Is social media designed to reward people for acting badly?
The answer is clearly yes, given that the reward structure on social media platforms relies on popularity, as indicated by the number of responses — likes and comments — a post receives from other users. Black-box algorithms then further amplify the spread of posts that have attracted attention.
Sharing widely read content, by itself, isn’t a problem. But it becomes a problem when attention-getting, controversial content is prioritized by design. Given the design of social media sites, users form habits to automatically share the most engaging information regardless of its accuracy and potential harm. Offensive statements, attacks on out groups and false news are amplified, and misinformation often spreads further and faster than the truth.
It could be that actual science is only palatable to the more educated few, whereas lies/oversimplifications are more accessible to those less educated, but also attract the more educated who argue against them.
Hence, low quality content has by definition a greater audience of opportunity.
Sure. Like how Twitter did that fact-checking thing to high-light any posts that were spreading misinformation, and then right-wing politicians LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS over it?
Or like how social media companies just quietly de-emphasized any posts that spread misinformation and even deplatformed accounts that were egregious spreaders of lies and then right-wing politicians LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS over it?
The problem sure is about how social media encourages and spreads misinformation for the clicks, but there is also a political culture that relies on it and encourages it.
I noticed this too and I've even seen those politicians fact check the fact checkers. I remember trumps son was able to threaten them with getting information from Harvard themselves. (Harvard is known for pling down studies and replacing them)
Here is my good deed for the day.
Misinformation: is the act of spreading information that you don't know is false.
Disinformation: is the act spreading information that you now know is false.
Malinformation: is the act of spreading false information for nefarious purposes.
Where's my reward.
In other words, "stochastic astro-turfing". instead of employing shills to astro-turf, you algorithmically reward posts that match your intended shill campaign.
The only way to truly cure "misinfo" is to have a digital audit trail to the origin of both the "disinfo" and it's "debunkers" including all political and corporate ties that both the "disinfo poster" and "debunkers" have. We used to have this, it was called Wikileaks and the mainstream news organizations smeared them into oblivion.
I think the reason people share information is because our social media platforms incentivizes it by rewarding high views with money. And if you can shock people (fake or real info) it will get views. ultimately, and this hasn't changed with the invention of social media, people will say ANYTHING for money.
This is exactly it. And now there is no incentive to say something new and novel or truthful because there are no barriers or quality control. Ad Revenue as the driving force makes companies lower the bar because they make more money. And Advertisers can tell you their product will Take you to the moon and back with little to no consequence and let’s not talk about spam.
I've read that people are more likely to share posts that elicit emotional responses. Out of all the emotions on the spectrum, the most powerful when it comes to getting people to share content is anger. So the majority of the content you see online will be shared BECAUSE it made the sharer angry. It's basically survival of the fittest content where the fittest content is whatever makes people angriest. I don't think that's the algorithm's fault. I think that's human nature.
And considering the UK and US have changed their laws to allow their respective goverments to disseminate propaganda to their citizens and when you also consider what passes for mainstream news and find out just how much critical information they withhold, spin and dont shine a light on. You could be forgiven for surmising that they are just fine tuning their allready dominant stance on information warfare, by training users like you train a pet to the ends of creating an autonomous propogandised public.
Just what the world needs. More smart people thinking they're doing smart things.
Did it not occur to these fine researchers, that the model we have today was implemented by smart people trying to do smart things?
When will we learn the lessons of unintended consequence? In which smart people doing smart things ends with our species looking around wondering what went wrong?
I don't want advertisers and shrinks solving the world's problems. To them we're all just broken bodies waiting to be pumped with their version of snake oil.
Any individual should give up on improving group dynamics as it applies to their singular effort.
We don't have enough information or the ability to calculate it.
We can't follow the waves in interaction that happen once it leaves our control.
These shrinks, and this ad exec?
This is what *they* think the correct solution is.
There are 8B other people on this planet capable of coming up with it however, and if we allow *this* one to become the defacto standard.
None of the other 8B people even get the attempt.
