3 ms·
> He doesn't think about the effects of a higher availability information with a lower ability to seek out other contradicting points of view. This is a baffli
by civilized 5y ago
> He doesn't think about the effects of a higher availability information with a lower ability to seek out other contradicting points of view.
This is a baffling claim. Why on earth would you believe that people now have a lower ability to seek out contradicting points of view?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- svachalek 5y agoWhich profit driven advertising based search engine or newsfeed is built around delivering contradicting points of view?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- civilized 5y agoReplace "profit driven such-and-such" with "print newspaper" and the rhetorical question works equally well. I think the worst you can say against social media is that it feeds you low-quality highly-partisan sources if you seem to like such sources. But your ability to seek out better or contradicting information is not diminished. If anything it is far greater than it has ever been. "Stuff that is against $my_favorite_belief" is a Google search away. Wikipedia alone will usually give you a fairly balanced treatment of a topic with extensive references to diverse perspectives and evidence.
- Rury 5y agoAmusingly, I fail to see how such an engine would resolve the problem. Groups of people would just choose the point of view they liked, and label the other as misinformation and... we're back to the original topic.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mint2 5y agomost americans live insular suburban lives in their bubble and when they get doses of current events they are algorithmically fed confirmation bias and especially confirmation bid that arouses them to click/engage. I.e tabloidizing the cherry picked facts that then framed with the biases that poke the viewers buttons.
- civilized 5y agoNone of that changes the fact that it's easier than ever to seek out contradicting points of view. People just don't want to. The algorithms feed people stuff that confirms their beliefs because that's what they like. It's all about preferences and choices, not ability.
- mint2 5y agoWe shouldn’t try to fix obesity, smoking, enforce seatbelts, gangs, local pollution, etc because all those are personal choices to live near or partake in?
- civilized 5y agoTry to help as you wish, but describe the problem accurately. And understand that the people you are trying to help may resist you because you are interfering in their choices. Some people passionately want to keep drugs like fentanyl out of the country. Others think it's impractical and efforts have done more harm than good. Still others say "hand them a clean needle". Messing with the choices people make that you think are bad for them isn't easy.
- mint2 5y agoI think you meant: > Messing with the choices people make that scientists, sociologists, and 9 out of 10 dentists think are bad for them and society as a whole isn't easy. I guess that my more appropriate and more relevant corrected version of the statement didnt sound like it supported the point so the original was phrased as if it’s my own non expert opinion that smoking causes cancer. fentanyl? Are you saying that should be unregulated and freely purchasable at the local 7/11 or are you saying it should be regulated even although some people choose to do it? Either way I’m not really sure how that supports the older points about people technically but not practically having the option to avoid misinformation means society should ignore misinformation as it’s “a personal choice”
- 8note 5y agoCurrently, there is a middleman that's looking to present you with "engaging" information wherever you look. There is so much information available that you always need a sorting mechanism Engaging being straw man arguments to dunk on, with people dunking on them