I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
> Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are doing their best to suppress information that goes against the popular narrative [citation needed]
Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
41–50 of 65 posts
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#42I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
To the op: People here (and, I wouldn't be surprised, elsewhere) are missing the point that I think you are trying to make. And partly as a result you're getting downvoted by the idiot brigade. To the rest of you: It's not so much to do with disinformation, which is a separate conversation entirely. It's specifically to do with institutions that we rely on reporting to us more or less "fair and balanced" factual info…
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously the search term you type is what you want to see, so in a sense you're right. But that wasn't what you meant, right? Google selects a large set of search results based on what it thinks your query means, then weighs each result according to many, many criteria, I've heard there are about 140 but that's a long time ago, and finally orders them by aggregate weight. You may assume that all of those criteria ar…
Google doesn't just use the search term. It also uses your search and browsing history. This is why if you're a programmer, you're more likely to get results from StackOverflow because your search is more likely to be about programming. It's one reason why people can get better search results from Google than, say, DuckDuckGo. If you've been watching lots of conspiracy YouTube videos and reading lots of conspiracy bl…
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Address the issue of trust, and you can fix the real issues here. How can the issue of trust be fixed when most of these institution's goals are not really aligned with the general public? A company with the goal of profitting as much as possible from consumers and a government with the goal of helping those companies line their pockets as much as possible isn't really inline with what the average person wants. Beca…
The answer is seen in the corrupt Freudian slip seen in institutions after scandals when they state as a goal "restoring a sense of trust" - not restoring trustworthiness, or "addressing ". If you actually want to improve trustworthiness you need reforms and a purge all management who would resist or interfere.
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#45I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
> Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are doing their best to suppress information that goes against the popular narrative [citation needed]
Now, if they did this for every kind of sensational story, okay, but this very clearly seems to be a partisan issue. There have been a few Trump stories that are similarly sensational and were not censored the same way.
By the way, I don't know how much of that story is correct, but it's pretty clear they treated that story differently than anything else, and it leads to people becoming very suspicious of what these companies are doing. It's also very scary that Twitter or Facebook would just say, no this story from a newspaper can't even be shared.
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet is always hailed as empowering the people but in reality what it did was make the powerful even more powerful and give a voice to people who should not have a voice.
You certainly will always be disappointed if you have such vague notions of who "should be" and "shouldn't be". You will at some point be shocked that leopards ate your face after advocating for unleashing face eating leopards upon people.
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Swiss tradition of having lots of referendums isn't very old. Actually up until the 1970s it was hardly done, partly because the government had a habit of ignoring them and not implementing them properly. Around 50 years ago the press put pressure on politicians to get more serious about it, and the number of referendums has gone up a lot over time as a consequence. The Brexit vote is an excellent example of givi…
The problem with Brexit is not necessarily just whether or not Brexit had happened, but the fact that after the referendum, there was a supposed "popular mandate" of implementing Brexit, but nobody could say what exactly that mandate was since the people didn't vote on a particular proposal, but only on a vague idea. This led to the downfall of not one, but two governments, and it would have nearly triggered a consti…
The constitutional crisis and mess that followed was created entirely by people who desperately wanted to not do what they had promised to do. Those people have now been cleared out at the last the election, or so it seems at the moment.
"if there hadn't been a referendum, either the MPs would have agreed on a specific Brexit proposal"
I really wonder where you learn about British politics. The problem was created by MPs refusing to implement the vote they gave people, and doing everything they could to then weasel out of it. The only reason they granted a referendum at all is they were sure they'd win, and because UKIP were forcing them to. There is zero chance they'd have ever agreed on a specific proposal in the absence of a referendum.
pure mob rule ... I'm not generally opposed to any sort of plebiscite
You clearly are. Calling them "plebiscite" and "mob rule" is a pretty big give away, as is this belief that simple questions with simple answers are some huge intellectual puzzle that somehow politicians are incapable of solving.
Brexit was and is the right decision. It is an excellent example of why referendums are a good thing. Staying in the EU dictatorship much longer would have destroyed British democracy completely. Look at how much of a fight the establishment put up over leaving. It's a toxic, regressive project that runs counter to the last 200 years of history, in which vast empires were all steadily got rid of, often at great cost in blood, by people who recognised the huge value of nations. Look at this thread: arguments that MPs are somehow better than the people and have a natural right to rule. No thanks.
However, regardless of our respective personal views, you contradicted yourself earlier. Brexit is now the policy of the indirect form of democracy as well as the direct form. It is, by your own logic, the right decision and by implication, was the right decision before as well.
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that some random YouTube channel, Facebook page or a lone idiot screaming on social media is not going to be less biased and partisan. Are you sure? Joe Rogan seems to get a pretty good mix of people from across the political spectrum and explore their views in far more intellectual and nuanced ways than any TV channels I know.
I don't know Joe Rogan. And of course, there's always going to be exceptional bloggers, YT content producers, etc., same as there have always been independent journalists. This doesn't change the fact that, on average, John Doe on Facebook is not going to have very good insights into a topic.
Joe Rogan is a worldwide phenomenon larger than most TV channels. Around 200 million downloads a month, and he's basically a guy who interviews people on YouTube. Plenty of independents online with huge reach compared to older media.
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Address the issue of trust, and you can fix the real issues here. How can the issue of trust be fixed when most of these institution's goals are not really aligned with the general public? A company with the goal of profitting as much as possible from consumers and a government with the goal of helping those companies line their pockets as much as possible isn't really inline with what the average person wants. Beca…
Most people don't have a naive trust companies, and that's good. Consumer's trust in companies is far more nuanced and complex: we may for example trust that if we buy an Apple device it will be well built, but we don't trust that we're getting good value for money because we know Apple has a reputation for being expensive. This is an excellent feature of capitalism. Incentives are front and centre, people don't (usu…
Re: Former Google CEO Calls Social Networks ‘Amplifiers for Idiots’
#50I disagree with Schmidt. Misinformation is spreading because trust in institutions is eroding. This eroding trust is because of transparency and improved information dissemination. Most people don't trust the news anymore because it can easily be seen how biased they are. They don't trust institutions because they see how partisan most are. You can't just ban or regulate social media and expect the toothpaste to just…
Very unlikely to be true. Pick up Ezra Klein's Why We're Polarized , he takes a look at the degree of polarisation in US society. Even during the cold war, civil rights fights, assassinations, students being shot on campus and cities on fire and McCarthyist persecutions the political system itself continued to function without much hiccup. Today's institutions are relatively stable, as is the world situation overall,…