You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Everything we do has an impact for the rest of our lives? Decision rules and decision trees
One problem with the Internet is that while it gives us access to a lot of information it does not necessarily filter for us information by quality.
This phrase has reminded me of something that I think Umberto Eco said about the fact that Social Networks on the Internet had given greater visibility and democratized a lot of idiots.
I do not believe that this author was absolutely against the Networks, but if I accept that with the "liberal economy of ideas" came a certain production and dissemination of opinions and ideas of very doubtful quality or reliability, that is what I think is refers when he calls idiots to those who generate these things and cause noises in the flow of knowledge...
Yet I don't talk down to the crowd. I think the design of the network and the incentives does not encourage wisdom. In other words the ignorance is not voluntary. If you wanted to not be an idiot but all of the Internet, its information flows, advertising, disinfo campaigns, encourage you to be an idiot, to become more ignorant over time, well then what else should society expect?
In other words the ignorance is being generated by the mechanism design. The problem isn't the outcome (ignorant people spewing bad ideas), the problem is why encourage ignorant idea propagation?
For example, is there any automated fact checking on any of the major social media platforms? No. They seem fine letting people be ignorant if it's favorable to their interests. You don't see fact checking yet you see posts censors for violating community standards? So they can pay for moderation, for censorship, but not for automated fact checking? Why give priority to one and not the other?
If or better yet, when I am ignorant, I want to discover the source of my ignorance. The source of my ignorance is low quality information. This problem of ignorance is similar to the problem of obesity, where people over time have to learn how to filter out bad foods, it's the same with bad information.
The problem is encouraged ignorance and involuntary ignorance. Sort of like the person who does not know how to read who gets blamed for not having access to books except the bible. If a person does not have access to books they will have a difficult time teaching themselves to read and even if they learn to read they will have a difficult time developing a large vocabulary if they only have one book.
Google gives access to the results of science. The problem is there is bad science out there. That is to say a lot of studies which look interesting but which cannot be replicated or haven't been replicated. A lot of studies on mice for example which never have been tried in humans, but this doesn't stop a supplement company from using the mouse model to sell the supplement as somehow possibly being beneficial to humans. The humans essentially are taking part in a trial by buying and using the supplement.
My point is, facts need to be checked, science papers have to be reviewed, logic has to be mapped, and there is no way around this. This is why I like Tauchain because at least you get the logic mapped so that completely contradictory ideas are identified. It still will not be enough because which facts are going to be the official facts? Some will be able to use Tau or any platform with any source of authority they choose and they could for example say only the facts which agree with their religious beliefs are the true facts. Automatic fact checking only would work if you all agree on the source of authority for what is or isn't true. If you believe God is true, and you believe the word of God is in the scripture, then why would you let some less true facts get in the way of ultimate truth? It's a question of how people prioritize facts as well.