3 ms·
Which brings us back to my original point. Algorithms are just a multiplier. If you give people two history books, one with actual history and one with intere
by slg 4y ago
Which brings us back to my original point. Algorithms are just a multiplier.
If you give people two history books, one with actual history and one with interesting conspiracy theories sprinkled throughout, most people are going to find the one with the conspiracies more interesting. Stopping people from photocopying the book will help slow the spread of the false information in the book, but it does nothing to stop the underlying problem that people are writing fake history books.
- smcn 4y agoIt's a multiplier sure, but this is a completely new issue we're having (at least on this scale). It's caused by social media, that's not really up for debate. You cannot prevent lies or deception, that's not within the realm of what we're capable of. Don't let good be the enemy of perfect.
- slg 4y agoThis isn't a new issue created by either social media or the internet. It is an innate problem with absolute free speech and has directly led to the US entering multiple wars over the last 125 years. It doesn't matter if the lies are disseminated through newspapers, cable TV, or Twitter. Mass media is just an amplification device. That has been true for centuries. The only new aspect is that the rate of amplification is increasing which leads to the underlying issue becoming even more problematic.
- smcn 4y agoI don't blame you for having a US centric view point but I will say that this issue is affecting far more countries than just the US. [edit] Sorry, to directly reply: I'm unsure what it is that you would prefer happen? Nothing? It's just the done thing?
- slg 4y agoI would argue that the reason this is becoming a bigger problem across the world is because the US is exporting its ideas of free speech through the internet, tech companies, and social media in a way that wasn't done in prior generations of mass media. I think we need to change the way we think about free speech. We already have laws that restrict free speech when that speech it defrauds or defames an individual. We need more general laws when it is society at large that is defrauded or defamed.
- smcn 4y agoWould Chinas inability to contain conversations give you pause as to how achievable that goal is? Would you be looking at criminalising lies and the spreading of them, even without knowing its a lie? If so, how many people would be prosecuted? If not, how will it help?
- slg 4y agoChina is trying to control conversations as a means of controlling the population. That comes with its own problems that are unrelated to regulating speech. >Would you be looking at criminalising lies and the spreading of them, even without knowing its a lie? I don't know what you mean by this. We don't know whether a potentially defamatory statement is a lie or not until there is a trial. This would be no different. We don't need a Federal Truth Commission or anything. American society already seems satisfied letting a jury decide what is or is not a lie today.
- smcn 4y agoSo in effect you don't care about the issue and are content with how things are? I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I understand what stance you're taking. Misinformation is not an issue to you, would that be correct? Requiring a trial to do anything about a lie on social media would mean that there would be no change. By the time the trial comes, the lie is old news and there is some new conspiracy taking grip. That would be, essentially, meaningless. Not in any way, shape, or form preventative.