3 ms·
Did you even read the article? The ENTIRE POINT of the idea is to NOT censor anything, but to add context -- adding information, not censoring it. Letting peo
by toss1 6y ago
Did you even read the article?
The ENTIRE POINT of the idea is to NOT censor anything, but to add context -- adding information, not censoring it. Letting people make their own decisions.
The problem here is that there is a massive asymmetry. This has been noticed for centuries with the maxim "A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes" (some interesting history on that at [1]).
This is because our brains are tuned to seek out novelty, and to seek out information on threats.
This enables those who want to manipulate us and especially the masses -- creating fake news and fear porn will get the attention of pretty much everyone, and anyone who is not both actively better informed at the time, and actively thinking, will be inflamed and motivated.
Voltaire pointed out that “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
The people spreading disinformation treat that as an instruction instead of a warning.
Adding this kind of contextual information seems a far better solution than censoring.
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
- keiferski 6y agoYes I read the article, but I was replying to your comment, not the article’s argument. I replied to that directly in another comment. You seemed to be arguing for censorship, which is what I was replying to.
- toss1 6y agoPlease read more carefully I am absolutely not arguing for censorship, especially since censorship creates it's own blowback, which is often even more helpful to the disinformation. I am merely arguing that disinformation needs to be fought, especially actively weaponized disinformation. It looks like this contextualization could be a very good method.