• Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    But how much do I trust the central authority that would be in charge of implementing that?

    Personally, we, individual people, should just be calling out others spreading BS. There’s been more then a few times someone has brought me something fishy sounding, I’ve responded with “and did you hear about that on facebook?”

    • vonbaronhans
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Trust it as much as it shows itself to have your interests in mind, or how well you judge it to be working towards the intended purpose.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I don’t necessarily trust info that claims to have my interest in mind because that how con artists approach their marks. They find a common problem, then confidently proclaim that have the perfect solution.

        • vonbaronhans
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I said “shows itself to” not “claims it does”. Big difference.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Is there a difference on social media? Unless they cite sources or I independently verify it, how are those different?

            • vonbaronhans
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I thought we were talking about trusting or not trusting the “central authority”? I think you’re thinking about trusting individual posters or not.

              • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Both. I don’t trust a central authority to make judgments on who to or not to trust on social media and I don’t trust individuals who post anything other then shallow opinions. If I make some heavy claim online, I always post a source when possible.

                We’re already seeing how accentual authorizes are demonetizing posts for using words that advertisers don’t like. I saw a discussion on the nazi imagery used for villains in a certain show get autobanned for promoting hate speech.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      It takes too much time and resources. A lie runs halfway around the world before the truth laces up it’s shoes.

      Manipulators and liars need to be stopped by a higher authority. I’m fine with that authority being civil liability, the criminal justice system obviously sucks at it. Let’s get serious and stop letting this stochastic terrorism go unpunished.

      Lose your dad to Fox News conspiracies? Should be able to sue Fox News for child support. Lose your husband to a mass shooting caused by some deranged Trumper that thinks Paul Pelosi is coming to take our guns? Should be able to sue trump personally for wrongful death. It’s not like Fox and Trump don’t know what the consequences are.

      Let juries be the arbiters.

      This problem isn’t going to be solved without financial liability or violence.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Well yeah that’s a problem of course but that doesn’t negate the reasoning I stated in other areas of this thread.

      I’m not promoting trust in a central authority or government here that’s a separate problem that exists on an entirely different plane.

      Yes you who probably has some amount of critical thinking skills can do that. The majority of young generational individuals today, cannot. Which largely negates the “well they should get gud” argument. It’s a systematic problem, you can’t solve systematic problems that way…

      I’m not going to repeat myself though, my last paragraph in the previous message is a fairly succinct tldr. This is a principal that’s been applied and works across industries, and is critically important for building “safe systems”

      Safe systems being systems that are designed to be operated and interacted with safely. There is a practical infinite number of safe systems that you can find examples of to further drive my point home. We can design systems that provide safety from human behavior and failings, the largest obstacle is usually both the political aspect and the aspect of individuals who refuse to acknowledge that safe systems are important.