4 ms·

I guess this shows the slippery slope fallacy isn't always fallacious. The problem with "consensus" as a measure is that consensus is always moving. We need to

I guess this shows the slippery slope fallacy isn't always fallacious. The problem with "consensus" as a measure is that consensus is always moving. We need to encourage professional and laypersons alike to embrace the freedom to be wrong as everything is wrong until it is right. And what constitutes consensus? If Mazda puts out an ad saying that ICE cars contribute less than transoceanic shipping, is that acceptable? It's factual, but it goes against the consensus that ICE cars need to be eliminated. I get this is ads, not user generated content, though the chilling effect is there.

marcosdumay 4y ago
> ICE cars contribute less than transoceanic shipping It's not factual, unless you are talking about bullshit measurement that focus on sulfur pollutants that we accept on the middle of the ocean because they do almost not damage there (and have no relation at all with Global Warming).
tshaddox 4y ago
> I guess this shows the slippery slope fallacy isn't always fallacious. No, it’s still always fallacious. The argument “it’s going to rain today because it’s Saturday and it always rains on Saturday” is fallacious even on the occasions that it does rain on Saturday.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  It's fallacious when dealing with logical entities. Humans aren't logical entities.
rnd0 4y ago
I disagree. I think that platforms have some sort of responsibility to vet the ads who run on their platform. Not just for science or politics but in general. 1/2 of the reason I have used an adblocker for 20 years is because of how often straight-up malware has made it onto advertising networks because of a lack of vetting.[1] There's a discussion to be had about twitter and social media removing posts and posters but I don't feel like this is that discussion. I feel like this is a positive (or at least neutral) development. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History
- PraetorianGourd 4y ago
  I don't have a problem with a company exercising editorial control over ads. The concern comes from the measure being used (scientific consensus). 1. Twitter is not and ought not be the adjudicator of what has or lacks consensus. 2. Using consensus as a measure implies that it is immutable. We should have learned during COVID that consensus is incredibly variable
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    Consensus has never meant immutable.
    - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
      Exactly, and policies and rules should be as immutable as possible thus showing that consensus is a bad measure here.
      - 8note 4y ago
        I'm not clear that policies and rules should be immutable, nor as immutable as possible. Rules are an adversarial game, and being responsive is useful
- indymike 4y ago
  > I disagree At one time, consensus was bleeding with leeches cured disease, owning humans was normal and legal, sugar was good for you and so on.
  - rnd0 4y ago
    The difference being that these days we at least pay lip service to the scientific method and reproducibility. I'd much prefer to rely on that than on what some disinformation-fed Q-anon supporter proposes. And I'd prefer to not give bad actors (eg folks who spread anti-vaccine disinformation) a platform at all.
jeffbee 4y ago
In what way is that factual? The data I can easily punch up at the moment indicates global shipping emitted 1 billion tons of CO2 in 2020 and automobiles emitted 3 billion tons.
yakak 4y ago
Freedom of speech in advertising means you are paying and have a monetization strategy. That is more commonly known as fraud and many systems might ultimately penalize platforms when they catch up with their being new outlets for new frauds. Maybe cigarettes are the new health food! Maybe, but if the consensus is no it is unethical and hopefully illegal to present a case as a cigarette manufacturer directly to the people as a run around of systems of critique. Each member of the public can't be individually expected to resist all logical fallacies that are profitable cons, no?
tensor 4y ago
In contrast, I get downright scared when people are allowed to use their money to pay for a louder voice and potentially interfere with discussions around science or politics. That's both immoral and dangerous.

marcosdumay 4y ago

> ICE cars contribute less than transoceanic shipping It's not factual, unless you are talking about bullshit measurement that focus on sulfur pollutants that we accept on the middle of the ocean because they do almost not damage there (and have no relation at all with Global Warming).

tshaddox 4y ago

> I guess this shows the slippery slope fallacy isn't always fallacious. No, it’s still always fallacious. The argument “it’s going to rain today because it’s Saturday and it always rains on Saturday” is fallacious even on the occasions that it does rain on Saturday.

CamperBob2 4y ago
It's fallacious when dealing with logical entities. Humans aren't logical entities.

rnd0 4y ago

I disagree. I think that platforms have some sort of responsibility to vet the ads who run on their platform. Not just for science or politics but in general. 1/2 of the reason I have used an adblocker for 20 years is because of how often straight-up malware has made it onto advertising networks because of a lack of vetting.[1] There's a discussion to be had about twitter and social media removing posts and posters but I don't feel like this is that discussion. I feel like this is a positive (or at least neutral) development. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History

PraetorianGourd 4y ago
I don't have a problem with a company exercising editorial control over ads. The concern comes from the measure being used (scientific consensus). 1. Twitter is not and ought not be the adjudicator of what has or lacks consensus. 2. Using consensus as a measure implies that it is immutable. We should have learned during COVID that consensus is incredibly variable
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  Consensus has never meant immutable.
  - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
    Exactly, and policies and rules should be as immutable as possible thus showing that consensus is a bad measure here.
    - 8note 4y ago
      I'm not clear that policies and rules should be immutable, nor as immutable as possible. Rules are an adversarial game, and being responsive is useful
indymike 4y ago
> I disagree At one time, consensus was bleeding with leeches cured disease, owning humans was normal and legal, sugar was good for you and so on.
- rnd0 4y ago
  The difference being that these days we at least pay lip service to the scientific method and reproducibility. I'd much prefer to rely on that than on what some disinformation-fed Q-anon supporter proposes. And I'd prefer to not give bad actors (eg folks who spread anti-vaccine disinformation) a platform at all.

jeffbee 4y ago

In what way is that factual? The data I can easily punch up at the moment indicates global shipping emitted 1 billion tons of CO2 in 2020 and automobiles emitted 3 billion tons.

yakak 4y ago

Freedom of speech in advertising means you are paying and have a monetization strategy. That is more commonly known as fraud and many systems might ultimately penalize platforms when they catch up with their being new outlets for new frauds. Maybe cigarettes are the new health food! Maybe, but if the consensus is no it is unethical and hopefully illegal to present a case as a cigarette manufacturer directly to the people as a run around of systems of critique. Each member of the public can't be individually expected to resist all logical fallacies that are profitable cons, no?

tensor 4y ago

In contrast, I get downright scared when people are allowed to use their money to pay for a louder voice and potentially interfere with discussions around science or politics. That's both immoral and dangerous.