2 ms·
The person you replied to said nothing to imply they disagree with you. Perhaps we are forced to choose as a society between technocracy and misinformation. I'm
by ravi-delia 5y ago
The person you replied to said nothing to imply they disagree with you. Perhaps we are forced to choose as a society between technocracy and misinformation. I'm suspicious of that line of argument myself, but "technocracy is bad" and "misinformation isn't a problem" are separate arguments.
- tekknik 5y agoSure they did, it was implied in these three points: > - The less expert you are at a subject, the more energy is required to sift through the crap. > - Most people are either not expert at anything, or are expert in a narrow field of interest. > - Information no longer flows in the same way it once did: it now diffuses through a social graph which is prone to significant network effects. Non-experts can have a bigger influence than experts, even when the information they share is entirely meritless. Echo-chambers form naturally and require a lot of deliberate and conscious effort to get out from. It is very difficult to reach certain pockets of the graph.
- ravi-delia 5y agoThat only argues that non-experts will be fooled. The universe is under no obligation to make misinformation less bad just because technocracy is even worse. Maybe we're just screwed! Between you and me I suspect it's not that big of an issue, but no matter how bad technocracy is (and I agree that it's very bad) it still has no bearing on whether non-experts proliferate misinformation.