Hacker News Reader

Comment by andonisus | Hacker News Reader

I firmly believe it is the individual's responsibility to determine the veracity of the information they consume, to the best of their ability. If the platform of information isn't Facebook, it's some other medium of communication. Why should Facebook be responsible for the content its users post, assuming the content is legal? Then again, some will argue that we should make "Fake News", "Inflammatory Opinions", and "Hate Speech" illegal, but I do not believe any governments should be interested in policing the speech of its peoples. I say this as an American, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

View on HN

It's also the individual's responsibility not to ruin their lives with drugs, or develop heart disease due to poor diet and exercise. People on average have poor impulse control for anything that's even a little addictive.

I'm not suggesting that regulation is the answer here, or always the answer. But, the case of moral blame is not the same as describing the problems of large portions of the population. So what if we all agree it's the individual's fault that obesity has been on the rise for decades? Does the blame here modify the severity of the problem, or prescribe an outcome? How useful is moral blame really, when it comes to societal problem?

What good does blame serve? If there is only moral blame -- as opposed to legal blame -- then the only recourse is at the individual level. Accordingly, I no longer use Facebook (or Instagram).

When it is a matter solely for the individual, that's fine.

If an "article" claims that exercise and vegetables are bad for you and that Brawndo is nutritionally complete, then it's tough luck for the idiot who chooses their lifestyle based on that post.

On the other hand, when the "Dey Turk Er Jurbs" crowd are persuaded to get the (metaphorical or literal) pitchforks out, then the tough luck falls on other people, regardless of the commitment to truth that those unlucky people have.

It is not my responsibility or even within my power to determine the veracity of what other people read, but other people can make decisions based on misleading content that have a negative effect on my life.

It is a tricky question, how to deal with "bad" content without putting too much power to define "bad" into the hands of either a nefarious or an incompetent actor who could make the problem worse. But you're just shrugging and blaming those who have been lied to for not spotting the lie.

Turns out determining what’s true or not is hard. Hence why journalism and investigations are needed in the first place.

That presumes journalists seek neutrality; which is not quite the case. Not even talking implicit bias, but world view.

It's not actually journalists per se that are the problem. They are the data collectors after all.

You still have a source of coercive influence making the act of journalism possible. Editor's want a spin, networks want truth massaged to optimize viewer metrics, to keep the financials healthy, so on and so forth.

Truth/neutrality is not highly incentivized in our current social structure.

Sorry. I just don't have time to independently verify the veracity of everything I read, hence why I put my faith in people like The Guardian. It's like suggesting that instead of verifying SSL certs against a CA, I should like each cert fingerprint up in a phonebook to see if it matches.

This is why I also said "to this best of their ability". This includes such methods as relying on a trusted source.

Fair enough!

It's also the individual's ultimate responsibility to feed themselves and find shelter and healthcare. But lots of societies believe that, acting through government, they should provides a safety net.

(I know in some parts of the world that's a controversial statement.)

Why shouldn't society work for the benefit of the more vulnerable? Whether it's those unable to provide their own healthcare or able to verify their own facts (for example, in situations where Facebook is literally the only access to corroborating information)?

I think the issue at hand is different because it's a question of censorship. You'd be infringing on the liberties of others and a central authority would be deciding what's ok and what's not.

You could make the argument for whether or not Facebook should be that authority but the analogy of government providing a safety net does not hold up.

Different governments work in different ways. The political process isn't perfect everywhere (or anywhere) but they can be diverse.

Facebook _is_ censoring and editorializing, full stop. Should societies not even attempt to fight back?

And you are infringing on the liberties of others when collecting taxes to distribute as food stamps.

"Never infringe on liberties" is not a workable plan. The question is when those infringements are worth it.

People will seek confirmation more than truth, even journalists. But I think the main problem here with Facebook et al is “virus-like” propagation.

The platform is optimized for engagement and thus “virality” rather than “organic” spread and diffusion.

If anti-vaxx sentiments remained in its tiny circle and didn’t spread beyond, that would be good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com