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.
> 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?
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.
"Arbiters of truth" goes too far. They ought not be, whether through public consideration or by market force, the sole determiners of fact or fiction. The article stresses that journalism has a place in that process, after all. But it's clear that Facebook and Twitter could be doing more than they are. They essentially outsource abuse of their platforms to external parties, and don't seem to be doing any strategizing on how to predict and prevent such abuses.
There is a place in this discussion for granular analysis of what is abuse and what isn't -- edge cases, grey areas -- but we're not there yet. We're still working on preventing nation states from wholesale hijacking of platforms to spread propaganda. Let's get closer to solving that point before we we discuss adding friction to the slippery slope.
> Do we want the current status quo, where misinformation runs rampant, filling eyeballs of people who don't know better with utterly fake news?
Do we want freedom of speech, and an even playing field for freedom of expression between common people and media conglomerates? Because that's what those look like, for better or worse.
Common people and media conglomerates are going to have an increasingly hard time getting heard over corporate astroturfing and foreign intelligence services.
"Fake news" is simply an excuse for introducing government control of media, which leads to political censorship. Otherwise government would not care about it more than average citizen do.
Sure, but back in reality it's literal fake stories spread to a susceptible portion of the population by national or foreign interests to confirm their biases and influence their decisions.
You can find numerous examples of this under the lists of Reddit accounts banned for this exact thing.
> If your arguments lose to fake news, then you should get better arguements.
It’s not arguments vs fake news, it’s real news vs fake news. And that’s the difference between real news and fake news—if you don’t like your fake news, you can get new fake news, again and again and again, until you end up with a lie so beautiful it makes your heart sing. But you can’t get new real news, this is the only reality there is, no matter how ugly it is. But it’s still harsh reality, instead of a beautiful lie.
In lieu of them removing obviously false remarks and hate speech, are you comfortable with them being removed from the marketplace via government intervention?
While the current administration won't step in, I fully expect future administrations will - you cannot run a tool that enables foreign meddling in elections and not expect regulatory antibodies.
Please don't ask such questions. Parent comment already has positive score, but your comment remains. There is actually a rule saying you should't do this on https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments".
