641–650 of 702 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'existential crisis' : citation needed backed by actual model of the universe and human behavior.
Thanks for proving my argument
Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years, You are making the claim of their extinct in the next 50 years. The burden of proof is on you to prove that.
If you make the claim that Earth will stop spinning tomorrow, you have to produce the proof, not me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This all sounds good, but if I assert that the earth is flat on Facebook why shouldn't that simply be labelled false so others can avoid wasting their time trying to refute a ridiculous assertion? And if you agree with that, all we're arguing about is where to draw the line between "obviously false" and "disputed" facts. > It becomes necessary when you lie all the time. There are plenty of people lying and/or griftin…
> If I assert that the earth is flat on Facebook why shouldn't that simply be labelled false Isn't that implying that the reader is too ignorant to know at a glance? In the marketplace of ideas shouldn't that nonsense content just get buried anyway? > There are plenty of people lying and/or grifting on the other side of this power structure as well. Agreed. Lying is how you create something out of nothing after all.…
I agree that in a free marketplace of ideas bullshit content would get buried, but this isn’t how modern social media platforms work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zuck and I. Because we live in a democracy where being uninformed doesn't mean you have less say in the government.
That is how voting works. Should dumb people have the right to vote?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thing is, if the idea is to stop wrong conspiracy theories from veing talked about, it makes sense to ban legitimate science that points in the direction of the conspiracy. If you want to do propaganda, then misinformation is useful. But even using only good-faith articles as sources, you can still make your propaganda, it will just be harder. Especially with covid it seems like social media has decided to counter pr…
> But even using only good-faith articles as sources, you can still make your propaganda, it will just be harder. That's what, at their best, most of the media are doing. Presenting well-researched, balanced, truthful stories, carefully selected to promote their own ideology. Forget journalism - this even happens in peer-reviewed science: Ceci et al. (1985) found a similar pattern. Research proposals hypothesizing ei…
I think we need to work against the latter. I don't think censoring good-faith articles that are often abused is the way to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first amendment has nothing to do with that. The first amendment protects the individual and the press from government censorship. As I said, the spirit of the law is to protect from censorship. Unfortunately social media companies are abusing their power.
Go read up on Citizens United v FEC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, there was a brief period when real fact-checking existed. Then the political activists saw that the regular press had lost all credibility, but the fact-checking brand still retained some, so they made a hard push to take them over. Which by the time of covid has been already mostly complete, and with the push to fight "medical misinformation" (which was quickly defined as any information that contradicts…
> "fact-checking" has been completely subverted to serve the preferred narrative and suppress any heretical thought I don't think this is correct. In my experience, most online "fact checkers" seem to get it right the great majority of the time. Can you point to some examples you are thinking of?
https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/
Note they didn't say with scientific humility "we do not know if that scenario actually happened, more data is needed, it's too early to make the conclusion". They say "it's ridiculous and debunked" and rate it "pants on fire" (i.e. an obvious outrageous lie). They act as if they are the ultimate authority with absolute knowledge of the facts and expertise to make such calls - while they don't have neither the facts nor the expertise. And this happens again and again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"fact checking" is bad. I'm not sure what the good version of it you imagine. By "fact checking in general" do you mean pointing out when someone is wrong? The parent comment sees fact checking as one thing: propaganda used to shut down heterodoxy. It has nothing to do with facts or truth.
If fact checking is bad, why are you wrapping it in quotation marks? Is there a difference between fact checking and "fact checking" implied here, and if so, what is that difference? Please elaborate.
The biggest problem with fact checking sites is that they equate having insufficient evidence with being false. It’s like a claim in the ‘00s that the Government was spying on Americans. A fact checker would say false but we just had insufficient evidence to prove it… until Snowden came along.
What about Mark Klein?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should not be legal to advertise the possibility of messaging someone, if that someone will not be able to receive the message. edited to add: Those poeple have facebook profiles, post stuff publicly, you can comment, tag and all that. Except private messages. All private messages are silently undelivered. No error, only sent.
> It should not be legal to advertise the possibility of messaging someone, if that someone will not be able to receive the message. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, you seem to be saying that shadowbans should be illegal. Or at least, I don't see how any law that would prevent shadow delivery wouldn't prevent shadowbans. So I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
They take parcels, give tracking numbers, but those specific persons never receive anything. Tracking is always stuck on "parcel enroute".
edit: clarified wording, to make it clear that fedex shadowban is a hypothetical situation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook users aren't reading the article. They're reading the title, and saying "aha, I knew it. The vaccine was unsafe all along." That's literally all the fact checkers said, "potential to mislead".
> Facebook users aren't reading the article. They're reading the title, and saying "aha, I knew it. The vaccine was unsafe all along." You literally just made this up.