[ycmbntrthrwaway]

We, don't, it is the guys who have money to pay for writing such articles.

The problem is automated newsfeed, which makes users read "recommended" content and ads instead of allowing them to choose which sources they trust.

The real solution is to switch to Mastodon and similar federated networks, where everyone can select who to follow and receive nothing else. It is easy to subscribe to actual people with similar interests who "boost" (repost) the kind of content you like. They filter out misinformation way better than any of those Facebooks and Twitters can ever do.

[mcphage]

> The real solution is to switch to Mastodon and similar federated networks, where everyone can select who to follow and receive nothing else. It is easy to subscribe to actual people with similar interests who "boost" (repost) the kind of content you like. They filter out misinformation way better than any of those Facebooks and Twitters can ever do.

You think that only listening to people with similar interests, will filter out misinformation? What?

[ycmbntrthrwaway]

I think that actual people interested in some topic and having some expertise in it filter out misinformation better than Facebook and Twitter will ever do. Persons repost news from less trusted sources such as news sites with their opinion about it.

On the other hand, social media platforms inject content that is popular, according to the number of "likes" and "reposts" into your newsfeed. It means the content has gone viral and it has already spread to several clusters around you, most of them centered around some other topic and, therefore, unable to properly evaluate it.

To answer your question, I don't think it will completely filter misinformation, but I think this strategy is better than anything Facebook and Twitter can come up with.