Is Facebook Fixable

A Review of An Ugly Truth

73 3

Comments

You need to login before you can comment.
Don't have an account? Sign up!
@victor_2687 almost 4 years ago

Judging by the arguments you've highlighted, it seems to me authors of this book were looking for a fancy way to compel Facebook into further full-scale censorship of what people post.

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

When you moderate people's posts, you're essentially taking their freedom of speech away. You're knowingly or unknowingly creating a centralised system where stories, opinions, and information that doesn't suit the narrative of those who pay the moderators won't see the light of day.

We've seen this already.

On one end are practicing doctors, sharing their experiences and recommendations for fighting what they consider regular symptoms 'declared as a pandemic.' And on the other hand are 'experts,' exalted scientists, and business men who think what they say should be taken hook, line, and sinker (without question) because they are whatever they claim to be.

Today, one group is censored. The other can say whatever they like, even when they are not necessarily doctors. Even if what they recommended lacks any atom of common sense, let alone evidence-based science.

All possible because of moderation.

But all of these only touch on the symptoms and not the root causes. If I were these authors, I'll worry more about the root causes of these.

Per my observation, here are just some of them.

The root cause is the death of personal responsibility - people can post or say what they like, accepting or rejecting what they say or post is your responsibility, not theirs.

It is the gradual death of individuality and conservatism in favor of group think - people have traded their dignity to identify with groups they have no idea of their underlying agenda.

It is because more than ever before, people are now outsourcing their common sense and their God-given thinking ability to 'experts' and 'celebrities' - just because someone with more money or followers says it or approves it doesn't mean it's right.

It is because we're happy to applaud grandiose exclamations without inquiring about the long-term costs.

I could go on and on.

As you rightly said, neither could churches nor the most religious institutions fix human beings behaviours.

So how these authors expect Facebook to do that? And to think they're subtly pushing for them to do this via more moderation is the equivalent of asking for something grandiose without examining the long-term costs.

Imagine there were moderators for this book. And those moderators were all under Facebook's payroll.

Do you think they would've approved its publication?

Questions!!!

@victor_2687 almost 4 years ago

Judging by the arguments you've highlighted, it seems to me authors of this book were looking for a fancy way to compel Facebook into further full-scale censorship of what people post.

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

When you moderate people's posts, you're essentially taking their freedom of speech away. You're knowingly or unknowingly creating a centralised system where stories, opinions, and information that doesn't suit the narrative of those who pay the moderators won't see the light of day.

We've seen this already.

On one end are practicing doctors, sharing their experiences and recommendations for fighting what they consider regular symptoms 'declared as a pandemic.' And on the other hand are 'experts,' exalted scientists, and business men who think what they say should be taken hook, line, and sinker (without question) because they are whatever they claim to be.

Today, one group is censored. The other can say whatever they like, even when they are not necessarily doctors. Even if what they recommended lacks any atom of common sense, let alone evidence-based science.

All possible because of moderation.

But all of these only touch on the symptoms and not the root causes. If I were these authors, I'll worry more about the root causes of these.

Per my observation, here are just some of them.

The root cause is the death of personal responsibility - people can post or say what they like, accepting or rejecting what they say or post is your responsibility, not theirs.

It is the gradual death of individuality and conservatism in favor of group think - people have traded their dignity to identify with groups they have no idea of their underlying agenda.

It is because more than ever before, people are now outsourcing their common sense and their God-given thinking ability to 'experts' and 'celebrities' - just because someone with more money or followers says it or approves it doesn't mean it's right.

It is because we're happy to applaud grandiose exclamations without inquiring about the long-term costs.

I could go on and on.

As you rightly said, neither could churches nor the most religious institutions fix human beings behaviours.

So how these authors expect Facebook to do that? And to think they're subtly pushing for them to do this via more moderation is the equivalent of asking for something grandiose without examining the long-term costs.

Imagine there were moderators for this book. And those moderators were all under Facebook's payroll.

Do you think they would've approved its publication?

Questions!!!

@victor_2687 almost 4 years ago

Judging by the arguments you've highlighted, it seems to me authors of this book were looking for a fancy way to compel Facebook into further full-scale censorship of what people post.

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

When you moderate people's posts, you're essentially taking their freedom of speech away. You're knowingly or unknowingly creating a centralised system where stories, opinions, and information that doesn't suit the narrative of those who pay the moderators won't see the light of day.

We've seen this already.

On one end are practicing doctors, sharing their experiences and recommendations for fighting what they consider regular symptoms 'declared as a pandemic.' And on the other hand are 'experts,' exalted scientists, and business men who think what they say should be taken hook, line, and sinker (without question) because they are whatever they claim to be.

Today, one group is censored. The other can say whatever they like, even when they are not necessarily doctors. Even if what they recommended lacks any atom of common sense, let alone evidence-based science.

All possible because of moderation.

But all of these only touch on the symptoms and not the root causes. If I were these authors, I'll worry more about the root causes of these.

Per my observation, here are just some of them.

The root cause is the death of personal responsibility - people can post or say what they like, accepting or rejecting what they say or post is your responsibility, not theirs.

It is the gradual death of individuality and conservatism in favor of group think - people have traded their dignity to identify with groups they have no idea of their underlying agenda.

It is because more than ever before, people are now outsourcing their common sense and their God-given thinking ability to 'experts' and 'celebrities' - just because someone with more money or followers says it or approves it doesn't mean it's right.

It is because we're happy to applaud grandiose exclamations without inquiring about the long-term costs.

I could go on and on.

As you rightly said, neither could churches nor the most religious institutions fix human beings behaviours.

So how these authors expect Facebook to do that? And to think they're subtly pushing for them to do this via more moderation is the equivalent of asking for something grandiose without examining the long-term costs.

Imagine there were moderators for this book. And those moderators were all under Facebook's payroll.

Do you think they would've approved its publication?

Questions!!!