3 ms·
I understand what you're getting at, but I think we're trying to attack the wrong issue here. Humans have been lying or sharing incorrect information (whether
by sky2224 2y ago
I understand what you're getting at, but I think we're trying to attack the wrong issue here.
Humans have been lying or sharing incorrect information (whether the person had known it or not) for thousands of years. The only difference now is the volume of information being thrown at us has increased an exponential amount and our brains haven't evolved to handle that.
So my thinking is that we shouldn't be trying to reel in the "bad" information, we should just be trying to reel in the speed at which information is coming at us.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoBesides the speed at which information is coming at us, there is an additional component - the fraction of that information that is lies. When you lived in a small village, most people didn't lie most of the time. The ones who did, you knew who they were. You might not know what was going on at the royal court in the capital city, but you could have a pretty accurate idea of what was going on in your town. What fraction of tweets are lies/misinformation? Things have changed.
- sky2224 2y agoYou bring up another interesting point that I hadn't realized. The internet doesn't allow us to recognize the "liars" as easily. In the village example you gave, you have a person's face to go off of. On the internet, I could see 100 different "people", but it could be all the same face and I just don't know it. There's a bunch of variations of that, but I think you get the point. Our natural abilities to filter things appropriately is drastically hindered and subverted in the current forms of delivery on the internet.