Easy to abuse has nothing to do with it. Positioning anyone to be an information filter is wrong. Full stop. This is totalitarianism 101. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. Freedom isn't predicated on moral superiority - it is the polar opposite. Freedom is exactly for those who are "wrong". I cannot imagine a more dangerous position for Facebook to take.
Ok, then how do you prevent things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225364 ?
How did you prevent government genocides in the past when they used newspapers or TV?
>Rather than picking a set of biases and viewpoints and presenting that, news orgs and silicon valley have decided that $thing_i_agree_with and $the_opposite_view deserve equal reach/airtime No, we do that because a marketplace of subjective ideas is a good thing.
Except a lot of the "ideas" aren't subjective. The most obvious case would be climate change. Regularly, climate skeptics are given the same amount of airtime as climate scientists, despite the fact that the evidence and opinion is overwhelmingly in support of climate change being a real problem. A realistic panel would be 98 climate scientists on one side, and two climate skeptics on the other. By giving someone wit…
if this person with less evidence refutes the evidence of the other, who has more evidence? Who is to decide who's evidence is valid before the debate? if it's already invalidated, why even have the debate in the first place? If you want a debate all participants should have a chance to voice their views, regardless of what the other participants hold as opinions about these views. if something is poorly supprted or not is to be decided after the debate. so basing the voiced opinions on preconceived conclusions is actually not a good thing which is what you seem to be suggesting.
"On the issue of fake news, Facebook has held off on a total ban, instead limiting the spread of articles marked as false by vetted fact-checkers. However, that approach can leave fact-checkers overwhelmed and able to tackle only the most viral hoaxes." Does anyone else find this concerning? Even the smallest bias held by fact-checkers can dramatically skew things towards one side e.g. only "fact-check" articles that…
Considering "sides" is itself an a priori bias. Articles can stand or fall on their verifiability.
That the current soup of deliberate misinformation happens to be played more by the loony right than the loony left is an artefact of those misinformers.
Easy to abuse has nothing to do with it. Positioning anyone to be an information filter is wrong. Full stop. This is totalitarianism 101. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. Freedom isn't predicated on moral superiority - it is the polar opposite. Freedom is exactly for those who are "wrong". I cannot imagine a more dangerous position for Facebook to take.
Ok, then how do you prevent things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225364 ?
There are costs to everything you do or don't do.
If your argument is that censorship prevents genocide, i would point tou to nazi germany, or soviet russia.
I heard that story in college. It stuck out because it was pithy and convincing. If you think people don't listen to new ideas or change their minds, do you think people should only be allowed to hear what you think is true, so that they don't hear wrong ideas to begin with?
Nope, I’m just disillusioned that everyone is as open as college you to new ideas and that we can simply go reach the people who don’t want to be reached. I suspect that the fact that you were taking chemistry in college means you were already in a very different state to receive new ideas compared with your average TV news viewer who is currently skeptical of climate change, and that difference is really important.…
I once saw an interview conducted by I believe Tucker Carlson with Bill Nye regarding climate change. It was obviously conducted entirely in bad faith and was just painful to watch. Every time Bill Nye would begin to answer a question the host would cut him off with random nonsense like “Isn’t it true Mr. Nye that you’re not even a scientist?!” and the process repeated until completion. It was obvious that it was pushing a completely biased tribal narrative and was not concerned with logical analysis and discussion. And yet sadly the video was uploaded with a title along the lines of “Tucker Carlson Destroys Bill Nye” with a majority of the comments disparaging Mr. Nye. So I’d have to agree with you that there are definitely a non-trivial amount of the populous that cannot be swayed by facts or discussion and instead stick blindly to their “team” of choice.
Nope, I’m just disillusioned that everyone is as open as college you to new ideas and that we can simply go reach the people who don’t want to be reached. I suspect that the fact that you were taking chemistry in college means you were already in a very different state to receive new ideas compared with your average TV news viewer who is currently skeptical of climate change, and that difference is really important.…
people like Gore and Billy Nye are trying outreach Which becomes part of the problem. When your role model is a guy who flies private jets from conference to conference and had a $17,000+ per year utility bill for his home (and not so much as one solar panel when in office), it doesn't convey urgency very well.
Easy to abuse has nothing to do with it. Positioning anyone to be an information filter is wrong. Full stop. This is totalitarianism 101. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. Freedom isn't predicated on moral superiority - it is the polar opposite. Freedom is exactly for those who are "wrong". I cannot imagine a more dangerous position for Facebook to take.
Ok, then how do you prevent things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225364 ?
If you want to try and assign Facebook responsibility, which is debatable, then I would blame them for the false accounts and real accounts that were taken over. It's simply wrong and should not be tolerated in any circumstance.
Separately from morality, I would argue it negatively impact Facebook's survivability. If your _social_ platform cannot be trusted to honestly deliver it's only product, they will surely die.