Everything is repeated throughout history, but more often than not consensus must tend towards the truth, otherwise human knowledge wouldnt have advanced so far. If the information is of real value (eg. farming techniques, technology, weapons) people are quite discerning.
On the other hand, if it's essentially gossip, like twitter, the truth isn't particularly important but shock value is- it's more about social standing/status, entertainment or whatever.
The arguments for controlling 'misinformation' are really just claims by one entity that they should be in control of the gossip.
There were also times in history when technology and knowledge got lost in religious zealotry. Some of it we are only now trying to recover. We don’t know how much is still missing.
If information is of real value — like vaccines — … do you see where I’m going?
The vast majority of Americans have multiple vaccinations. How many are required for school? Just because people are hesitant about a new vaccine for a year hardly proves a greater point- it is a long-term trend towards truth, not a straight line. Those dark times in history are notably high points in censorship as well.
I would go further. I would say that people should be allowed to make up their own mind without unjust interference (i.e. censorship (such as shadow-banning) and artificial manipulation of visibility (such as putting 'fact-checks' in prominent positions)) regardless of whether someone in a position of authority (whether elected into government, bought into the board of directors or shareholders of some company, or just has mod privileges for whatever reason) thinks it's true or not. The people decide for themselves what's true, not the powerful.
I would go even further and say that people should be able (in practical life) to choose their own moderators to filter and curate content. And know that they work for them, not for some third party.
In today's media visibility is massively skewed by the platform's interest of "engagement" — which too often means enragement. That’s how fake news spread so fast (also in ad-click-financed newspapers, by the way).
They aren’t only exploiting human psyche, but also the proprietary, centrally controlled algorithms that drive social networks and the ad-financing of newsrooms.
If you log out of Youtube and then watch a talk about Java development, and then the Youtube algorithm suggests alt-right content in the auto-play-list, then something is wrong with the algorithm.
It is ironic that platforms that send the fake news your way in the first place then put a fact check underneath.
I would take sociological studies on hot-buttos issues with many tablespoons of salt. People by and large live in a consensus reality, so obviously there are social mechanisms that ensure this. This happens even in the presence of massive propaganda systems pouring money and time into distortions of the truth - like the huge anti-environmental propaganda, or soviet propaganda that was widely known to be false even inside the soviet union.
It’s not just the education system. It’s our structures of information that are based on engagement (to drive ad-revenue) instead of value to the reader.
- You are not entitled to force it upon a subgroup repeatedly.
- You are also not entitled to hurl hate towards participants, since that would disrupt communication.
- If you cannot stay respectful and friendly after being asked to, I will unsee you and advise others to do the same with a clear and brief explanation, so they can take an informed decision.
> you would rather truth be determined by governments or corporations than left up to individuals to decide for themselves?
Didn't say anything of the sort. And truth isn't determined by any of them. Which agin, proves the point. I had a comment with only three sentences, and you managed to misread it.
I'm not for corporate or government censorship, but people that can't read comments correctly are a much bigger problem.
On the other hand, if it's essentially gossip, like twitter, the truth isn't particularly important but shock value is- it's more about social standing/status, entertainment or whatever.
The arguments for controlling 'misinformation' are really just claims by one entity that they should be in control of the gossip.