4 ms·

> they can't be trusted to use their own logic and moral faculties to determine right from wrong History has shown this to be true over and over and over. We e

by midev 5y ago

> they can't be trusted to use their own logic and moral faculties to determine right from wrong History has shown this to be true over and over and over. We even have evidence to this: https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twitter-false-news-travels-faster-true-stories-0308 https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twitter-false-news-travels-f... Fake news travels faster and convinces more people than the truth.

adamrezich 5y ago
you would rather truth be determined by governments or corporations than left up to individuals to decide for themselves?
- midev 5y ago
  > you would rather truth be determined by governments or corporations than left up to individuals to decide for themselves? Didn't say anything of the sort. And truth isn't determined by any of them. Which agin, proves the point. I had a comment with only three sentences, and you managed to misread it. I'm not for corporate or government censorship, but people that can't read comments correctly are a much bigger problem.
lolthishuman 5y ago
Maybe it’s because the education system has failed at critical thinking.
- midev 5y ago
  > Maybe it’s because the education system has failed at critical thinking Sure, education can improve things. But this is a problem even worse outside the United States, so it's hard to blame it on a single education system.
  - ArneBab 5y ago
    It’s not just the education system. It’s our structures of information that are based on engagement (to drive ad-revenue) instead of value to the reader. And this is something Freenet actually solves to some degree. Because it had to. This is why in Freenet we know the Zen of Tolerance: https://www.draketo.de/politik/random-babcom#the-zen-of-tolerance https://www.draketo.de/politik/random-babcom#the-zen-of-tole... - You are entitled to voice your opinion. - You are not entitled to force it upon everyone. - You are not entitled to force it upon a subgroup repeatedly. - You are also not entitled to hurl hate towards participants, since that would disrupt communication. - If you cannot stay respectful and friendly after being asked to, I will unsee you and advise others to do the same with a clear and brief explanation, so they can take an informed decision.
    - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
      The problem with the the idea of tolerance in discourse like online communities is the paradox of tolerance: that we must necessarily be tolerant to intolerance. Ideas that call for violence of all sorts don't need to be articulated in an ugly way. In fact, the most effective rhetoric isn't. For example, think of the "just asking questions" style of representing an argument. This is the sort of rhetoric that places like hackernews is incredibly susceptible to, since it unironically subscribes to that same idea of the "free marketplace of ideas" that's blind to the difference between the content of speech and its actual effects. Think of it this way: what's the applied use of "debunking the argument" of somebody yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater?
nverno 5y ago
Everything is repeated throughout history, but more often than not consensus must tend towards the truth, otherwise human knowledge wouldnt have advanced so far. If the information is of real value (eg. farming techniques, technology, weapons) people are quite discerning. On the other hand, if it's essentially gossip, like twitter, the truth isn't particularly important but shock value is- it's more about social standing/status, entertainment or whatever. The arguments for controlling 'misinformation' are really just claims by one entity that they should be in control of the gossip.
- ArneBab 5y ago
  There were also times in history when technology and knowledge got lost in religious zealotry. Some of it we are only now trying to recover. We don’t know how much is still missing. If information is of real value — like vaccines — … do you see where I’m going?
  - nverno 5y ago
    The vast majority of Americans have multiple vaccinations. How many are required for school? Just because people are hesitant about a new vaccine for a year hardly proves a greater point- it is a long-term trend towards truth, not a straight line. Those dark times in history are notably high points in censorship as well.
    - Hyolobrika 5y ago
      I would go further. I would say that people should be allowed to make up their own mind without unjust interference (i.e. censorship (such as shadow-banning) and artificial manipulation of visibility (such as putting 'fact-checks' in prominent positions)) regardless of whether someone in a position of authority (whether elected into government, bought into the board of directors or shareholders of some company, or just has mod privileges for whatever reason) thinks it's true or not. The people decide for themselves what's true, not the powerful.
      - 5y ago
tsimionescu 5y ago
I would take sociological studies on hot-buttos issues with many tablespoons of salt. People by and large live in a consensus reality, so obviously there are social mechanisms that ensure this. This happens even in the presence of massive propaganda systems pouring money and time into distortions of the truth - like the huge anti-environmental propaganda, or soviet propaganda that was widely known to be false even inside the soviet union.

