11–20 of 191 posts
People need to make up their own minds regarding what is true and what isn't, what's worth their time and what's bullshit, which links to click on and which to avoid. If people can't handle this then we need to spend more money on education, or just accept that some people disagree with us.
I don't think aggressively filtering "untrustworthy" content will lead to a net benefit.
The article is placing the blame on Google and Facebook when it should be placed on us, the "consumers" of media. We need to take a look in the mirror and understand who we are and what we want. Ask yourself. Really ask yourself: - What kind of information am I looking for and why? Am I just a digital rubbernecker? Do I want to break this story at the watercolor? Or do I need to know if a loved one was hurt? - Do I n…
The only reason any market entity exists is because people buy things from them, its the buyers fault.
The only reason corrupt governments exist is because the people elect them, or at the very least don't overthrow them, its the governed's fault.
Its a stupid oversimplication that places all the blame on the giant, vauge, and futile "everyone", while ignoring incentive structures and pretty much every ounce of nuance and sublty.
Not to mention that it totally ignores how entities like the aformentioned, and amagoosoftbook shape our preferences, both actively, and unitentionally.
Its a hopeless putdown of basicly any ability for anything to change, ever.
The reason why those of us on this forum can tell the difference between good and bad information is because we received a good education and learned critical analysis skills. Facebook, Google and the internet in general are an objectively bad source of knowledge. They are subjectively good sources of knowledge. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to use the internet as a source for good knowledge. The…
I’m no expert, but I see this too often. People who truly believe fake news and bot comments on Facebook. Other clicking on adds because can’t differentiate them from real Google search results. Many that doesn’t have the patience to even think about verifying the information. Humans are going to do human things, and these companies know that very well.
I think there's already too much filtering. People need to make up their own minds regarding what is true and what isn't, what's worth their time and what's bullshit, which links to click on and which to avoid. If people can't handle this then we need to spend more money on education, or just accept that some people disagree with us. I don't think aggressively filtering "untrustworthy" content will lead to a net bene…
The article is placing the blame on Google and Facebook when it should be placed on us, the "consumers" of media. We need to take a look in the mirror and understand who we are and what we want. Ask yourself. Really ask yourself: - What kind of information am I looking for and why? Am I just a digital rubbernecker? Do I want to break this story at the watercolor? Or do I need to know if a loved one was hurt? - Do I n…
These kinds of statements seem deep and meaingful, but ultimately they are vaccuous. The only reason any market entity exists is because people buy things from them, its the buyers fault. The only reason corrupt governments exist is because the people elect them, or at the very least don't overthrow them, its the governed's fault. Its a stupid oversimplication that places all the blame on the giant, vauge, and futile…
Whatever assumptions you used to arrive at your conclusions were introduced by the story you wanted to tell. I'd rather you didn't extrapolate from what I wrote.
Ask me nicely and I will tell you why fixing Facebook and Google are not the answer.
> Gabe Rivera, who runs a tech-news service called Techmeme that uses humans and algorithms to identify important stories ... wait a second, you mean a 3rd party site can do a better job at filtering out fake news than Google/Facebook? and people can instead just go to a 3rd party site for high quality news? but The Atlantic thinks Google/Facebook should have all the power and ace out the little 3rd party companies w…
Everyone thinks they know what "Fake News" is and most people who are vested think Google's algorithms should rank them higher and less deserving sites lower.
As with most human opinion it's a matter of self interest and so is the parent article. Stripped of the holier than thou mantel it's whining about page ranking. Common whine. Lots of us have it. But most of us aren't nasty enough to seize on tragedy in order to make the point. Which is just another piece of evidence about the nature of old media and why it shouldn't have a monopoly on information.
Personally I'm ok with semi-dumb pipes. I think in the aggregate it's better for all of us regardless of persuasion.
The reason why those of us on this forum can tell the difference between good and bad information is because we received a good education and learned critical analysis skills. Facebook, Google and the internet in general are an objectively bad source of knowledge. They are subjectively good sources of knowledge. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to use the internet as a source for good knowledge. The…
We really need to stop congratulating ourselves on how smart we are and we would never fall for such blatant lies, because we are such highly-educated critical thinkers. There are a bunch of silly beliefs that we witness even amongst us like Steve Jobs wanting to cure cancer with unorthodox dietary changes, that having no gender parity in tech is both good and natural, or this medical doctor with a respected career who believes the earth is flat:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/03/the-men-who-believe-the-e...
We're all vulnerable to believe and defend the silliest things and then call ourselves critical thinkers while we do so. We can all be tricked. There are well-documented, effective methods to make us perceive and believe any number of things. Illusionists and magicians make a living out of doing this overtly; journalists and politicians do so less transparently.
Quite frankly, half the time I'm walking around slightly horrified that perhaps I'm believing and defending the stupidest lies and I think everyone else should feel the same way at least part of the time.
The reason why those of us on this forum can tell the difference between good and bad information is because we received a good education and learned critical analysis skills. Facebook, Google and the internet in general are an objectively bad source of knowledge. They are subjectively good sources of knowledge. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to use the internet as a source for good knowledge. The…
Putting 4Chan in a top news slot is not "allowing unedited and unfiltered access to information", it is algorithmicly promoting a cesspool of disinformation into a spot that many users believe is fairly authoritative. There is no way to "not make a choice" here and let information be free. There is only figuring out ways to filter and sort the firehose of information that is now at all of our fingertips. (A situation, I should add, that human brains are not necessarily prepared for)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-f...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/opinion/sunday/facebook-a...