Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the hello-operator dept.

Memory is notoriously fallible, but some experts worry that a new phenomenon is emerging. "Memories are shared among groups in novel ways through sites such as Facebook and Instagram, blurring the line between individual and collective memories," says psychologist Daniel Schacter, who studies memory at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "The development of Internet-based misinformation, such as recently well-publicized fake news sites, has the potential to distort individual and collective memories in disturbing ways."

How Facebook, Fake News and Friends Are Warping Your Memory


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:24AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:24AM (#481074)

    A democracy did the holocaust without this tech. What can this new advanced collective delusion accomplish? Perhaps something worse, or maybe many more things of smaller scale? Maybe ignoring global warming?

    These kinds of collective delusions are very dangerous. We need to be careful here.

    I recommend implementing reputation systems so we can easily be reminded of of past inaccuracies of our sources. And not FB's existing system, I mean a decentralized web of trust system where you can select multiple roots of trust yourself. Such a system would help, but we still need to be very careful even if we make such tools: we are up against likely the greatest weakness of human society.

    • (Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:41AM

      by anubi (2828) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:41AM (#481077)

      “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orwell, 1984.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:47AM (#481079)

      All this news is meaningless. You're going to get the AI apocalypse, or the bio apocalypse. That's the real two party system. Your choice is to pick one and help it along.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @08:04AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @08:04AM (#481084)

      Do what now? We have things called "institutions" that arose out of the muck as beacons of enlightenment. Unfortunately 1/2 the anglo populations of UK, USA (the bottom half in just about every metric) decided the institutions need to be torn down. Not coincidentally that's what the very greediest assholes in the world want too and have been broadcasting via low-quality propaganda for a couple of decades.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @09:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @09:14PM (#481259)

        That half would be the one which welcomes third-world savages with their no-joke actual 100% real rape culture.

        That half would be the one that thinks the Tower of Babel is a story with a happy ending.

        That half would be the "antifa" (anti first amendment) supporters, silencing Milo (a foreign-born Jewish gay with a black boyfriend) because he spreads an unapproved (conservative) message.

        As for "very greediest assholes", George Soros is hard to beat. That paragon of liberal virtue cost the UK billions of pounds, leading to the UK being a non-Euro country and ultimately choosing Brexit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday March 19 2017, @08:37AM (4 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19 2017, @08:37AM (#481087) Journal

      A democracy did the holocaust without this tech.

      Correction: A dictatorship that had replaced a democracy did the holocaust. And while it didn't do it with this tech, it certainly did it with tech: With radios, where they carefully made the radios so that only domestic stations could be received, together with legislation that listening to foreign radio stations was a serious crime. And of course, they also controlled the press.

      And the only thing that's new is the medium. People believed things because they were written in the newspaper. Or because they were on the radio. Or because they were on TV. And of course because their friends told them, either face-to-face or in letters. Now they believe it because they read it on facebook or on a news site. Where's the fundamental difference?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @10:48AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @10:48AM (#481097)

        Where's the fundamental difference?

        These days propaganda is personalized. The big spying machines of our time, facebook and google, know exactly what you like and dislike, your fears and hopes, basically anything at all that is worth knowing about you, and more. Using this incredible trove of highly intimate information they can and do hand craft your personal propaganda dose as they are sadly increasingly used to read news. This will dramatically increase its virulence.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:23PM (1 child)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:23PM (#481187) Journal

          Where's the fundamental difference?

          These days propaganda is personalized.

          Propaganda was always personalized. GP mentions things like newspapers and face-to-face conversations with friends and letters from them. But in a town of any size, you CHOSE which newspaper to buy, often based on the kind of "news" it sold you. You CHOSE who you friends were, based at least partly on their views. How many people a century or two ago do you seriously think made friends with people who kept trying to tell them stuff contrary to their fundamental views?

          People always clustered according to beliefs, and those beliefs were reinforced by communities of friends, by the preacher at their church, by the newspapers distributed within their community (it's always interesting to read, for example, about the history of immigrant newspapers/newsletters that emerged in the U.S. in the past, which frequently had their own spin on current events), and even by nationalist politics (in many parts of the world, people used to be charged with things like sedition somewhat regularly).

          And long before Facebook, Google, et al. started tailoring search results and newsfeeds so much, people on the internet were able to seek out highly personalized perspectives that accorded with their worldview. "Back in the day" that required you to perhaps subscribe to an extremist newsletter or something, but on the internet you could easily make contact with a community of like-minded folks for just about any crazy viewpoint.

          No, Facebook and Google may be different slightly in the degree of tailoring information, but what's different isn't the personalization. What's different is that the personalization is NOT transparent to the user. In the past, if you bought the Washington Post vs. the Washington Times, you KNEW you were likely getting a different perspective on the news. Maybe you still believed your side was "right" and the other was "wrong," but there was some sort of personal choice in the matter. Similarly, you could choose your friends -- if one of them was known for spouting nonsense occasionally, you could simply discount the source... and if it continued, maybe you wouldn't listen to or write letters to him anymore.