by midev 5y ago

adamrezich 5y ago

you would rather truth be determined by governments or corporations than left up to individuals to decide for themselves?

midev 5y ago
> you would rather truth be determined by governments or corporations than left up to individuals to decide for themselves? Didn't say anything of the sort. And truth isn't determined by any of them. Which agin, proves the point. I had a comment with only three sentences, and you managed to misread it. I'm not for corporate or government censorship, but people that can't read comments correctly are a much bigger problem.

lolthishuman 5y ago

Maybe it’s because the education system has failed at critical thinking.

midev 5y ago
> Maybe it’s because the education system has failed at critical thinking Sure, education can improve things. But this is a problem even worse outside the United States, so it's hard to blame it on a single education system.
- ArneBab 5y ago
  It’s not just the education system. It’s our structures of information that are based on engagement (to drive ad-revenue) instead of value to the reader. And this is something Freenet actually solves to some degree. Because it had to. This is why in Freenet we know the Zen of Tolerance: https://www.draketo.de/politik/random-babcom#the-zen-of-tolerance https://www.draketo.de/politik/random-babcom#the-zen-of-tole... - You are entitled to voice your opinion. - You are not entitled to force it upon everyone. - You are not entitled to force it upon a subgroup repeatedly. - You are also not entitled to hurl hate towards participants, since that would disrupt communication. - If you cannot stay respectful and friendly after being asked to, I will unsee you and advise others to do the same with a clear and brief explanation, so they can take an informed decision.
  - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
    The problem with the the idea of tolerance in discourse like online communities is the paradox of tolerance: that we must necessarily be tolerant to intolerance. Ideas that call for violence of all sorts don't need to be articulated in an ugly way. In fact, the most effective rhetoric isn't. For example, think of the "just asking questions" style of representing an argument. This is the sort of rhetoric that places like hackernews is incredibly susceptible to, since it unironically subscribes to that same idea of the "free marketplace of ideas" that's blind to the difference between the content of speech and its actual effects. Think of it this way: what's the applied use of "debunking the argument" of somebody yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater?

nverno 5y ago

Everything is repeated throughout history, but more often than not consensus must tend towards the truth, otherwise human knowledge wouldnt have advanced so far. If the information is of real value (eg. farming techniques, technology, weapons) people are quite discerning. On the other hand, if it's essentially gossip, like twitter, the truth isn't particularly important but shock value is- it's more about social standing/status, entertainment or whatever. The arguments for controlling 'misinformation' are really just claims by one entity that they should be in control of the gossip.

ArneBab 5y ago
There were also times in history when technology and knowledge got lost in religious zealotry. Some of it we are only now trying to recover. We don’t know how much is still missing. If information is of real value — like vaccines — … do you see where I’m going?
- nverno 5y ago
  The vast majority of Americans have multiple vaccinations. How many are required for school? Just because people are hesitant about a new vaccine for a year hardly proves a greater point- it is a long-term trend towards truth, not a straight line. Those dark times in history are notably high points in censorship as well.
  - Hyolobrika 5y ago
    I would go further. I would say that people should be allowed to make up their own mind without unjust interference (i.e. censorship (such as shadow-banning) and artificial manipulation of visibility (such as putting 'fact-checks' in prominent positions)) regardless of whether someone in a position of authority (whether elected into government, bought into the board of directors or shareholders of some company, or just has mod privileges for whatever reason) thinks it's true or not. The people decide for themselves what's true, not the powerful.
    - 5y ago

tsimionescu 5y ago

I would take sociological studies on hot-buttos issues with many tablespoons of salt. People by and large live in a consensus reality, so obviously there are social mechanisms that ensure this. This happens even in the presence of massive propaganda systems pouring money and time into distortions of the truth - like the huge anti-environmental propaganda, or soviet propaganda that was widely known to be false even inside the soviet union.