3 ms·
> Maybe everyone exposed to something should be re-exposed to the theme once there's a new development. This doesn't work. Show people two articles, one that i
by colinmhayes 4y ago
> Maybe everyone exposed to something should be re-exposed to the theme once there's a new development.
This doesn't work. Show people two articles, one that is false and one that is true, and most people will say the one that aligns with their priors is true. We need to either teach people to recognize fake news, censor fake news, or accept that basically everyone will believe false propaganda. There are no other options. Once someone has been shown an article they agree with telling them the article was false just leads them to think you're on "the other side".
- philippejara 4y agoAnd who is going to decide what those "fake news" are to censor and how will you assume they won't fall into the exact same trap of wanting to believe in what they already agree with. We're hot off the heels of hunter biden, surely that should be a wakeup call regarding how "misinformation experts" go both ways.
- colinmhayes 4y agoNo clue. All I know is that if we don't censor fake news people will believe it, no matter how much evidence to the contrary they are shown. Maybe we just have to accept that.
- Stupulous 4y agoIf you took perfectly rational people and ran the same test, you'd get the same result. Evidence that supports a position that you already have evidence for is more likely to be true. If someone showed me very compelling evidence that the world was flat, even if I was unable to find any issue with it, I still would believe that it is false. If a single counterpoint could change your belief, you never had any business claiming it as a belief in the first place. Do you have cause to believe that repeated exposure to every side of every story won't lead the average person towards truth?