4 ms·

Not all opinions deserve equal airtime. Fringe opinions should have to work harder to get to the mainstream. Isn’t that exactly what happened here? This is the

Not all opinions deserve equal airtime. Fringe opinions should have to work harder to get to the mainstream. Isn’t that exactly what happened here? This is the fringe opinion that had the most inherent value and it’s proved that by breaking through. IMO I wish the platforms had censored more bad info than this. It’s crazy to me that there isn’t more friction for bad ideas.

beaner 5y ago
On the contrary, actors who are bad at judging what qualifies as a "good" idea should be removed from the filtering process.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  How is that contrary? MSM got one wrong in the same time that alternative media has gotten hundreds wrong. MSM isn't just better at rejecting misinformation, it's a lot better.
  - beaner 5y ago
    Wrong. The things it does get wrong have more impact. Russiagate is just one prior example. It was patently false from the outset, but led to mass delusions, promotions of fake news propagandists to the point that they are now embedded within and celebrated by the MSM, the discrediting of the media and the intelligence community, breakdown of trust of those institutions by those who had been clear-headed, and fever-dream level hysteria by those who were misled, greatly fracturing Americans who were already divided. It may be true that they get fewer specific points wrong, but if the ones they do get wrong count for a lot more, that's not better. That's worse.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      > Russiagate is just one prior example. It was patently false from the outset What is "Russiagate"? What about it was "patently false"? The Mueller investigation got multiple indictments against Russian nationals. They also obtained convictions of people working in the Trump campaign or administration for election-related offenses. They found evidence of Russian attempts to influence voters in swing states by illegally buying ads on social media. That Russia attempted to meddle in the 2016 elections isn't in doubt - only whether the meddling worked.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > What is "Russiagate"? It's talk-radioese for the Mueller investigation. > What about it was "patently false"? IIRC, a lot of misunderstandings about it (e.g. misunderstanding the proven claims that Russia made signficant efforts to interfere with the election as a claim that they successfully rigged it).
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        This is a very interesting comment for future historians, as it shows how people convince themselves that they have absorbed substance when in fact there is no such substance. Virtually no aspect of your statement extends beyond press headlines, where the content and follow-on of each of these stories entirely defused the substance of the respective headline. That is why the whole thing that you believe is very important amounted to a pile of dust.
        tonystubblebine 5y ago
        This comment would be more valuable if you’d made it in a constructive way with even one detailed example of defused substance.
        triceratops 5y ago
        That's the irony. Their own views don't have any actual substance.
        triceratops 5y ago
        The irony of talking about substance when offering practically none in one's own comment. > Virtually no aspect of your statement extends beyond press headlines I didn't realize I was writing an exam with essay-type questions.
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        DOJ indicted ham-sandwich Russians, then later retreated. Only process crimes charged (lying, interfering). Buying ads on social media isn't illegal, and the amount was de minimus (< $30k). FARA crimes were reverse-engineered, selectively prosecuted, and didn't related to Russia in any way. Everything about these headlines is an utter farce.
setBoolean 5y ago
1. Who decides what is a "fringe" theory? You? The Government? The scientific community? Facebook/Twitter etc...? 2. ..Fringe opinions should have to work harder to get to the mainstream... No they shouldn't it is you the reader of those news who should make the decision of how much "brain time" this "fringe" news get. 3. Denying airtime to certain topics doesn't make them go away or sways people that believe them otherwise.
- tonystubblebine 5y ago
  Well, since you asked if I should decide what a fringe theory is, yes, sometimes I do make that decision. But when I'm wrong those things have a habit of breaking through. I remember being pretty skeptical of intermittent fasting for awhile. I'd held it out of a study we did in 2014 and then held it out of our publishing. Something about it smelled like anorexia light. So on the one hand I kept hearing people swear by it and then on the other hand I hadn't done enough research to be comfortable. I ended up having a detailed conversation with a doctor about the physiological side and then with a therapist about eating disorders (especially in men) before I was ready to allow it into our work. So for about a year I was wrongly gatekeeping on this topic. But that's what I mean about fringe ideas need to work harder. The fringes is where those ideas get stress tested and refined. And since ideas break out of the fringes all the time, I don't have any real fear that gatekeeping other places is overly oppressive.
refurb 5y ago
This is some impressive mental gymnastics. Why was the lab leak claim labeled “fringe” in the first place? You want Zuckerberg deciding what ideas you should and shouldn’t see?

