4 ms·

>> "The vast majority of fact checking exists to call out stuff that's demonstrably false," > Prove it, I mean, isn't it obvious from recent history that soci

>> "The vast majority of fact checking exists to call out stuff that's demonstrably false," > Prove it, I mean, isn't it obvious from recent history that social media fact checking emerged as a band aid, because of demonstrably false blatant lies like Pizzagate, Q Anon, Stop the Steal, and all kinds of Anti-vax crankery were spreading like wildfire on social media? And at every step of the way the social media companies dragged their feet before they tried to do anything to address that problems IMHO, social media fact checking is a bad solution to a real and serious problem. However, the proper solution is probably to nuke social media from orbit; but technology doesn't serve us, we serve technology, so that's not going to happen. > That's all it is, a corporation's enforced opinion, not "facts" or "truth". Why should you trust a corporation's official enforced opinion any more just because the corporation found out they can call it a "fact check" and it slips past people's fully-justified cynicism about official corporation enforced opinion? "Corporation" is a loaded word with negative connotations. Let me put it this way: institutions are far, far better at reliably determining facts than individuals. That's true because the world is complicated, busy place and it requires far more effort and knowledge than one person can possess. Corporations are a class of institution, and some of them actually do a fairly good job of fact checking (e.g. publishing and media corporations). That said, Facebook is a shitty institution, but it's the only one in a position to do anything about the crap on its platform.

logifail 5y ago
> blatant lies Not the specific issues you mention, but the problem with this approach is that just occasionally "blatant lies" turn out to be true. Powerful people have acted to suppress dissenting opinions; whether it's whether Covid leaked from a lab or Galileo Galilei's 'Eppur si muove' way back in 1633[0], and most likely this has been going on long before that. When I look at social media I can't help thinking of that line: "It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so'?" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> blatant lies like Pizzagate, Q Anon, Stop the Steal, and all kinds of Anti-vax crankery > Not the specific issues you mention, but the problem with this approach is that just occasionally "blatant lies" turn out to be true. > Powerful people have acted to suppress dissenting opinions; whether it's whether Covid leaked from a lab or Galileo Galilei's 'Eppur si muove' way back in 1633[0], and most likely this has been going on long before that. That's certainly true, but it's also important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, either. It doesn't help those "dissenting opinions" if they're drowned out in a sea of lies or if the lies (collectively) do far more damage. Social media fact checking isn't some kind of hard block that can suppress any idea from being seen by anyone (in fact, this case it was little more than a caution sign), and IMHO it's probably better for the truth if it has to pass some hurdles and gets slowed down a bit, just as long as those hurdles increase the single-to-noise ratio. There's reason process like scientific peer review are respected.
  - logifail 5y ago
    > It doesn't help those "dissenting opinions" if they're drowned out in a sea of lies or if the lies (collectively) do far more damage. It's a fairly central part of the scientific method to be able to construct falsifiable hypotheses and then to attempt to test them. > Social media fact checking isn't some kind of hard block that can suppress any idea from being seen [..] Except it just did: discussion on the origins of Covid was almost completely shut down for well over a year by the actions of one or more bad actors, hugely amplified by well-meaning but weak-minded media and social media outlets?
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >> Social media fact checking isn't some kind of hard block that can suppress any idea from being seen by anyone (in fact, this case it was little more than a caution sign), and IMHO it's probably better for the truth if it has to pass some hurdles and gets slowed down a bit, just as long as those hurdles increase the single-to-noise ratio > Except it just did: discussion on the origins of Covid was almost completely shut down for well over a year So? The idea made it out, though it's far from proven. In any case social media chatter and speculation about the idea like that has little value. And this is something I'm totally fine with. I think it's totally in the service of truth to let an idea cook, before it's blasted to the public over social media at a loud volume.
raxxorrax 5y ago
> false blatant lies like Pizzagate, Q Anon, Stop the Steal, and all kinds of Anti-vax crankery You start to assume that criticism against your position comes from one of these places. It is a real strawman for once. Pretty sure that the media story of Russian election interference was made up by PR agencies and we heard about it for month. Nobody asked real questions and demanded evidence. Voters were lied to and it was easy since people that believed in QAnon acted as a distraction. But in the end it was much more damaging because official sources mirrored lies. > "Corporation" is a loaded word with negative connotations Corporations do what they believe is best in their strategic interest. That does not make them evil. But they cannot ever defend any moral position that runs counter to their goals and management has a responsibility to all their employees. This is not a negative connotation, it is just the reality of the situation. And if you accept that fact there can be quite a productive exchange with corporations, even with their handicap on ethics.

