4 ms·

Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting misinformation. Your idea will not work. Here is why i

Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting misinformation. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work. ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or business ( ) Assumes that you can use textual metrics to determine if a claim is true or not ( ) Assumes that pictures can’t be faked (X) Assumes that popularity equals truth ( ) Assumes that you can tell whether something’s true by where the web server hosting it is located ( ) Any social network that tries to adopt it won’t get used ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Requires fake news to opt into additional scrutiny ( ) Requires mind reading ( ) Puts additional strain on already underfunded and understaffed organizations ( ) Big Tech won’t put up with it ( ) ISPs won’t put up with it ( ) By the time you took it down, the damage would already be done ( ) Good luck finding a neutral third party on major political controversies ( ) Would just move the problem from Facebook to Signal (X) “Trust No One” is not a solution ( ) The surveillance state already has more data than they know what to do with — Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Readers failing to notice “this is a joke” disclaimers (X) The existence of Schelling points other than the truth (X) Black Hat SEO tactics ( ) “Residential IP” proxies ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Legitimate disagreement ( ) Context ( ) Bias ( ) Asshats ( ) Dog-whistle politics ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Linguistic drift (X) Asymmetry of information (X) Asymmetry of available resources ( ) The time it takes to verify a claim being far longer than the time it takes to write it ( ) New information coming out after a story has been published ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of fake news (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who literally believe in magic ( ) Technical illiteracy ( ) Hacking (X) Astroturfing (X) People with valuable information, but no capital ( ) Laziness ( ) Dishonesty on the part of fake news pushers — and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) It would violate Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( ) Technically, that’s how it already works ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Fake news was already a problem before Facebook; we called it “chain mail” ( ) Outlawing The Onion would be stupid ( ) Post ranking algorithms should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Any countermeasure that involves outlawing end-to-end encrypted private communication is unacceptable ( ) Any countermeasure that involves spear phishing is not going to work more than a couple of times ( ) We should be able to talk about the letter Q without being censored ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Who gave you the right to decide whether something is true? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem (X) Anonymity does not destroy all class and power differences, and makes bad-faith participation more common ( ) The distinction between “political” and “apolitical” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “private” and “public” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “fact” and “opinion” is not always clear-cut ( ) People who can’t afford lawyers would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) People who can’t afford bodyguards would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) Your scheme would have made it illegal to share a video of police brutality without consulting the very institutions that benefit most from police brutality ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough — Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (X) Sorry, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! — This is a very, very old meme. Here’s a few older versions of it. https://qntm.org/calendar https://qntm.org/calendar https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
Your post advocates a (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting misinformation. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work. ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or business ( ) Assumes that you can use textual metrics to determine if a claim is true or not ( ) Assumes that pictures can’t be faked (X) Assumes that popularity equals truth ( ) Assumes that you can tell whether something’s true by where the web server hosting it is located ( ) Any social network that tries to adopt it won’t get used ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Requires fake news to opt into additional scrutiny ( ) Requires mind reading ( ) Puts additional strain on already underfunded and understaffed organizations ( ) Big Tech won’t put up with it ( ) ISPs won’t put up with it ( ) By the time you took it down, the damage would already be done (X) Good luck finding a neutral third party on major political controversies ( ) Would just move the problem from Facebook to Signal ( ) “Trust No One” is not a solution ( ) The surveillance state already has more data than they know what to do with — Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Readers failing to notice “this is a joke” disclaimers ( ) The existence of Schelling points other than the truth ( ) Black Hat SEO tactics ( ) “Residential IP” proxies ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Legitimate disagreement (X) Context ( ) Bias ( ) Asshats ( ) Dog-whistle politics ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Linguistic drift ( ) Asymmetry of information ( ) Asymmetry of available resources ( ) The time it takes to verify a claim being far longer than the time it takes to write it ( ) New information coming out after a story has been published ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of fake news (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who literally believe in magic ( ) Technical illiteracy ( ) Hacking ( ) Astroturfing (X) People with valuable information, but no capital ( ) Laziness ( ) Dishonesty on the part of fake news pushers — and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) It would violate Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( ) Technically, that’s how it already works (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Fake news was already a problem before Facebook; we called it “chain mail” ( ) Outlawing The Onion would be stupid ( ) Post ranking algorithms should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Any countermeasure that involves outlawing end-to-end encrypted private communication is unacceptable ( ) Any countermeasure that involves spear phishing is not going to work more than a couple of times ( ) We should be able to talk about the letter Q without being censored ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Who gave you the right to decide whether something is true? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Anonymity does not destroy all class and power differences, and makes bad-faith participation more common ( ) The distinction between “political” and “apolitical” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “private” and “public” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “fact” and “opinion” is not always clear-cut ( ) People who can’t afford lawyers would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) People who can’t afford bodyguards would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) Your scheme would have made it illegal to share a video of police brutality without consulting the very institutions that benefit most from police brutality ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough — Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (X) Sorry, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! (X) Next time try understanding reading my comment. — Right back at you.

ravel-bar-foo 5y ago

Your post advocates a (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting misinformation. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work. ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or business ( ) Assumes that you can use textual metrics to determine if a claim is true or not ( ) Assumes that pictures can’t be faked (X) Assumes that popularity equals truth ( ) Assumes that you can tell whether something’s true by where the web server hosting it is located ( ) Any social network that tries to adopt it won’t get used ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Requires fake news to opt into additional scrutiny ( ) Requires mind reading ( ) Puts additional strain on already underfunded and understaffed organizations ( ) Big Tech won’t put up with it ( ) ISPs won’t put up with it ( ) By the time you took it down, the damage would already be done (X) Good luck finding a neutral third party on major political controversies ( ) Would just move the problem from Facebook to Signal ( ) “Trust No One” is not a solution ( ) The surveillance state already has more data than they know what to do with — Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Readers failing to notice “this is a joke” disclaimers ( ) The existence of Schelling points other than the truth ( ) Black Hat SEO tactics ( ) “Residential IP” proxies ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Legitimate disagreement (X) Context ( ) Bias ( ) Asshats ( ) Dog-whistle politics ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Linguistic drift ( ) Asymmetry of information ( ) Asymmetry of available resources ( ) The time it takes to verify a claim being far longer than the time it takes to write it ( ) New information coming out after a story has been published ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of fake news (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who literally believe in magic ( ) Technical illiteracy ( ) Hacking ( ) Astroturfing (X) People with valuable information, but no capital ( ) Laziness ( ) Dishonesty on the part of fake news pushers — and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) It would violate Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( ) Technically, that’s how it already works (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Fake news was already a problem before Facebook; we called it “chain mail” ( ) Outlawing The Onion would be stupid ( ) Post ranking algorithms should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Any countermeasure that involves outlawing end-to-end encrypted private communication is unacceptable ( ) Any countermeasure that involves spear phishing is not going to work more than a couple of times ( ) We should be able to talk about the letter Q without being censored ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Who gave you the right to decide whether something is true? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Anonymity does not destroy all class and power differences, and makes bad-faith participation more common ( ) The distinction between “political” and “apolitical” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “private” and “public” is not always clear-cut ( ) The distinction between “fact” and “opinion” is not always clear-cut ( ) People who can’t afford lawyers would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) People who can’t afford bodyguards would be de facto excluded from the internet ( ) Your scheme would have made it illegal to share a video of police brutality without consulting the very institutions that benefit most from police brutality ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough — Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (X) Sorry, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! (X) Next time try understanding reading my comment. — Right back at you.