• Post-Truth: Why Facts Don't Matter Anymore
    10 replies, posted
[video=youtube;dvk2PQNcg8w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvk2PQNcg8w[/video]
Someone please post a tl;dr It sounds mighty interesting, but it's too long for my attention span right now.
[QUOTE=Nillor;51560094]Someone please post a tl;dr It sounds mighty interesting, but it's too long for my attention span right now.[/QUOTE] I'm about halfway through rn. Basically he goes on to say that he always expected the internet to allow for more information to be shared, and thus, make people smarter. He expected it would expose people to others who aren't like them, and result in people being more tolerant. And yet, fake news are thriving while political divides grow larger and larger. [quote]The internet allows people with really particular views to come together, and share things with each other. Even share what [I]they[/I] think the opponent's argument is, tweaking it ever so slightly, all of these little mutations and alterations, and finding the ones that push our buttons the [I]most[/I]. And those are the ones that get liked and hated and everything. These are the ones that the algorithms elevate to the very top.[/quote] He ends the first half talking about confirmation bias being an innate human drive, and how we naturally seek out things we agree with. Now that I think about it, he didn't really say very much in those first 8 minutes, lol The way I see it is: The internet gives you a place to express your opinions, mostly free of consequence, while at the same time, barraging you with more and more things to have opinions on. It's a vicious cycle, where people are conditioned to be opinionated about more issues than ever before. I'd say most news websites are essentially designed for binging on confirmation bias.
Something I've noticed that holds back the internet is that [I]truthful[/I] information is often proprietary and you can't share it without permission or fees. Science publications still require major subscriptions and you have to pay to publish your info, and the price goes up with more 'reputable' publishers. I would've thought that there would be a professional publication website where you could host journal entries and professional profiles for researchers and the like. All the reputation of scientists is locked behind their publications which is locked behind publishers. tl;dr People want money for discovering/sharing the truth, which is reasonable, but this desire slows down the spread of truthful and useful information.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51560393]Something I've noticed that holds back the internet is that [I]truthful[/I] information is often proprietary and you can't share it without permission or fees. Science publications still require major subscriptions and you have to pay to publish your info, and the price goes up with more 'reputable' publishers. I would've thought that there would be a professional publication website where you could host journal entries and professional profiles for researchers and the like. All the reputation of scientists is locked behind their publications which is locked behind publishers. tl;dr People want money for discovering/sharing the truth, which is reasonable, but this desire slows down the spread of truthful and useful information.[/QUOTE] Sometimes I've wanted to link some of these articles when posting on FP, but I find them through my school database and then when I go to find a link I can actually post on facepunch I find out whoops, paywall for the normies!
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51560405]Sometimes I've wanted to link some of these articles when posting on FP, but I find them through my school database and then when I go to find a link I can actually post on facepunch I find out whoops, paywall for the normies![/QUOTE] Thats when you just steal it and upload it anyway in Schwartz's memory correct?
Maybe because I haven't seen Veritasium in years, but I never would think for him to talk about politics.
I think a good way to stop fake news would be to find the sources of it, honestly I wouldn't be surprised if all these sites are be controlled by one or two companies and they work together to make separate "news" sites for alt-left and alt-right angerbait while making a profit off ads. [editline]21st December 2016[/editline] I've also remember seeing something about a lot of these sites having articles written by bots so they can be the first when something big happens but I can't remember the source of that.
[QUOTE=Whomobile;51560878]I think a good way to stop fake news would be to find the sources of it, honestly I wouldn't be surprised if all these sites are be controlled by one or two companies and they work together to make separate "news" sites for alt-left and alt-right angerbait while making a profit off ads.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's just 1 person generating fake news, unless you want to go into conspiracy theory territories, and that really depends on what you define as fake news. For example, people say that Breitbart or the New York Post is fake news because they shit out misleading news stories. People say that Breitbart isn't fake news because it's not blatantly fake like stuff like OBAMA IS A MUSLIM HIRED CONTROLLED BY JEWS. Like if you're honestly going to blame people for misinformation, blame Rupert Murdoch. Here are some names you might recognize. New York Post (American) The Australian (Australian) The Daily Telegraph (Australian) The Sun (UK, Australian) Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox News and everything Fox) The above news/media outlets I listed are all ultimately owned by Rupert Murdoch, and have a tendency to spew misinformation and/or bias drivel.
To clarify I don't mean just one person or group running everything, I ment more groups running grandpa/ma facebook bait tier news websites, not really working together but working towards that same goal of getting people angry and reading while feeding off each other's reader base. And yeah fuck Rupert Murdoch, he's manipulated plenty of elections here. his power's faulting here luckily cause his readership is literally dying off.
[QUOTE=Whomobile;51560878]I think a good way to stop fake news would be to find the sources of it, honestly I wouldn't be surprised if all these sites are be controlled by one or two companies and they work together to make separate "news" sites for alt-left and alt-right angerbait while making a profit off ads. [editline]21st December 2016[/editline] I've also remember seeing something about a lot of these sites having articles written by bots so they can be the first when something big happens but I can't remember the source of that.[/QUOTE] Well now look at that [url]https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/[/url] [quote]But a closer look reveals that some of the biggest fake news providers were run by experienced political operators well within the orbit of Donald Trump’s political advisers and consultants. Laura Ingraham, a close Trump ally currently under consideration to be Trump’s White House press secretary, owns an online publisher called Ingraham Media Group that runs a number of sites, including LifeZette, a news site that frequently posts articles of dubious veracity. One video produced by LifeZette this summer, ominously titled “Clinton Body Count,” promoted a conspiracy theory that the Clinton family had some role in the plane crash death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as the deaths of various friends and Democrats.[/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.