2 ms·

To me both the two points look a way to amplify the “not correct information”. They’re not saying that all the features are necessarily wrong or bad but just th

To me both the two points look a way to amplify the “not correct information”. They’re not saying that all the features are necessarily wrong or bad but just that with these features is very simply to post misinformation. I understand what you are saying, but in some situations it’s better to have a human that put a blue-checkmark that can fail 1/10 than having 5/10 fake accounts. I mean this is contextualized to this war situation.

logicalmonster 5y ago
> in some situations it’s better to have a human that put a blue-checkmark that can fail 1/10 than having 5/10 fake accounts Speaking strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I'm not so sure if a handful of blue checkmarks getting it wrong some small percentage of the time (and I'd argue that it's not quite that small) is less bad for the world than lots of random people getting it very wrong a far greater percentage of the time. The reason for that is power and influence, a journalist has a lot of it and a random person has close to none. A random Joe Schmoe who invents some conspiracy theory about the Amish's secret moon lasers controlling global weather patterns after an evening with Quaaludes and Tequila does not have any influence. But a bad journalist can panic the world into accepting bad ideas that are actually taken seriously. To me, the correct approach for finding as close to accurate information as possible is to not put professional journalists or anybody on a pedestal and distrust all information until proven and verified from multiple competing sources.