3 ms·

The entire premise of fact-check or community notes is infantilizing. If we cannot trust individuals to consume information on their own terms, why would we tru

The entire premise of fact-check or community notes is infantilizing. If we cannot trust individuals to consume information on their own terms, why would we trust them to vote? Furthermore, if we cannot trust news outlets, why would we trust fact checkers? Worse yet is the idea of consensus wisdom. It appeals to the lowest common denominator. Even if we assumed everyone in the collective was the pinnacle of human ability, voting on what we all subjectively perceive as an objective truth is no better than like/dislike. I'm sure philosophers have made better commentary on these issues. I'm reminded of packaged foods. If you have to tell me that there is "real cheese flavor", I probably shouldn't be consuming it.

cameldrv 2y ago
How would people consume information “on their own terms” on Facebook? The feed is not under the user’s control.
- glimshe 2y ago
  This very statement is infantilizing. Yes, they can, even if many/most don't. I use Facebook solely for groups, and 90% of my feed is apolitical content related to my personal interests. The other 10% are random stuff from friends.
bee_rider 2y ago
These algorithmic platforms aren’t deciding what we get to talk about, they are editorializing; deciding which of our posts they would like to rebroadcast to their other users. If he doesn’t want to make sure the things his network rebroadcasts are true… I mean, it’s sort of like, well they’ve always been extremely lazy about fact checking anyway. So I guess it is good that he’s announcing it. Social media is mostly not a good place for political discussion. It is mostly anonymous/pseudonymous people (or at least mostly strangers) arguing past each other, arguing for the crowd, or just venting into the void. It might be a good place for doing rhetoric/propaganda. As if we needed more of that. Social media feels vaguely like talking to your friends, aka, having political discussions. I think conflating political discussions and spewing rhetoric has made us much dumber as a society.

cameldrv 2y ago

How would people consume information “on their own terms” on Facebook? The feed is not under the user’s control.

glimshe 2y ago
This very statement is infantilizing. Yes, they can, even if many/most don't. I use Facebook solely for groups, and 90% of my feed is apolitical content related to my personal interests. The other 10% are random stuff from friends.

bee_rider 2y ago

These algorithmic platforms aren’t deciding what we get to talk about, they are editorializing; deciding which of our posts they would like to rebroadcast to their other users. If he doesn’t want to make sure the things his network rebroadcasts are true… I mean, it’s sort of like, well they’ve always been extremely lazy about fact checking anyway. So I guess it is good that he’s announcing it. Social media is mostly not a good place for political discussion. It is mostly anonymous/pseudonymous people (or at least mostly strangers) arguing past each other, arguing for the crowd, or just venting into the void. It might be a good place for doing rhetoric/propaganda. As if we needed more of that. Social media feels vaguely like talking to your friends, aka, having political discussions. I think conflating political discussions and spewing rhetoric has made us much dumber as a society.