4 ms·
For every PhD saying something accurate there's hundreds of far more popular disinformation sources that are backed by superstition and sometimes funded by supe
by devwastaken 5y ago
For every PhD saying something accurate there's hundreds of far more popular disinformation sources that are backed by superstition and sometimes funded by superstitious conspiracy peddlers, and sometimes by cold war enemies. Social media is by it's nature manipulatable, those with the bots and the money win. Not to mention plenty of people with phds are looking to make that Dr.Oz money or just being a plain superstitious human being that doesn't care about the truth.
- roenxi 5y agoYeah, and I think everyone in the debate agrees on that. But given that, why is there a call to set up teams of censors who have no qualifications and come from an essentially unknown culture? It is foreseeable that the YouTube/Twitter/Facebook censorship teams will be run by someone with ties to high level people in the Democratic or Republican party. Either of those is bad. Or maybe even quiet ties to foreign governments. If not them, it'll be people who are "ex"-big tobacco or Fox News/CNN types or ... I mean, the list gets long very quickly. And by "foreseeable" I don't mean possible, I mean likely to the point of certainty. The payoffs are massive for corrupting these single points of failure and there are a lot of people out there who will try. And the outcome of all of this is people with suspect credentials shutting down conversation or ideas from actual experts in the field. This article is advocating bad ideas. I'll accept that they may be inevitable, but it is going to be worse than it is now. We'll be protected from stuff that is (1) harmless or (2) true but politically threatening to whoever controls social media.