this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
245 points (92.7% liked)

Technology

59772 readers
3191 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

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?"

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lol if you think it's the young people who can't do critical thinking, I'd like you to take a look at the Trump voter base.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

Sounds like you shouldn't trust those people then. We are in agreement.