5 ms·

I think one of the main factors of it being polarizing is that big tech tried to kill misinformation on the internet. 10 years ago people would have laughed at

I think one of the main factors of it being polarizing is that big tech tried to kill misinformation on the internet. 10 years ago people would have laughed at the mere suggestion that everything on the net is true. There will always be misinformation, but this dogma that this is somehow even an issue is completely festered by now but still ridiculous in my opinion. Of course these rules against misinformation are not enforced equally, so people get angry at the unfairness and dig in. Not really surprising. Solution: Sit back an relax and let there be misinformation. Even 5 year olds can handle this easily...

shadowgovt 5y ago
That solution seems less practical in an era where the misinformation coupled with rapid spread via digital media can result in attempted coups.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Let them vent their frustrations on Twitter instead of taking it to government institutions then. Are you referring to the Viking?
- pydry 5y ago
  Playing censorship whack a mole on social media was one of the things that drove recruits into ISIS's arms. It didnt potential recruits from seeing the propaganda but it did quell incipient doubts in their minds that they might be the bad guys. Censorship is good at that. Censorship can work but only if you lock EVERYTHING down, north korea/china style. The more failed censorship governments engage in the more attractive this route becomes.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I hadn't heard this censorship / ISIS connection before. Do you have a source with more information?
rsgrn 5y ago
Rules should definitely be applied equally, yet even still it's somewhat obvious that in the western world certain sides engage in misinformation more than others and that very same side is more susceptible to it. "Five year olds can handle this": That is the exact problem, they can't. They are sometimes less capable than that.
Brybry 5y ago
I would agree if we were just talking about accidental, spontaneous misinformation. But on twitter you've got bad actors pushing propaganda that can be very hard to differentiate from honest opinion. And I think you underestimate how gullible a lot of people really are. Many people will believe the self-professed 43 year old mom of 4 from Idaho is really just that -- even though the profile picture is copied from an Australian cooking blog and there's cyrillic replies early in the account's history.
- pydry 5y ago
  There's no way for the platforms to really deal with gullibility and propaganda without making the problem worse and they have no real incentive to either. The cure (censorship, most likely) will be worse than the disease. The platforms will make a valiant effort to solve the problem in the way which is most politically expeditious for them. Not in a way that solves the problem. The effects of this frankly terrifies me. Way more than Russian psyops campaigns running mommyblogger tweets. "First, do no harm" doesnt just apply to doctors.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > no way for the platforms to really deal with gullibility and propaganda without making the problem worse These are uncharted waters. I’d be wary of mistaking such hypotheses for absolute truths. When mass journalism arrived we had yellow journalism. Journalistic standards arose, people chose their papers, and while it wasn’t a monotonic rise to goodness, what followed was better than what was. I don’t know what the Internet will look like in a few years. But I’m fairly confident it won’t be laissez faire.
    - pydry 5y ago
      They're not that uncharted. It's why the first amendment exists. I'm fairly confident it won't be laissez faire in the future either. That's coz there's a consolidation of media platforms and a wave of populist authoritarianism sweeping the world, not coz censorship ever fixed anything.
reachtarunhere 5y ago
Completely agree.This is just governments as well as big tech on a power trip trying to censor things by whatever morals are in vogue now. It is quite insulting treating grown adults like "don't see this. we are telling you it is bad for you."

shadowgovt 5y ago

That solution seems less practical in an era where the misinformation coupled with rapid spread via digital media can result in attempted coups.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Let them vent their frustrations on Twitter instead of taking it to government institutions then. Are you referring to the Viking?
pydry 5y ago
Playing censorship whack a mole on social media was one of the things that drove recruits into ISIS's arms. It didnt potential recruits from seeing the propaganda but it did quell incipient doubts in their minds that they might be the bad guys. Censorship is good at that. Censorship can work but only if you lock EVERYTHING down, north korea/china style. The more failed censorship governments engage in the more attractive this route becomes.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I hadn't heard this censorship / ISIS connection before. Do you have a source with more information?

rsgrn 5y ago

Rules should definitely be applied equally, yet even still it's somewhat obvious that in the western world certain sides engage in misinformation more than others and that very same side is more susceptible to it. "Five year olds can handle this": That is the exact problem, they can't. They are sometimes less capable than that.

Brybry 5y ago

I would agree if we were just talking about accidental, spontaneous misinformation. But on twitter you've got bad actors pushing propaganda that can be very hard to differentiate from honest opinion. And I think you underestimate how gullible a lot of people really are. Many people will believe the self-professed 43 year old mom of 4 from Idaho is really just that -- even though the profile picture is copied from an Australian cooking blog and there's cyrillic replies early in the account's history.

pydry 5y ago
There's no way for the platforms to really deal with gullibility and propaganda without making the problem worse and they have no real incentive to either. The cure (censorship, most likely) will be worse than the disease. The platforms will make a valiant effort to solve the problem in the way which is most politically expeditious for them. Not in a way that solves the problem. The effects of this frankly terrifies me. Way more than Russian psyops campaigns running mommyblogger tweets. "First, do no harm" doesnt just apply to doctors.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > no way for the platforms to really deal with gullibility and propaganda without making the problem worse These are uncharted waters. I’d be wary of mistaking such hypotheses for absolute truths. When mass journalism arrived we had yellow journalism. Journalistic standards arose, people chose their papers, and while it wasn’t a monotonic rise to goodness, what followed was better than what was. I don’t know what the Internet will look like in a few years. But I’m fairly confident it won’t be laissez faire.
  - pydry 5y ago
    They're not that uncharted. It's why the first amendment exists. I'm fairly confident it won't be laissez faire in the future either. That's coz there's a consolidation of media platforms and a wave of populist authoritarianism sweeping the world, not coz censorship ever fixed anything.

reachtarunhere 5y ago

Completely agree.This is just governments as well as big tech on a power trip trying to censor things by whatever morals are in vogue now. It is quite insulting treating grown adults like "don't see this. we are telling you it is bad for you."