4 ms·

A social network will contain misinformation. The solution isn't to force facebook to ban content, the solution is getting people educated so they can form thei

A social network will contain misinformation. The solution isn't to force facebook to ban content, the solution is getting people educated so they can form their own opinion. That more or less already worked and everyone tries to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, so this isn't even a problem.

grumpyprole 5y ago
These were adverts from large corporations that Facebook published on their platform, not user content.
- system2 5y ago
  Facebook didn't publish them under their own name. Corporations did it, paid or not paid, who cares. The point is the users must be intelligent enough not to use facebook as their news and learning platform. If they want to believe whatever and decide the fate of the planet, so be it. Natural selection wins, we die as stupid species and the planet wins. If it wasn't facebook, they'd find it elsewhere. Majority of the people is already opinionated and irreversibly ignorant.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I expect a lot of advertisements to lie to me to be honest, especially political ones. They should be marked as advertising and this is something that was actually improved in the last years, even just for affiliations as the industry tried to hide the nature of their messages. There are actually rules against false advertising, but they are ineffective. So people should have no illusion on content in ads. So much can be transported in education.
sofixa 5y ago
> the solution is getting people educated so they can form their own opinion. That more or less already worked Are you sure? The spread of batshit crazy and easily debunkable conspiracy theories such as Q, flat earth, Pizzagate, Covid is fake, etc. and empty populist political movements and people ( UKIP, Brexit, AfD, Trump, FN, etc.) would imply otherwise. Too many people are thoroughly incapable of forming their own opinion based on reality and actual provable facts.
- forcry 5y ago
  >flat earth, There is no rational reason to believe this. True. But there is no rational reason to believe "CDC/Scientists can be trusted" as well. So do you consider the statement "CDC can be trusted" to be a batshit conspiracy theory?
  - eyelovewe 5y ago
    Trust. Intentions. Truth. So many things that underlie society’s ability to function, and one damages them at our collective peril. The boy who cried wolf is a story that teaches which moral lesson ? You stop and ask for directions, what if the person deliberately lied to you and sent you to a dangerous place? There is an implicit web of trust and kindness that comes from our ancient past and underlies all of society. Capitalism and political posturing are poisoning the well of all our drinking water.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - forcry 5y ago
      Not sure what to make of your comment.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Flat earth, Q and friends are not part of the endemic beliefs of the general population. These are fringe beliefs. People might have the wrong impression about their spread because people like to write a lot about them. Curiosity makes luminaries waste out time or offer us entertainment. Also attractive to people that aren't too sure about themselves and try look for reassurance while looking at the clearly absurd. "At least those are more stupid than I am", "If those are not afraid of X, why should I be?". Ukip, Brexit, AfD, Trump, FN are different phenomena in my opinion. Some of Brexits arguments were objectively correct and there are no certainly correct or wrong opinions here. Especially on hot button terms like sovereignty and self-determination. It depends on what level you look. Self-determination against the EU or Russia/China/US? There are different answers here and none of them is entirely true. But the opposition just shut them down, so people responded in kind. That it was basically 50:50 is surely accidental, but I like to see it as a hint. The AfD is radicalized now, but it was firstly headed by someone that has been vindicated by projections other economists failed at. He isn't in the party anymore, but what do you think happened with those that shared his beliefs? Those were correct too, what do you think they believe about their opposition today? These beliefs aren't mine, but I understand their distrust. In many cases it is distrust that was earned, not by their failure to form an opinion, quite the contrary their opposition was in many cases completely incapable to understand the nature of their opposition, which paints a shadow on their own judgements. The indignation against people not being able to think is misplaced in many cases, that is also true for the other way around of course.
altacc 5y ago
The problem with that approach is that social networks are where people are getting educated. For large numbers of people, social media is their gateway to other sources of information, including news, opinion & their interests. > That more or less already worked and everyone tries to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, so this isn't even a problem. Given that there is still large scale climate change denial and opposition to renewable power, I don't think you can be confident in that statement. Until recently, one of the largest polluters & economic powers in the world had a government that actively promoted fossil fuels over renewables and denied the fundamentals of anthropomorphic climate change. Environmental awareness & harm reduction is far from a given.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > Given that there is still large scale climate change denial and opposition to renewable power You will never reach 100% consensus on any topic and acknowledging it does also not mean that you have to support certain policies. Don't point your finger at those that are in denial of your perspective, it won't help you solve anything. If you try to ban them, they will get secondary support at least from people that support human rights like freedom of expression, which is also valid for wrong or stupid opinions. So you have to go the difficult route of making a good argument for your position and convince others. There is no shortcut here.
  - eyelovewe 5y ago
    How strange that survival is something you have to convince people of the value of. The mere fact that our collective behavior is what is causing this means that at some point there will be a fight for the steering wheel. Humanity appears incapable of collective action. Any future historians, perhaps some kind of advanced insectoid races archeologists, will say that humanities Achilles heel was being incapable of collective action. Piquing that uniquely human pride and arrogance is a deliberate strategy by some, but the consequences are dismissed by the same, as they are unable to grasp that this will lead to their own downfall too. Even the most dystopian arms dealer must eventually eat.
  - altacc 5y ago

grumpyprole 5y ago

These were adverts from large corporations that Facebook published on their platform, not user content.

