3 ms·

> Somebody should stop and think about the kind of people that a job like "fact-checking" will attract. It's not high-paying, is inherently boring, and reminds

> Somebody should stop and think about the kind of people that a job like "fact-checking" will attract. It's not high-paying, is inherently boring, and reminds me of a security guard kind of position. Yea, that sounds inevitable (due to economic constraints). If I wanted "fact checkers", I would prefer them to be either experts in the subject matter or people with relevant education and enough time to read studies. The result of their work should not be "this is false/misleading", but an "expert opinion" response where they can point exactly what is false and offer references (literature, studies) that contradict the supposed false claim. Of course we all know that this doesn't scale, nobody's going to pay experts to spend hours reading studies to prove someone wrong on the internet. They've got better things to do.

davidw 5y ago
I wish comments like yours were what we were discussing. This gets to the heart of the matter: * It is expensive for credible experts, or anyone, really, to meticulously go through and provide the best information available about a subject. * It is incredibly cheap, easy and fast to spread outright lies. This imbalance creates a real problem. Social media has made the problem much worse, because it is so quick and easy to spread lies. This is a tricky problem and simplistic solutions like "there should be no fact checking and no limits" can lead to grave real world consequences.
- JPKab 5y ago
  >"This is a tricky problem and simplistic solutions like "there should be no fact checking and no limits" can lead to grave real world consequences." This exact statement has been uttered by every ruler in history since the invention of the printing press. (the most popular printed books of the day, other than the bible, were books on identifying witches) If you insist that there be a regulation on what information can be distributed, you have no choice but to put certain people in charge of making these decisions. Sure, you can make them into committees, and have them follow processes, but at the end of the day somebody is paying them, and therefore they are subject to corrupting forces. The consequence of free dissemination of information isn't heaven, or perfect. It can lead to horrible things. But the consequences of controlling and limiting information by some central arbiter has always led to hell. When in history can you point to a censorship regime and say "yeah, those were the good guys."??? No matter how benevolent the intention, censorship infrastructure has always been hijacked by the powerful for their own interests.
  - davidw 5y ago
    Facebook is a private company. The 1st amendment in the US does not prevent private companies from deciding what they won't publish. Is it worrisome that so much power is in the hands of a large private organization? Certainly!

davidw 5y ago

I wish comments like yours were what we were discussing. This gets to the heart of the matter: * It is expensive for credible experts, or anyone, really, to meticulously go through and provide the best information available about a subject. * It is incredibly cheap, easy and fast to spread outright lies. This imbalance creates a real problem. Social media has made the problem much worse, because it is so quick and easy to spread lies. This is a tricky problem and simplistic solutions like "there should be no fact checking and no limits" can lead to grave real world consequences.

JPKab 5y ago
>"This is a tricky problem and simplistic solutions like "there should be no fact checking and no limits" can lead to grave real world consequences." This exact statement has been uttered by every ruler in history since the invention of the printing press. (the most popular printed books of the day, other than the bible, were books on identifying witches) If you insist that there be a regulation on what information can be distributed, you have no choice but to put certain people in charge of making these decisions. Sure, you can make them into committees, and have them follow processes, but at the end of the day somebody is paying them, and therefore they are subject to corrupting forces. The consequence of free dissemination of information isn't heaven, or perfect. It can lead to horrible things. But the consequences of controlling and limiting information by some central arbiter has always led to hell. When in history can you point to a censorship regime and say "yeah, those were the good guys."??? No matter how benevolent the intention, censorship infrastructure has always been hijacked by the powerful for their own interests.
- davidw 5y ago
  Facebook is a private company. The 1st amendment in the US does not prevent private companies from deciding what they won't publish. Is it worrisome that so much power is in the hands of a large private organization? Certainly!