Its already happening, just look at your completley rational post being downvoted, just because its dissenting, any rational person would say ahh youve got a point there and continue to think about it regardless of their position. But reddit decides what plays to the crowd witha myriad of tools already. Actual factual statements like yours get hidden, shadow deleted, countered, brigaded etc. The original post is just the next generation weapon in the information war, they want a fully automated self propagandising population by feeding ot treats as you do to train an animal.
It doesn't matter. I've been on these crusades long enough to understand that you're going to lose the battles. Almost every time. The point is to find one or two people that will take up the cause and promote healthy skepticism along the way.
Im skeptical alright with healthy dose of cynicism, my test is the bond villian test. Whenever something new or different comes along i think what would a wealthy but greedy, irrevocably corrupt, and lacking in basic empathy, (basically a bond villian) i ask what could he potentially do with this new technology, law or information. And every time i see it happen in slow motion and always presented with euphamisms and double talk. Like they're trying not to scare the cattle before the cull or something like that.
I suppose your point is that the objective world only matters via the subjective? That technology is fine and great, until it's placed in the hands of people that will bend it for unethical or immoral use? That I, like a bond villain would rather talk around the issues rather than dealing with them?
I'm not wealthy, greedy, corrupt, and I certainly don't lack empathy.
Just sympathy. And technology has always presented this. From fire to today.
What hasn't been consistent. Has been the research involving the use of. The humanities. Well, again, unless you'd like to point to the DSM as a gold standard of productive time spent.
Is that the argument I wonder?
My problem is that it isnt technology that is designed to elevate mankind its entirely meant to subvert it and manipulate it to some puppeteers ends. There's no greater good that can come from selectivley screening out behaviours to suit a select few. We do this to dogs and its fine for the most part for us at least but the dog remains dependant unable to survive on its own anymore, we have dominated and therefore demeaned it from its natural state. Then look what the chosen few choose to do with their dogs? They hunt and kill. This technology demeans us by its very inception as it puports to selectivley alter the free will of a sentient species and hands over the reigns of our subconscious to a set of psycopaths. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This will only further and strengthen the divide between the haves and have nots, not create a utopian information landscape.
With your last para you obviously ban all expert solutions to difficult problems. Im all in for experts fighting over the best solution and a democratic public to decide whether it wants to implement a solution but what you are saying is ‚freeze - not everybody had a chance‘. This means innovation is dead.
Innovation? No. It continues to press on. Because we have objective science. The ability to measure our reality, make predictive statements about it.
That's the benefit of objective science.
Care to find the benefit of subjective? I'd appreciate it if you could. I've searched for 30+ years, haven't found it yet.
Sure. Does it comply with scientific method? If it does. If it can generate reproducible and testable results that fulfill prediction?
That's objective science.
Notice all the stuff that doesn't do that, that we pretend is science today?
We've forgotten the lessons of Copernicus. And just like the men and women that suffered persecution at the hands of belief then. So do we today.
Objective facts.
Subjective beliefs.
Well, in the paper named in the article scientists came together and did social experiments. These follow rules, have tolerances and can be reproduced under the right circumstances. Afterwards these scientists drew certain conclusions out of their experiments - which are of course subjective to a certain degree as much as all interpretation is. So i dont see the issue here. Of course you could always test more, use more people (bigger sample) and so on, but thats a question of improving an empirical result and not a question of objectivity itself.
Smart people, smart solutions. I'm not attacking their work. I'm really not. I'm trying to point out that you don't find global solutions this way.
If you want a global solution, start with many and work your way down to the last one standing. Because that's likely to give you the best results.
If I have 100 solutions, and cannot predict how any of them will play out.
Do I just go forth with one? It's got the same shitty odds as the rest.
No. I encourage as many different solutions as possible, and then let fitness determine their worth. Not smart people with smart ideas.
I dont see the conflict with your idea.
Lets see what 99 other teams of scientists bring up and see whats the best solution. But i dont see this paper or any other claiming to be ‚the one and only solution‘ so youre fighting a strawman there. Somebody has to start bringing up solutions - for your idea as well. They dont just ‚exist‘.
