5 ms·

Why? Identity does not make an argument. Numbers of posts don't prove me wrong. A preponderance of quacks doesn't inform me of my baking skills when I toss brea

Why? Identity does not make an argument. Numbers of posts don't prove me wrong. A preponderance of quacks doesn't inform me of my baking skills when I toss bread to ducks. The impulse to identity, by law or platform-specific reputation system, is useful for other ends, but the end of judging books by covers should not be one to strive toward.

renewiltord 5y ago
That’s because going from premises to conclusions is the rarest and trivially followable argument and the complexity of discussion arises from concluding on facts. For instance, is it true that you couldn’t get a COVID test in SF around Jul 4? With provenance of information, people start trusting trusted sources for facts. With fixed identity, people can evaluate what the preponderant view is. If you’re in a room with ten of your friends and you could get toilet paper in Jan and all of them couldn’t, you would judge yourself lucky and that there was an availability problem. If I go online and I see one thousand posts saying the opposite of what I’m seeing, I’m going to ignore them. Primarily because of the identity problem.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  Attesting to facts requires more than identity. There are billions of nobodies with identities whom I don't trust to attest to anything. Verifiable events can be attested to (like the availability of testing) with trustworthy data, like from a reliable reporter or the test providers or some reliable surveillance mechanisms. Using a identity as a proxy for accountability, in furtherance of reputation management -- as the social media web largely treats all this -- is an error. People aren't reliable just because we know they're people, as Facebook-provided comments on third-party sites demonstrate.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    I think this is an overly restrictive way to acquire information but I’m content with your taking your approach and my taking my approach and us ending where we will.
trident5000 5y ago
Really the issue is that astroturfing works. Its a proven and well studied psychological strategy. Troll farms use it, marketing firms use it, and the media has used it for decades.

renewiltord 5y ago

That’s because going from premises to conclusions is the rarest and trivially followable argument and the complexity of discussion arises from concluding on facts. For instance, is it true that you couldn’t get a COVID test in SF around Jul 4? With provenance of information, people start trusting trusted sources for facts. With fixed identity, people can evaluate what the preponderant view is. If you’re in a room with ten of your friends and you could get toilet paper in Jan and all of them couldn’t, you would judge yourself lucky and that there was an availability problem. If I go online and I see one thousand posts saying the opposite of what I’m seeing, I’m going to ignore them. Primarily because of the identity problem.

readflaggedcomm 5y ago
Attesting to facts requires more than identity. There are billions of nobodies with identities whom I don't trust to attest to anything. Verifiable events can be attested to (like the availability of testing) with trustworthy data, like from a reliable reporter or the test providers or some reliable surveillance mechanisms. Using a identity as a proxy for accountability, in furtherance of reputation management -- as the social media web largely treats all this -- is an error. People aren't reliable just because we know they're people, as Facebook-provided comments on third-party sites demonstrate.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  I think this is an overly restrictive way to acquire information but I’m content with your taking your approach and my taking my approach and us ending where we will.

trident5000 5y ago

Really the issue is that astroturfing works. Its a proven and well studied psychological strategy. Troll farms use it, marketing firms use it, and the media has used it for decades.