system2 5y ago
Facebook didn't publish them under their own name. Corporations did it, paid or not paid, who cares. The point is the users must be intelligent enough not to use facebook as their news and learning platform. If they want to believe whatever and decide the fate of the planet, so be it. Natural selection wins, we die as stupid species and the planet wins. If it wasn't facebook, they'd find it elsewhere. Majority of the people is already opinionated and irreversibly ignorant.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I expect a lot of advertisements to lie to me to be honest, especially political ones. They should be marked as advertising and this is something that was actually improved in the last years, even just for affiliations as the industry tried to hide the nature of their messages. There are actually rules against false advertising, but they are ineffective. So people should have no illusion on content in ads. So much can be transported in education.

sofixa 5y ago

> the solution is getting people educated so they can form their own opinion. That more or less already worked Are you sure? The spread of batshit crazy and easily debunkable conspiracy theories such as Q, flat earth, Pizzagate, Covid is fake, etc. and empty populist political movements and people ( UKIP, Brexit, AfD, Trump, FN, etc.) would imply otherwise. Too many people are thoroughly incapable of forming their own opinion based on reality and actual provable facts.

forcry 5y ago
>flat earth, There is no rational reason to believe this. True. But there is no rational reason to believe "CDC/Scientists can be trusted" as well. So do you consider the statement "CDC can be trusted" to be a batshit conspiracy theory?
- eyelovewe 5y ago
  Trust. Intentions. Truth. So many things that underlie society’s ability to function, and one damages them at our collective peril. The boy who cried wolf is a story that teaches which moral lesson ? You stop and ask for directions, what if the person deliberately lied to you and sent you to a dangerous place? There is an implicit web of trust and kindness that comes from our ancient past and underlies all of society. Capitalism and political posturing are poisoning the well of all our drinking water.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - forcry 5y ago
    Not sure what to make of your comment.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Flat earth, Q and friends are not part of the endemic beliefs of the general population. These are fringe beliefs. People might have the wrong impression about their spread because people like to write a lot about them. Curiosity makes luminaries waste out time or offer us entertainment. Also attractive to people that aren't too sure about themselves and try look for reassurance while looking at the clearly absurd. "At least those are more stupid than I am", "If those are not afraid of X, why should I be?". Ukip, Brexit, AfD, Trump, FN are different phenomena in my opinion. Some of Brexits arguments were objectively correct and there are no certainly correct or wrong opinions here. Especially on hot button terms like sovereignty and self-determination. It depends on what level you look. Self-determination against the EU or Russia/China/US? There are different answers here and none of them is entirely true. But the opposition just shut them down, so people responded in kind. That it was basically 50:50 is surely accidental, but I like to see it as a hint. The AfD is radicalized now, but it was firstly headed by someone that has been vindicated by projections other economists failed at. He isn't in the party anymore, but what do you think happened with those that shared his beliefs? Those were correct too, what do you think they believe about their opposition today? These beliefs aren't mine, but I understand their distrust. In many cases it is distrust that was earned, not by their failure to form an opinion, quite the contrary their opposition was in many cases completely incapable to understand the nature of their opposition, which paints a shadow on their own judgements. The indignation against people not being able to think is misplaced in many cases, that is also true for the other way around of course.

altacc 5y ago

The problem with that approach is that social networks are where people are getting educated. For large numbers of people, social media is their gateway to other sources of information, including news, opinion & their interests. > That more or less already worked and everyone tries to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, so this isn't even a problem. Given that there is still large scale climate change denial and opposition to renewable power, I don't think you can be confident in that statement. Until recently, one of the largest polluters & economic powers in the world had a government that actively promoted fossil fuels over renewables and denied the fundamentals of anthropomorphic climate change. Environmental awareness & harm reduction is far from a given.

raxxorrax 5y ago
> Given that there is still large scale climate change denial and opposition to renewable power You will never reach 100% consensus on any topic and acknowledging it does also not mean that you have to support certain policies. Don't point your finger at those that are in denial of your perspective, it won't help you solve anything. If you try to ban them, they will get secondary support at least from people that support human rights like freedom of expression, which is also valid for wrong or stupid opinions. So you have to go the difficult route of making a good argument for your position and convince others. There is no shortcut here.
- eyelovewe 5y ago
  How strange that survival is something you have to convince people of the value of. The mere fact that our collective behavior is what is causing this means that at some point there will be a fight for the steering wheel. Humanity appears incapable of collective action. Any future historians, perhaps some kind of advanced insectoid races archeologists, will say that humanities Achilles heel was being incapable of collective action. Piquing that uniquely human pride and arrogance is a deliberate strategy by some, but the consequences are dismissed by the same, as they are unable to grasp that this will lead to their own downfall too. Even the most dystopian arms dealer must eventually eat.
- altacc 5y ago