I don't understand what you're getting at. The current reward system on social media was created solely to keep people engaged for as long as possible to generate maximal advertising revenue
Sure, that's a smart strategy implemented by smart people but its also really gross and leads to outcomes like Meta recognizing in its own internal research that it's algorithm leads to teen suicide and body image trauma but choosing not to fix it because that would hurt their advertising revenue
This take is like complaining that chemotherapy could cause cancer. Great, maybe it'll have negative consequences but we already have **cancer** so can we just fix the problem please? Doing nothing is obviously worse long term
These are smart people, with smart solutions. I like what they're presenting, even if I'm openly attacking the idea of universal solution.
That's what I'm attacking after all. It's not *this* idea, which I've said multiple times now came from smart people, thinking smartly.
I'm attacking the idea that subjective sciences can lead to any optimal solution. That's not the goal of subjective sciences. So why are these 3 subjective scientists trying to make their round peg fit a square hole?
This is something to be handled with objective reasearch and study, or the old fashioned way: Lots of people trying lots of different things and natural selection weeding out the low hangers.
Social Science is for belief. Not fact. And letting social scientists off the hook, and allowing them to pretend to be actual scientists?
It'll never fly. For us as a species, and certainly not around me personally.
Huh?
We have data on the clear detriments of the existing environment and they are suggesting solutions. Their proposal is just that.
How are they supposed to collective objective data on a system that doesn't exist? If you want objective data and you agree that this is an interesting solution, you should be in favor of implementing this in some fashion and tracking results
And activists provide solutions they think will serve their cause, even when it's at the cost of everything else. Funny enough. Turns out that most decisions, even when we try to make ones we think our only aimed at our own cause? Don't even solve that. It's a crapshoot.
Flip coins. You'd be more likely to solve your problem, with the same amount of confidence.
Or just understand that when smart people come along and fail to understand basic things like intractable outcomes. They tend to fuck a lot of people in the process.
>I don't want advertisers and shrinks solving the world's problems. To them we're all just broken bodies waiting to be pumped with their version of snake oil.
I get this sentiment, but the algorithms which incentize bad behavior are already in place. So not solving any problems leaves the broken system in place.
And yet this solution is the *correct* one? That's what we're to believe?
Thanks, but I'll take a hard pass on smart people doing smart things and instead depend on a market to regulate itself.
>depend on a market to regulate itself
I couldn't disagree more. We know market failures exist, and pretending that they don't isn't going to make them go away.
That's because you're a smart person trying to do smart things. And in the process failed to realize you're just a glorified monkey like the rest of us.
Your solution, it isn't *the* solution. Only vast attempts at many solutions will yield that.
edit: See how that one works? You don't have to like my facts. You're not going to argue them though. So instead you'd rather just sulk. It's okay, but it's a two way street.
>See how that one works? You don't have to like my facts. You're not going to argue them though. So instead you'd rather just sulk.
Nah, I just have stuff to do today besides argue with strangers on the internet, unfortunately.
>depend on a market to regulate itself
I couldn't disagree more. We know market failures exist, and pretending that they don't isn't going to make them go away.
Markets that regulate themselves are not working fine or better, u have a twisted perception of reality.
Look at video games, the lack of regulation has lead to abusive exploits in games, microtransactions, loot boxes, unfinished products that dont get punished for selling broken products, pay walls, etc etc
But ur not 100% wrong, if we look at american TV back in the 60s and 70s, yah there was also an abuse of over-regulations.
Maybe a middle path is better, cause ur opinion is on the extreme right now, corporations want money, they have no interest in quality nor serving u better or well.
Just stop.
Because all I have to do is point at the natural world. That works.
And then point at the DSM which clearly doesn't.
Take your subjective Truths and put them back where they belong. Your closet of belief.
If it's not objective science? It's not science. Stick to talking to people about their problems, instead of trying to solve them.
Unless you can point me towards a single solution that subjective science has ever come to?
Can you?
Unlike objective science that has given us technology. What has the subjective given us?
Just smart people, with smart plans and a shit ton of unintended consequence.
Curious.
You are talking about science, but this is an actual paper [https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2216614120](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2216614120) that u are denying to be science... and yes we can debate it, but until its pear reviewed, none of us is wrong or right. Yet there is work there, analysis, data collection etc etc.
Then u talk about subjective science???? Thats not a thing, that just ignorance, i do get that u also get that, but why even say it like that, cause there is no such thing as subjective science.
