2 ms·
1. I agree, but they are also the business model. If one platform doesn't use them, another that does will come to predominate. 2. This has some merit and woul
by reubenswartz 6y ago
1. I agree, but they are also the business model. If one platform doesn't use them, another that does will come to predominate.
2. This has some merit and would be a great start (we can dream, right?), but I don't think it would solve misinformation.
3. That sounds nice, but how would it work in practice. What if moderators get death threats from bad actors?
- CarelessExpert 6y ago1. That's one of the reasons we have governments: to regulate industry so capitalism doesn't run amok. 2. Nothing I listed would "solve" it. There is no one "solution". 3. We already have laws to deal with harassment. Frankly, I feel like you're falling for the nirvana fallacy, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
- reubenswartz 6y agoI don't think I'm falling for the Nirvana fallacy, or mistaking the platform and the communities. Yes, FB has been pretty egregious in certain areas, but the question of how to prevent misinformation in online communities is a tricky one, that goes beyond the details of a particular platform and into human nature. Government can (should?) help in certain ways, but even in the best scenarios, that will have limitations, as well. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.