logifail 5y ago

> blatant lies Not the specific issues you mention, but the problem with this approach is that just occasionally "blatant lies" turn out to be true. Powerful people have acted to suppress dissenting opinions; whether it's whether Covid leaked from a lab or Galileo Galilei's 'Eppur si muove' way back in 1633[0], and most likely this has been going on long before that. When I look at social media I can't help thinking of that line: "It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so'?" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves

tablespoon 5y ago
>> blatant lies like Pizzagate, Q Anon, Stop the Steal, and all kinds of Anti-vax crankery > Not the specific issues you mention, but the problem with this approach is that just occasionally "blatant lies" turn out to be true. > Powerful people have acted to suppress dissenting opinions; whether it's whether Covid leaked from a lab or Galileo Galilei's 'Eppur si muove' way back in 1633[0], and most likely this has been going on long before that. That's certainly true, but it's also important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, either. It doesn't help those "dissenting opinions" if they're drowned out in a sea of lies or if the lies (collectively) do far more damage. Social media fact checking isn't some kind of hard block that can suppress any idea from being seen by anyone (in fact, this case it was little more than a caution sign), and IMHO it's probably better for the truth if it has to pass some hurdles and gets slowed down a bit, just as long as those hurdles increase the single-to-noise ratio. There's reason process like scientific peer review are respected.
- logifail 5y ago
  > It doesn't help those "dissenting opinions" if they're drowned out in a sea of lies or if the lies (collectively) do far more damage. It's a fairly central part of the scientific method to be able to construct falsifiable hypotheses and then to attempt to test them. > Social media fact checking isn't some kind of hard block that can suppress any idea from being seen [..] Except it just did: discussion on the origins of Covid was almost completely shut down for well over a year by the actions of one or more bad actors, hugely amplified by well-meaning but weak-minded media and social media outlets?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> Social media fact checking isn't some kind of hard block that can suppress any idea from being seen by anyone (in fact, this case it was little more than a caution sign), and IMHO it's probably better for the truth if it has to pass some hurdles and gets slowed down a bit, just as long as those hurdles increase the single-to-noise ratio > Except it just did: discussion on the origins of Covid was almost completely shut down for well over a year So? The idea made it out, though it's far from proven. In any case social media chatter and speculation about the idea like that has little value. And this is something I'm totally fine with. I think it's totally in the service of truth to let an idea cook, before it's blasted to the public over social media at a loud volume.

raxxorrax 5y ago

> false blatant lies like Pizzagate, Q Anon, Stop the Steal, and all kinds of Anti-vax crankery You start to assume that criticism against your position comes from one of these places. It is a real strawman for once. Pretty sure that the media story of Russian election interference was made up by PR agencies and we heard about it for month. Nobody asked real questions and demanded evidence. Voters were lied to and it was easy since people that believed in QAnon acted as a distraction. But in the end it was much more damaging because official sources mirrored lies. > "Corporation" is a loaded word with negative connotations Corporations do what they believe is best in their strategic interest. That does not make them evil. But they cannot ever defend any moral position that runs counter to their goals and management has a responsibility to all their employees. This is not a negative connotation, it is just the reality of the situation. And if you accept that fact there can be quite a productive exchange with corporations, even with their handicap on ethics.