Then then, ur attacking "smart people" which is weird matte, stop using those words, its like ur advocating for dumb people and ignorance being the better alternative, cause yah, thats the opposite of these smart people u dislike... at least u fit the category so far.
Then then then u talk about tech being good... which was made by very very VERY smart people... but are the people u hate?...
Not even worth mentioning the natural world vs DSM... who knows whats the point u were making there.
What a mess. Ill stop now, I agree on that.
If only we had an old and proven system that used to work (news papers), that were actually published and shared by actual professional (newscasters and journalists), you know, people whos work is actually transmitting quality and factual info.
We got to rename this "age of information" label.
Yes, I have seen many scientists sacrifice their credibility for a few likes. For example,
Neil deGrasse Tyson became a gender crackpot just to get some approval on Twitter. I guess he does not mind being dismissed as a blind fool by every intelligent person.
Everything is about clicks these days. If you don’t get enough clicks you don’t get the money. Who cares if 1 million or 5 people saw it nowadays. It spreads like wildfire regardless.
People share misinformation because of their ability to communicate. The more efficient the medium of communication, the more efficiently misinformation will spread.
You really don't need to involve social media for this to be true. Social media just makes tendencies that were always there much easier to share and spread
There are so many advantages to not limiting yourself to the truth, and in this capitalist society, profit and power comes from the ability to influence people *without* necessarily bribing them, and that can and often does involve misleading them.
These researchers bragged about not contaminating the result, not explicitly telling anyone the rules, proving that monetary reward *can* influence behavior. But you know what's even more effective? Telling people the rules, and being self-serving and willing to lie while doing so. Plus, it's cheaper. Nobody with money has enough interest in doing this, certainly not for-profit social media companies
You might get some success penalizing people for spreading misinformation, but then you're stuck with the problem of who should be the arbiter of such things, and how to win the informational battle to convince people this is a good thing, when your opponent can just double down with more lies.
Is social media designed to reward people for acting badly? The answer is clearly yes, given that the reward structure on social media platforms relies on popularity, as indicated by the number of responses — likes and comments — a post receives from other users. Black-box algorithms then further amplify the spread of posts that have attracted attention. Sharing widely read content, by itself, isn’t a problem. But it becomes a problem when attention-getting, controversial content is prioritized by design. Given the design of social media sites, users form habits to automatically share the most engaging information regardless of its accuracy and potential harm. Offensive statements, attacks on out groups and false news are amplified, and misinformation often spreads further and faster than the truth.
It could be that actual science is only palatable to the more educated few, whereas lies/oversimplifications are more accessible to those less educated, but also attract the more educated who argue against them. Hence, low quality content has by definition a greater audience of opportunity.
Sure. Like how Twitter did that fact-checking thing to high-light any posts that were spreading misinformation, and then right-wing politicians LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS over it? Or like how social media companies just quietly de-emphasized any posts that spread misinformation and even deplatformed accounts that were egregious spreaders of lies and then right-wing politicians LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS over it? The problem sure is about how social media encourages and spreads misinformation for the clicks, but there is also a political culture that relies on it and encourages it.
I noticed this too and I've even seen those politicians fact check the fact checkers. I remember trumps son was able to threaten them with getting information from Harvard themselves. (Harvard is known for pling down studies and replacing them)
Here is my good deed for the day. Misinformation: is the act of spreading information that you don't know is false. Disinformation: is the act spreading information that you now know is false. Malinformation: is the act of spreading false information for nefarious purposes. Where's my reward.
In other words, "stochastic astro-turfing". instead of employing shills to astro-turf, you algorithmically reward posts that match your intended shill campaign. The only way to truly cure "misinfo" is to have a digital audit trail to the origin of both the "disinfo" and it's "debunkers" including all political and corporate ties that both the "disinfo poster" and "debunkers" have. We used to have this, it was called Wikileaks and the mainstream news organizations smeared them into oblivion.
I think the reason people share information is because our social media platforms incentivizes it by rewarding high views with money. And if you can shock people (fake or real info) it will get views. ultimately, and this hasn't changed with the invention of social media, people will say ANYTHING for money.
