3 ms·
What _should_ Twitter have done? I see plenty of "nothing", so that's not interesting. But if there was a Blue, and surveys where you could see the opinions agg
by daxfohl 4y ago
What _should_ Twitter have done? I see plenty of "nothing", so that's not interesting. But if there was a Blue, and surveys where you could see the opinions aggregated by, say, doctors with ivy league degrees, would that be useful? It would allow for dissenting voices but (maybe?) less likelihood of those voices overwhelming the majority? Any other opinions?
- worksonmine 4y agoHow about letting people discuss, even retarded arguments. If they are in fact retarded disproving them shouldn't be so hard right? The Streisand effect should teach us something, and when so many of the so called conspiracy theories proved to be likely and even true (lab leak theory for example) who are people going to look to for information? The best example I can remember was a fact-check by Reuters on the claim that clinical trials were not completed. Their debunk started by rephrasing the claim to a straw-man that "trials had another year to finish", to debunking with: "No according to Pfizer source X it will be done by Y". I did the math, and from article publication to date Y it was 10 months, so sure, technically correct, not a year. But does the straw-man of a specific date debunk the claim that the "trials are not completed"? Tragic but that was the state of the discourse and it's ridiculous, what did they expect? This is going to take a long time to repair and how global it was makes me draw the most sinister conclusions. I don't want to but it's the only explanation I see.
- daxfohl 4y ago> If they are in fact retarded disproving them shouldn't be so hard right? Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize that half of them are stupider than that. --George Carlin (I think)