beaner 5y ago

On the contrary, actors who are bad at judging what qualifies as a "good" idea should be removed from the filtering process.

jjoonathan 5y ago
How is that contrary? MSM got one wrong in the same time that alternative media has gotten hundreds wrong. MSM isn't just better at rejecting misinformation, it's a lot better.
- beaner 5y ago
  Wrong. The things it does get wrong have more impact. Russiagate is just one prior example. It was patently false from the outset, but led to mass delusions, promotions of fake news propagandists to the point that they are now embedded within and celebrated by the MSM, the discrediting of the media and the intelligence community, breakdown of trust of those institutions by those who had been clear-headed, and fever-dream level hysteria by those who were misled, greatly fracturing Americans who were already divided. It may be true that they get fewer specific points wrong, but if the ones they do get wrong count for a lot more, that's not better. That's worse.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > Russiagate is just one prior example. It was patently false from the outset What is "Russiagate"? What about it was "patently false"? The Mueller investigation got multiple indictments against Russian nationals. They also obtained convictions of people working in the Trump campaign or administration for election-related offenses. They found evidence of Russian attempts to influence voters in swing states by illegally buying ads on social media. That Russia attempted to meddle in the 2016 elections isn't in doubt - only whether the meddling worked.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > What is "Russiagate"? It's talk-radioese for the Mueller investigation. > What about it was "patently false"? IIRC, a lot of misunderstandings about it (e.g. misunderstanding the proven claims that Russia made signficant efforts to interfere with the election as a claim that they successfully rigged it).
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      This is a very interesting comment for future historians, as it shows how people convince themselves that they have absorbed substance when in fact there is no such substance. Virtually no aspect of your statement extends beyond press headlines, where the content and follow-on of each of these stories entirely defused the substance of the respective headline. That is why the whole thing that you believe is very important amounted to a pile of dust.
      - tonystubblebine 5y ago
        This comment would be more valuable if you’d made it in a constructive way with even one detailed example of defused substance.
        triceratops 5y ago
        That's the irony. Their own views don't have any actual substance.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        The irony of talking about substance when offering practically none in one's own comment. > Virtually no aspect of your statement extends beyond press headlines I didn't realize I was writing an exam with essay-type questions.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      DOJ indicted ham-sandwich Russians, then later retreated. Only process crimes charged (lying, interfering). Buying ads on social media isn't illegal, and the amount was de minimus (< $30k). FARA crimes were reverse-engineered, selectively prosecuted, and didn't related to Russia in any way. Everything about these headlines is an utter farce.

setBoolean 5y ago

1. Who decides what is a "fringe" theory? You? The Government? The scientific community? Facebook/Twitter etc...? 2. ..Fringe opinions should have to work harder to get to the mainstream... No they shouldn't it is you the reader of those news who should make the decision of how much "brain time" this "fringe" news get. 3. Denying airtime to certain topics doesn't make them go away or sways people that believe them otherwise.

tonystubblebine 5y ago
Well, since you asked if I should decide what a fringe theory is, yes, sometimes I do make that decision. But when I'm wrong those things have a habit of breaking through. I remember being pretty skeptical of intermittent fasting for awhile. I'd held it out of a study we did in 2014 and then held it out of our publishing. Something about it smelled like anorexia light. So on the one hand I kept hearing people swear by it and then on the other hand I hadn't done enough research to be comfortable. I ended up having a detailed conversation with a doctor about the physiological side and then with a therapist about eating disorders (especially in men) before I was ready to allow it into our work. So for about a year I was wrongly gatekeeping on this topic. But that's what I mean about fringe ideas need to work harder. The fringes is where those ideas get stress tested and refined. And since ideas break out of the fringes all the time, I don't have any real fear that gatekeeping other places is overly oppressive.

refurb 5y ago

This is some impressive mental gymnastics. Why was the lab leak claim labeled “fringe” in the first place? You want Zuckerberg deciding what ideas you should and shouldn’t see?