3 ms·
I believe the trust crisis is about social media itself - about physical ability to write anonymously. It couldn't not result in avalanche of lies, both honest
by anovikov 5y ago
I believe the trust crisis is about social media itself - about physical ability to write anonymously. It couldn't not result in avalanche of lies, both honest and malintentional - the infamous "Putin's bots" are a part of the problem but not even such a big part. Problem is because everyone can post, opinions sparking most outrage will be reposted and thus multiply the most - because the neutral, centrist opinions are just not clickbait-y enough. It results in division naturally - because soon almost half of everything posted is offensive to half the people, as the middle ground disappears. That amplifying, and thus divisive, power of ability to repost is by itself enough to split society in groups.
Maybe solution is to tax social media, in a way that they become more like traditional media? Essentially, you pay based on how many people saw your content - it may be cents per year if you just share your vacation photos with a bunch of friends, but if you post an anti-mask meme, it will drain your pre-paid account in minutes as it is being reposted, and then disappears and no longer seen by anyone (along with the rest of your content) when you reach zero, before you refill?
I see no problem with the principle of free speech here: there was free speech before social media but you could never go on TV, publish a newspaper ad, or print a pamphlet for free. Free speech is about freedom, not price. And just ban all "free as in free beer" social media outright.
- eternityforest 5y agoWhy would we want to ensure we are only exposed to content from rich people, and our immediate friends? Politicians have plenty of money to publish whatever divisive crap they want. It might be technically free speech... but would it really help anyone in practice or just censor poor people?
- anovikov 5y agoIt was the case in the age of TV and no one complained no?
- eternityforest 5y agoNobody complained, and maybe things were a little better... but cigarette companies seemed to have plenty of money without people's best interest in mind. What if someone invents a very bad product, and you effectively censor warnings about it? I guess the way around it would be donations built into the platform, but then you're back to people sharing crap. Anything that makes more popular posts more likely to disappear than less popular posts is going to feel like central control by whoever has money, I don't think that will increase trust.
- anovikov 5y agoI think central control by whoever has money is inevitable in any case right? This is the nature of society - money buys power, power makes money. If we will be pretending it can possibly not be the case we will just be shooting ourselves in the foot, because life can't be built based on lies.