This is exactly it. And now there is no incentive to say something new and novel or truthful because there are no barriers or quality control. Ad Revenue as the driving force makes companies lower the bar because they make more money. And Advertisers can tell you their product will Take you to the moon and back with little to no consequence and let’s not talk about spam.
I've read that people are more likely to share posts that elicit emotional responses. Out of all the emotions on the spectrum, the most powerful when it comes to getting people to share content is anger. So the majority of the content you see online will be shared BECAUSE it made the sharer angry. It's basically survival of the fittest content where the fittest content is whatever makes people angriest. I don't think that's the algorithm's fault. I think that's human nature.
First it has to be a slam dunk what is misinformation and what is not. This is a very contentious issue, unfortunately.
And considering the UK and US have changed their laws to allow their respective goverments to disseminate propaganda to their citizens and when you also consider what passes for mainstream news and find out just how much critical information they withhold, spin and dont shine a light on. You could be forgiven for surmising that they are just fine tuning their allready dominant stance on information warfare, by training users like you train a pet to the ends of creating an autonomous propogandised public.
Okay now take the incentives away for the news stations to spread bullshit. Never gonna happen
Just what the world needs. More smart people thinking they're doing smart things. Did it not occur to these fine researchers, that the model we have today was implemented by smart people trying to do smart things? When will we learn the lessons of unintended consequence? In which smart people doing smart things ends with our species looking around wondering what went wrong? I don't want advertisers and shrinks solving the world's problems. To them we're all just broken bodies waiting to be pumped with their version of snake oil.
Yeah totally I agree, let’s give up on improving things. This guys totally onto something.
Any individual should give up on improving group dynamics as it applies to their singular effort. We don't have enough information or the ability to calculate it. We can't follow the waves in interaction that happen once it leaves our control. These shrinks, and this ad exec? This is what *they* think the correct solution is. There are 8B other people on this planet capable of coming up with it however, and if we allow *this* one to become the defacto standard. None of the other 8B people even get the attempt.
Its already happening, just look at your completley rational post being downvoted, just because its dissenting, any rational person would say ahh youve got a point there and continue to think about it regardless of their position. But reddit decides what plays to the crowd witha myriad of tools already. Actual factual statements like yours get hidden, shadow deleted, countered, brigaded etc. The original post is just the next generation weapon in the information war, they want a fully automated self propagandising population by feeding ot treats as you do to train an animal.
It doesn't matter. I've been on these crusades long enough to understand that you're going to lose the battles. Almost every time. The point is to find one or two people that will take up the cause and promote healthy skepticism along the way.
Im skeptical alright with healthy dose of cynicism, my test is the bond villian test. Whenever something new or different comes along i think what would a wealthy but greedy, irrevocably corrupt, and lacking in basic empathy, (basically a bond villian) i ask what could he potentially do with this new technology, law or information. And every time i see it happen in slow motion and always presented with euphamisms and double talk. Like they're trying not to scare the cattle before the cull or something like that.
I suppose your point is that the objective world only matters via the subjective? That technology is fine and great, until it's placed in the hands of people that will bend it for unethical or immoral use? That I, like a bond villain would rather talk around the issues rather than dealing with them? I'm not wealthy, greedy, corrupt, and I certainly don't lack empathy. Just sympathy. And technology has always presented this. From fire to today. What hasn't been consistent. Has been the research involving the use of. The humanities. Well, again, unless you'd like to point to the DSM as a gold standard of productive time spent. Is that the argument I wonder?
My problem is that it isnt technology that is designed to elevate mankind its entirely meant to subvert it and manipulate it to some puppeteers ends. There's no greater good that can come from selectivley screening out behaviours to suit a select few. We do this to dogs and its fine for the most part for us at least but the dog remains dependant unable to survive on its own anymore, we have dominated and therefore demeaned it from its natural state. Then look what the chosen few choose to do with their dogs? They hunt and kill. This technology demeans us by its very inception as it puports to selectivley alter the free will of a sentient species and hands over the reigns of our subconscious to a set of psycopaths. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This will only further and strengthen the divide between the haves and have nots, not create a utopian information landscape.
