381–390 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The antivax movement existed long before COVID and Facebook was a huge contributor to its spread. There is nothing scary about someone researching that.
Although we should be careful not to lump everyone opposed to the current vaccines in with the anti-vaxers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have three ways to vote: 1. With your ballot: very small chance of changing policies (1 vote) 2. With your wallet: small chance of changing policies (n votes through political donations) 3. With your feet: guaranteed chance of changing policies The internet facilities 100% democracy as it simplifies voting with your feet (remote work, social networks), allowing likeminded individuals to congregate and influence p…
Thanks for a thoughtful response! I agree more referendums would get to a better level of participatory democracy. Though on any specific issue it could still be a 51% win with 49% going away angry. I'm not sure how blockchains makes more frequent referendums easier. Maybe harder to game the system? Apart from that it seems like a platform for regular referendums could be built without blockchains. It's still relativ…
Political representation becomes obsolete with blockchains that can facilitate a referendum on every issue without the need for centralised trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is an increasing infantilization world-wide where some group thinks it needs to "protect the others", assuming they are the single source of truth and that it's obvious they are. It's a well known bias which for some reason aligns with the current zeitgeist. As everything before, it shall too pass at some point.
Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reestablish order by the establishment. This happened too with the creation of the gutenberg printing press. New tech disrupted established information sources. Approx 60 years after the printing press creation, a relatively minor religious squabble ended up in a hug…
Propaganda used to only be achievable by nation states. Now anyone with money can play.
They aren't democratizing access to truth because search costs for finding accurate information are higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reestablish order by the establishment. This happened too with the creation of the gutenberg printing press. New tech disrupted established information sources. Approx 60 years after the printing press creation, a relatively minor religious squabble ended up in a hug…
While I don't disagree about the knee-jerk reaction, the Guttenber comparison isn't quite apples-to-apples: When Guttenberg made the press, access to it's output had a strong filter: most people couldn't read, and anyone who could read was highly educated for the times. Social media doesn't have a filter like that, and higher levels of education generally correlate to lower levels of belief in things like conspiracy…
That part seems very much apples-to-apples with what's happening now.
Facebook seems to be censoring so much because Facebook believes that most people will actually believe whatever bits of misinformation are floating around out there. But is everyone that easily manipulated? More importantly, does everyone actually believe that they can be easily manipulated, or do they just think that everyone else is so easily manipulated, but somehow they're above the fray? And at what point does…
I actually verified this yesterday on my own FB acount. https://imgur.com/a/5tgkbFL Not sure if it's still happening, but you can test it if you make the post visible to only you and you wait ~5 minutes for that misinformation message to show up. Even if the fact checker had some kind of point, I don't know how labeling an authoritative source as "false information" helps anyone understand anything just because part…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The antivax movement existed long before COVID and Facebook was a huge contributor to its spread. There is nothing scary about someone researching that.
Although we should be careful not to lump everyone opposed to the current vaccines in with the anti-vaxers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe "the vaccine turned people into the Hulk", thats a mental health problem. But when inconvenient claims, like "vaccines can cause blood clots in rare cases", often flagged as misinformation, you don't instil much confidence with the public. And so they go out and get information from other sources.
> If you believe "the vaccine turned people into the Hulk", thats a mental health problem. Can you identify anyone who actually believes that? Keep in mind that people don't always have logically consistent beliefs, and they sometimes exaggerate their beliefs so they're not even true at all. If I really believed that claim, I would be making a bet with somebody who doesn't believe it and prove myself right by finding…
I'm not sure if you are trolling but even though Hulk is a hypothetical example, people believe equally strange things, such as invisible microchips inside face masks, viruses being spread by 5G cell towers, that the world is flat and Australia does not exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is removing content because they wanted to make money with a website, and the job of statecraft fell in their laps in the process. They didn't volunteer, they aren't qualified, nobody told them they were signing up to run a kingdom, let alone the world. So they don't produce lofty, philosophical, well-thought-out positions on free speech and human rights. They don't carefully manage the public square with th…
All of this is also true for our actual government[0]. I have zero confidence that if our government were in charge of running Facebook/Twitter/any other social media app the results would be better. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/16/white-house-says-facebook-ne...
