3 ms·
People who believe in things like flat earth have already rejected argument from authority. Ostensibly, fact-checkers exist for the benefit of people who do tru
by Stupulous 5y ago
People who believe in things like flat earth have already rejected argument from authority. Ostensibly, fact-checkers exist for the benefit of people who do trust experts but also would be convinced by a random facebook post. Maybe such people exist, but, like you say, in the 5 years (?) that fact-checkers have been implemented on social media, they've already overplayed their hand and can no longer be viewed as totally consistent with expert opinion. They are often used to manipulate political opinions and distribute propaganda.
It's a little ironic. They probably introduced fact-checkers to avoid regulation, but in an ideal world I feel the most important regulation would be expressly to prevent big social media corporations from centrally controlling information like that.
I don't think 'wrong more often than they're right' is accurate, we just hear about when they're wrong and not when they're right. I also want to say that 'ineffective' is the wrong word for vaccine's relationship to new variants. The vaccine still dramatically reduces spread, and almost always prevents hospitalization and death.
- stickyribs 5y agoA related idea to your thought while reading your comment is that it appears that two groups of people arguing competing ideas don’t agree on how to derive the truth; one being the scientific approach (bending over backwards to prove yourself wrong) and the other seeking through confirmation bias and both claiming victory.
- decremental 5y agoThere is a less popular to mention third group. The majority of people are midwits who are neither stupid enough to believe the truly ridiculous (flat earth), nor critical enough to think for themselves. They are the ones welcoming the tyranny our ruling class is only too happy to facilitate.