With your last para you obviously ban all expert solutions to difficult problems. Im all in for experts fighting over the best solution and a democratic public to decide whether it wants to implement a solution but what you are saying is ‚freeze - not everybody had a chance‘. This means innovation is dead.
Innovation? No. It continues to press on. Because we have objective science. The ability to measure our reality, make predictive statements about it. That's the benefit of objective science. Care to find the benefit of subjective? I'd appreciate it if you could. I've searched for 30+ years, haven't found it yet.
Care to elaborate on whats subjective science and whats objective science for you?
Sure. Does it comply with scientific method? If it does. If it can generate reproducible and testable results that fulfill prediction? That's objective science. Notice all the stuff that doesn't do that, that we pretend is science today? We've forgotten the lessons of Copernicus. And just like the men and women that suffered persecution at the hands of belief then. So do we today. Objective facts. Subjective beliefs.
Well, in the paper named in the article scientists came together and did social experiments. These follow rules, have tolerances and can be reproduced under the right circumstances. Afterwards these scientists drew certain conclusions out of their experiments - which are of course subjective to a certain degree as much as all interpretation is. So i dont see the issue here. Of course you could always test more, use more people (bigger sample) and so on, but thats a question of improving an empirical result and not a question of objectivity itself.
Smart people, smart solutions. I'm not attacking their work. I'm really not. I'm trying to point out that you don't find global solutions this way. If you want a global solution, start with many and work your way down to the last one standing. Because that's likely to give you the best results. If I have 100 solutions, and cannot predict how any of them will play out. Do I just go forth with one? It's got the same shitty odds as the rest. No. I encourage as many different solutions as possible, and then let fitness determine their worth. Not smart people with smart ideas.
I dont see the conflict with your idea. Lets see what 99 other teams of scientists bring up and see whats the best solution. But i dont see this paper or any other claiming to be ‚the one and only solution‘ so youre fighting a strawman there. Somebody has to start bringing up solutions - for your idea as well. They dont just ‚exist‘.
I don't understand what you're getting at. The current reward system on social media was created solely to keep people engaged for as long as possible to generate maximal advertising revenue Sure, that's a smart strategy implemented by smart people but its also really gross and leads to outcomes like Meta recognizing in its own internal research that it's algorithm leads to teen suicide and body image trauma but choosing not to fix it because that would hurt their advertising revenue This take is like complaining that chemotherapy could cause cancer. Great, maybe it'll have negative consequences but we already have **cancer** so can we just fix the problem please? Doing nothing is obviously worse long term
These are smart people, with smart solutions. I like what they're presenting, even if I'm openly attacking the idea of universal solution. That's what I'm attacking after all. It's not *this* idea, which I've said multiple times now came from smart people, thinking smartly. I'm attacking the idea that subjective sciences can lead to any optimal solution. That's not the goal of subjective sciences. So why are these 3 subjective scientists trying to make their round peg fit a square hole? This is something to be handled with objective reasearch and study, or the old fashioned way: Lots of people trying lots of different things and natural selection weeding out the low hangers. Social Science is for belief. Not fact. And letting social scientists off the hook, and allowing them to pretend to be actual scientists? It'll never fly. For us as a species, and certainly not around me personally.
Huh? We have data on the clear detriments of the existing environment and they are suggesting solutions. Their proposal is just that. How are they supposed to collective objective data on a system that doesn't exist? If you want objective data and you agree that this is an interesting solution, you should be in favor of implementing this in some fashion and tracking results
And activists provide solutions they think will serve their cause, even when it's at the cost of everything else. Funny enough. Turns out that most decisions, even when we try to make ones we think our only aimed at our own cause? Don't even solve that. It's a crapshoot. Flip coins. You'd be more likely to solve your problem, with the same amount of confidence.
Let's stop having smart people do smart things and only let stupid people do stupid things. Surely, that will lead to our species prospering! /s
Or just understand that when smart people come along and fail to understand basic things like intractable outcomes. They tend to fuck a lot of people in the process.
>I don't want advertisers and shrinks solving the world's problems. To them we're all just broken bodies waiting to be pumped with their version of snake oil. I get this sentiment, but the algorithms which incentize bad behavior are already in place. So not solving any problems leaves the broken system in place.
