5 ms·
Stop caring that someone is wrong on the internet?
by ok123456 5y ago
Stop caring that someone is wrong on the internet?
- vkou 5y agoThe ostrich defense of sticking one's head in the sand only works until it doesn't.
- ok123456 5y agoBad analogy. If someone is making an argument from bad faith, that's intentional and it's a waste of time to correct them or engage them at all. All the "fact checking" links that are displayed now when you post about controversial subjects on social media platforms do very little to change minds and only reinforce the idea that there's some global narrative that's controlled by a cabal. They merely only serve to make people who already agree with the positions that are being linked to as fact checks better about spending time online.
- duxup 5y agoWhat if it has real consequences?
- gjs278 5y ago
- Clubber 5y agoLike what?
- vkou 5y agoA collapse of basic medical care, an attempted coup, a third of the country no longer believing that an election where their side didn't win can be legitimate... ... But it's difficult to get a person to care about a subject that they believe themselves to be capable of buying their way out of/ignoring the consequences of. Nothing matters to a nihilist, and they will smugly point out that we're all wasting our breath over nothing.
- ok123456 5y agoYeah, you should probably spend less time online too.
- vkou 5y agoAre you saying that these things haven't happened, or are you saying that I should not care whether my father can get an 'elective' surgery done sometime this decade? Or that the next election will be ran in a fair manner?
- Clubber 5y agoI think our healthcare system sucks because it sucked before the pandemic, not because of misinformation. I remember thinking COVID would really show the gaping cracks in our healthcare system, but instead, the system blamed their deficiencies on the unvaccinated. Our healthcare system, for the population as a whole, was awful before COVID. Hospitals that weren't at peak operating (read financial) capacity were shut down all over the country, which forced their patients to go to already overcrowded hospitals. The costs are/were off the charts. I don't think misinformation was the cause of it. We've been dealing with this for over two years now, yet our healthcare system hasn't increased even temporary capacity in a meaningful way to account for it.
- duxup 5y agoThreats, misinformation about say a butterfly sanctuary? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/06/texas-butterfly-sanctuary-far-right-threats https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/06/texas-butter... These seem to have real results.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoSomething about this story seems suspicious. You know that feeling you get when a news story hits all the right notes and confirms everything you thought to be true about the evil of the other side? It is also surprisingly light on key details in a few areas: > Treviño-Wright said since the lawsuit she has faced personal threats and on one occasion, assault, by the extremist Virginia Republican congressional candidate Kimberly Lowe who visited the butterfly center last month and demanded to see “‘illegals crossing on rafts”. What was "the assault"? It doesn't give details. >In an audio recording of the visit, Lowe is heard claiming baselessly that Treviño-Wright was “OK with children being sex-trafficked, raped and murdered”. This is a rhetorical trick being misinterpreted as some baseless claim. The implication is that if you oppose The Wall, you are enabling all these things and are therfore complicit. Have you ever encountered hyperbole and pearl clutching before? In any event, I don't want to go down the road of delving into this old news story. I guess my point is that there is probably much more to this than it seems, and, isn't a good justification for policing misinformation as strongly as some people want.
- ok123456 5y ago> You know that feeling you get when a news story hits all the right notes and confirms everything you thought to be true about the evil of the other side? Funny how that keeps happening! I keep getting news stories that confirm my per-existing biases that the world is mean and we need internet moderators to make it all better again.
- duxup 5y ago>You know that feeling you get when a news story hits all the right notes and confirms everything you thought to be true about the evil of the other side? Honestly your first line kinda describes your theory here... I don't have much reason to think that story is fake, but if a few sentences are enough for you to just write it off I'm not sure it matters what I say. There are other stories on that issue.
- sharemywin 5y agopeople are making death threats to poll workers and local election officials.
- ok123456 5y agoThen those are direct and actionable threats and are covered by real life laws. We don't need moderators filling in for real police.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoThis is one of those things that is easy to worry about, but the sheer amount of possible 'consequences' from any misinformed point of view is impossible to actually estimate the likelihood of. We can collectively conjure up all sorts of bad things someone might do if they believe [xyz] but we should not give in to this kind of paranoia.
- duxup 5y agoI don't buy into the idea that because estimation is hard thus it is "paranoia".
- ok123456 5y agoWhat do you estimate Free Speech is worth?
- duxup 5y agoI don't understand what that has to do with my comment. Moderation on say twitter /= free speech violations I'm assuming your comments are just random from here on out. Sorry if they're not but I"m really not following what you're saying.
- ok123456 5y agoMove to China if you want inharmonious posts removed from the internet.
- duxup 5y agoAre you under the impression that moderation is just a Chinese thing or something? I don't think that makes any sense.
- ok123456 5y agoNo. But, moderation for the sake of the eventual societal consequences is the default in the Chinese (PRC) system. It's not necessarily a bad system. Their ideas have lifted a billion people out of poverty. But, it's not ours.
- duxup 5y agoI'm not at all sure what you're trying to say, one comment seems to conflict with the next.
- ok123456 5y agoI'm saying that censorship like this is incompatible with the western values as we know them. Yet this doesn't invalidate what the Chinese have accomplished. It's possible to have two conflicting ideas at the same time.
- brimble 5y agoWhat's the likelihood of your spending a lifetime engaging with wrong people online having enough payoff to be worth it, even if it does have real consequences?
- duxup 5y agoI don't think I fully understand the question. I think I've gotten a lot from spending time online... often in situations where there was a moderation system in place.
- brimble 5y agoIt's a question of how different the actual real world would be if one were to "stop caring that someone is wrong on the internet" versus the alternative world in which one cared very much about this. I would suggest that most of the time, the likely answer is "little to no different". In light of that, how many hours of one's life should be devoted to it? Almost none, probably. If improving the world is the goal, arguing on forums or Twitter is surely a terrible use of time and energy for most people (those with a massive audience, lots of money, fame, or any combination of those things, may be exceptions). It's similar to keeping up with day-to-day national news. How often is there something actually important and actionable that one learns only by closely following non-local news, that wouldn't have made its way through the grapevine (or down to local news) fast enough anyway? Barring people who need to trade on that information or otherwise need to be very plugged-in for their job, or what have you. Yet some people try to paint following such news closely as necessary for being a good citizen. Is it, though? If I look at it honestly, the difference between checking in on what's happening nationally (or internationally) every day, and checking in once a quarter, is practically indistinguishable, in terms of what I do and what I can realistically affect. Even once a quarter is probably more frequent than necessary to achieve approximately the maximum actual real-world benefit it is likely to provide to me. Yet people follow pundits on Twitter or read news sites daily or watch 24/7 cable news and seem to genuinely think they're a better citizen for it, rather than that they're engaging in a low-value hobby like watching daytime soap operas or following e-sports as a spectator (which are fine diversions and people should absolutely do those things if they enjoy them, but practically no-one's under the illusion that those are laudible or improving activities)
- caenorst 5y agoThis is so vague... Me breathing air has real consequences. You probably mean "societal" consequences, and it's also way too vague, moderating has real consequences as much as not moderating.
- adolph 5y agoDuty calls: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
- ratsmack 5y agoBeing complacent and uncaring is probably worse than being wrong.