinking is the only way that doesn't erode democracy. Short term I have no idea. Silencing people you deem are running misinformation campaigns is probably the quickest, and easiest. Or try weather it out while doing the long term plan of education. Unfortunately it seems the more democratic a state is the more it's open to misinformation by rival, less democratic states.
- knowaveragejoe 6y agoWhy are you so convinced of a grand conspiracy to suppress the "truth" being peddled by obvious grift artists?
- Apocryphon 6y agoI'm not convinced of anything. I just asked a simple question to another poster.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThat's sometimes called "Just Asking Questions", and is sometimes a passive-aggressive way of arguing with someone. You don't state a position, you just ask (leading) questions, without ever stating a position that can be refuted. When someone calls you on it, you say that you're "just asking questions". It can be a real dishonest, manipulative technique. You're running close enough to that to set off peoples' defense mechanisms. So, even if you're doing it in complete innocence, if you want to not have people upset with the way you're carrying out the conversation, change your style.
- Apocryphon 6y agoYes, yes, I'm well aware that's a common tactic. However, it is completely fair given the conversational context to ask the poster for clarification for their actual beliefs in what determines "real truth", given that they have stated multiple situations that they find disagreeable for ascertaining "real truth." To shut down valid discussion and shout down fair questioners by throwing around accusations of logical fallacies is not conducive to debate and discussion. It creates a chilling effect that poisons the conversational well.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoBy the time you asked your question, I thought it was rather clear that darmoddy didn't think there was a real arbiter of truth. That tipped the scales somewhat toward me thinking you were manipulative rather than honest. Even so, I was careful not to actually accuse you of dishonest manipulation.