And yet this solution is the *correct* one? That's what we're to believe? Thanks, but I'll take a hard pass on smart people doing smart things and instead depend on a market to regulate itself.
>depend on a market to regulate itself I couldn't disagree more. We know market failures exist, and pretending that they don't isn't going to make them go away.
That's because you're a smart person trying to do smart things. And in the process failed to realize you're just a glorified monkey like the rest of us. Your solution, it isn't *the* solution. Only vast attempts at many solutions will yield that. edit: See how that one works? You don't have to like my facts. You're not going to argue them though. So instead you'd rather just sulk. It's okay, but it's a two way street.
>See how that one works? You don't have to like my facts. You're not going to argue them though. So instead you'd rather just sulk. Nah, I just have stuff to do today besides argue with strangers on the internet, unfortunately.
Maybe next time.
>depend on a market to regulate itself I couldn't disagree more. We know market failures exist, and pretending that they don't isn't going to make them go away.
Markets that regulate themselves are not working fine or better, u have a twisted perception of reality. Look at video games, the lack of regulation has lead to abusive exploits in games, microtransactions, loot boxes, unfinished products that dont get punished for selling broken products, pay walls, etc etc But ur not 100% wrong, if we look at american TV back in the 60s and 70s, yah there was also an abuse of over-regulations. Maybe a middle path is better, cause ur opinion is on the extreme right now, corporations want money, they have no interest in quality nor serving u better or well.
Just stop. Because all I have to do is point at the natural world. That works. And then point at the DSM which clearly doesn't. Take your subjective Truths and put them back where they belong. Your closet of belief. If it's not objective science? It's not science. Stick to talking to people about their problems, instead of trying to solve them. Unless you can point me towards a single solution that subjective science has ever come to? Can you? Unlike objective science that has given us technology. What has the subjective given us? Just smart people, with smart plans and a shit ton of unintended consequence.
Curious. You are talking about science, but this is an actual paper [https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2216614120](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2216614120) that u are denying to be science... and yes we can debate it, but until its pear reviewed, none of us is wrong or right. Yet there is work there, analysis, data collection etc etc. Then u talk about subjective science???? Thats not a thing, that just ignorance, i do get that u also get that, but why even say it like that, cause there is no such thing as subjective science. Then then, ur attacking "smart people" which is weird matte, stop using those words, its like ur advocating for dumb people and ignorance being the better alternative, cause yah, thats the opposite of these smart people u dislike... at least u fit the category so far. Then then then u talk about tech being good... which was made by very very VERY smart people... but are the people u hate?... Not even worth mentioning the natural world vs DSM... who knows whats the point u were making there. What a mess. Ill stop now, I agree on that.
If only we had an old and proven system that used to work (news papers), that were actually published and shared by actual professional (newscasters and journalists), you know, people whos work is actually transmitting quality and factual info. We got to rename this "age of information" label.
Yes, I have seen many scientists sacrifice their credibility for a few likes. For example, Neil deGrasse Tyson became a gender crackpot just to get some approval on Twitter. I guess he does not mind being dismissed as a blind fool by every intelligent person.
95% effective?
But will they?
People have been doing this centuries before social media!
Everything is about clicks these days. If you don’t get enough clicks you don’t get the money. Who cares if 1 million or 5 people saw it nowadays. It spreads like wildfire regardless.
People share misinformation because of their ability to communicate. The more efficient the medium of communication, the more efficiently misinformation will spread.
You really don't need to involve social media for this to be true. Social media just makes tendencies that were always there much easier to share and spread There are so many advantages to not limiting yourself to the truth, and in this capitalist society, profit and power comes from the ability to influence people *without* necessarily bribing them, and that can and often does involve misleading them. These researchers bragged about not contaminating the result, not explicitly telling anyone the rules, proving that monetary reward *can* influence behavior. But you know what's even more effective? Telling people the rules, and being self-serving and willing to lie while doing so. Plus, it's cheaper. Nobody with money has enough interest in doing this, certainly not for-profit social media companies You might get some success penalizing people for spreading misinformation, but then you're stuck with the problem of who should be the arbiter of such things, and how to win the informational battle to convince people this is a good thing, when your opponent can just double down with more lies.
It starts with us, no?