471–480 of 602 posts
Remember when the left said they wanted to unify the country? I guess squashing all opposing viewpoints is one way to do that... Maybe they should get some help from Russia and China, I hear they have a lot of experience in dealing with 'misinformation'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't a problem unless you're discussing something where anonymity is key - or it wouldn't be if the internet didn't make anonymity the rule by default. Anonymity is really great for private citizens, but people trying to spread information need to be held to a higher standard since their words shouldn't be preemptively censored but must be held to account after the fact. Oh also, taking away anonymity is quite…
I'm not sure I'm convinced that taking away anonymity fixes the problem. We have very prominent politicians who are driving entire political campaigns around this strategy of ignoring all fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only somehow the government could determine what is true... When somebody is accused of a crime we just have to say "Guilty according to whom?" and let them go, because there's no way to know what's true. Sure the DNA says he murdered 3 children, but what are those scientists really after! If only there were some organized system for appointed people with great track records to somehow listen to both sides of an a…
> If only somehow the government could determine what is true... You say this in relation to a criminal trial but two things: 1. The government can not determine guilt or innocence. It determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is a distinction worth considering. There is an implicit admission of uncertainty and unknowability. 2. A panel of judges determining truth is a concept that has existed historically and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take the politics out of it — unaccountable, unquestioned mass communication is almost always bad. Mass media needs the fairness doctrine back to take the carnival show out of the news. Social media is no exception. The current model basically neuters editorial discretion and creates a “Team A” vs “Team B” environment that is bad for everyone. These problems started in niche mediums like talk radio and eventually loc…
> Mass media needs the fairness doctrine back to take the carnival show out of the news. Social media is no exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine ("The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude…
ME TOO.
Something that drives me nuts about the current political climate is that some people are so sure of their views on seemingly every hot topic. I think this is because of a complete lack of discussion of any opposing viewpoints, which I believe is fundamental to actually understanding an issue. If you refuse to consider why people think differently, how can you possibly engage with them? Isn't the goal of any sort of political activism to get more people to vote the way you do?
Unfortunately I don't think it would work out very well, given the current media machinery. I find cable news completely ridiculous as a whole, but the rare cases where they do bring in someone to discuss an opposing viewpoint are really something. (one that comes to mind was Fox having a "union leader" on sporting a full track suit, big cigar, and several giant rings on his hands like he was a Sopranos character.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is exactly why no matter where you land politically, you should be 100% in favor of fighting for free speech for yourself and the other side.
I think there’s a disconnect here. Does free speech have to include someone knowingly purposely spreading misinformation with the intent to deceive people? Or someone speaking with the explicit intent to harm another person? Because I think nobody should be able to silence your thoughts, ideas or opinions but those things don’t encompass all speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any other options? I don’t care who solves it, but when a company is run for the intent to produce propaganda it’s pointless to ask them to self regulate.
There is always the option to let the issue sort itself out. To allow space and time for a solution to emerge. We should be careful not to fall into action bias. E.g. the thought that we need to do something, anything, since that can lead to counterproductive solutions. I've begun to look at information problems like this not too differently than viruses of thought. Right now these viruses are running rampant because…
Actually, there are effective ways to identify the credibility of information. From the well known CRAAP.[0] test to "lateral reading"[1] and a host of related [2][3][4][5] methods to clarify the credibility of online (or offline, for that matter) material. There are even curricula[6] that addresses these issues.
And no, none of these methods are partisan. Rather, they give the reader tools to help them determine the validity and credibility of information.
That many folks don't do so is definitely a problem. One of the less involved methods is "lateral reading" as described in [1]. I heartily recommend it, as well as other methods.
[0] https://researchguides.ben.edu/source-evaluation
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-a...
[2] https://www.library.georgetown.edu/tutorials/research-guides...
[3] https://paperpile.com/g/find-credible-sources/
[4] https://libanswers.tcl.edu/faq/6286
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the most part, it is socially unacceptable to vote Republican if you live in a large US city, and it is socially unacceptable to vote Democrat if you live in a rural area.
I've never seen any evidence that it's "socially unacceptable" in any meaningful sense of the term to vote Democrat in a rural area. Where are you getting this?
If someone's doing something dumb and weird in a well off rural area nobody cares as long as they aren't actively negatively affecting people. Like maybe people will talk behind your back and think you're an idiot but that's about it.
If someone's doing something dumb and weird somewhere densely populated and wealthy people pour over the bylaws, call whoever they can to harass you and generally try to force you to stop by making your life miserable.
If someone's doing something dumb and weird somewhere poor, regardless of urban vs rural, nobody gives a crap because people have bigger problems.
Is there any difference between the ~12 copies of the same letter in this PDF? But to the point, this is chilling. The last administration started down a dangerous precedent of claiming some news sources were less entitled to their right to exist. Just because I happen to agree that the channels being targeted here are garbage doesn't mean I think we should allow the government to make that decision.
There already is a precedent for federal law mandating truth in information carried over media channels in specific situations. "That decision" you reference doesn't have to be a decision to drop/silence the media channel outright. The previous administration made continuous claims about fake news and media lies; if the current administration is talking about media disinformation and lies as well, that sounds like there's scope for a bi-partisan agreement[2] to hold media companies more accountable for "truth in reporting", like there are "truth in advertising" rules.
Your position doesn't have to be "I agree these channels are garbage but in the interests of avoiding Facism all media should be allowed to lie without being held to account in any way".
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert...
[2] lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is always the option to let the issue sort itself out. To allow space and time for a solution to emerge. We should be careful not to fall into action bias. E.g. the thought that we need to do something, anything, since that can lead to counterproductive solutions. I've begun to look at information problems like this not too differently than viruses of thought. Right now these viruses are running rampant because…
>Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses? I'm not at all sure, but I can't imagine any kind of partisan response that would work, since these viruses infect left and right alike, and many people will bend over backwards to argue otherwise. Until we can face that fact honestly, I don't see how we could even begin to have a productive conv…
And as far as a governing apparatus, I'm not sure these tools really help provide the structure needed to declare any given piece of media misinformation or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are a clear example of the latter group in my previous comment.
Your analogy is incorrect though. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Parler are all bars. The gang members (insurrectionists) went to the Facebook, Twitter and Youtube bars and got into fights. The Methodist (non-insurrectionists) went to Parler and did not get into bar fights. According to you the solution is not to ban the bars where the bar fights took place but the place where there were no bar fights. It really make…