          The biggest difference with the new "filter bubble" reality isn't that your experience of the world is personalized -- it's that you have little control over HOW it's personalized and are often completely unaware of it. Of course, it would be antithetical to Facebook's business model to offer you such choices -- because it would make their algorithms clearer and make it easier to "game their system." They don't WANT you to know exactly how your feed is personalized, because they want to be able to give you ads based on what their stats tell them is best (and will make them the most money), not based on what you actively want to see.

          Personalization can be dangerous, but it's the growing lack of transparency around it that's the real shift. People are generally amenable to propaganda that accords with beliefs they already have, but the filter bubble removes any sense you may have about how your news may be filtered. For most folks who don't interrogate their news anyway, this change may not seem that significant -- but the danger of Facebook, etc. is that it makes propaganda much more effective even against skeptical people, who might be inclined at some point to seek out alternative viewpoints... but now they can't configure by choice or often even see the boundaries of their bubble.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:20PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:20PM (#481217)

            Welcome to history repeating itself. Sure, you get news and information from sources that reflect your beliefs, but what this ultimately comes down to is someone (company, etc) exploiting this for their own gain.
            http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/01/weaponized-narrative-new-battlespace/134284/ [defenseone.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:52PM (#481225)

        Where's the fundamental difference?

        Speed and scale.

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 19 2017, @11:19AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19 2017, @11:19AM (#481100) Homepage Journal

      Oy Vey! Dis iz anuddah Shoah!

      An anti-Semitic canard!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @10:15AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @10:15AM (#481093)

    Thanks facebook, thank you google.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @02:13PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @02:13PM (#481137)

      warped the US president electn

      Oh please. The two-faced uniparty of the USA put forth a choice between two rotten eggs, and you're mad at news agencies/other people/someone other than the responsible individuals that a rotten egg was elected as US president.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @08:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @08:09PM (#481731)

        Just what tools do you think they used to do this with? Yes, it was the likes of Facebook and Google riding right along with CNN, Breitbart, NBC and even PBS decided to draw in feces on their reputations.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @12:43PM (16 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @12:43PM (#481115)

    Religious texts spread harmful "fake news" for millennia and now you're worried about Facebook? If anything we've gotten out of the old rut of being stuck with a single text telling us what's Good and Bad and now have several facets to get as factual information as we can. Facebook and Google are committed to tackling the Fake News menace, whether you love them or hate them, so at least give them credit for starting to set the record straight. Stomping out fires before they spread is an incredible task that will without a doubt prevent the next Crusades or Holocaust from taking place. If only we had this technology sooner, there would have been less of a chance of slavery or genocide, specifically in places like the US and Africa. It makes me happy to know that the time is coming when Nazis and KKK members will be instantly silenced. Maybe, just maybe, we can start living in peace then.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @12:55PM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @12:55PM (#481118)

      So, all religion have been disproved.
      Because you said that, right?

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @02:42PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @02:42PM (#481147)

        Show me a religion that has been proven... While religion is not the same as faith, in most cases of how they are practiced, they can be equated, and faith... well, is -by definition- blind belief in something despite the absence of evidence.
        I think it's fair to say all religion is false. *EVEN* if that is not the case, what makes you think that *your* religion is the one true one?

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by https on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:34PM (8 children)

          by https (5248) on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:34PM (#481196)

          The Buddha himself instructed people to challenge what he taught, that if they followed it blindly they were... blind.

          Though there are millennia of localized traditions added on to its core, the four "noble truths" of buddhism are iron clad. The closest thing to a flaw is that the fourth one, "here is a way to make that happen", is commonly interpreted as "this is the only way to make that happen". At first, that might look like a big problem.

          But think of being enlightened as being in shape and being in dukkha as being out of shape. Fact is, if you're out of shape, starting an exercise routine now is way more important than trying to design a theoretically perfect routine, and in 2500 years of philosophical antfucking, no credible alternative to the recipe included with the fourth noble truth (let alone a better one) has come out of any buddhist school.

          If that's a flaw, it's pretty fucking small.

          I'm not a buddhist, but I have to acknowledge that their process and methodology is fantastic.

          --
          Offended and laughing about it.
          • (Score: 2) by Zyx Abacab on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:17PM (7 children)

            by Zyx Abacab (3701) on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:17PM (#481231)

            [T]he four "noble truths" of buddhism are iron clad.

            This is a hard sell. There is little evidence for any cycle of rebirth and renewed dukkha; and, even if such a thing was demonstrably true, there's no evidence that eliminating karma causes the cessation of rebirth. Like most religious texts, the truths just state these points without evidence—and the follow-up arguments are variants of circular reasoning.

            That's hardly iron-clad.

            Furthermore, against the first point, one might argue—with equal validity—that the impermanence and pain of life is a necessary part of the human condition.

            • (Score: 2) by https on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:49PM (6 children)

              by https (5248) on Sunday March 19 2017, @07:49PM (#481241)

              Perhaps my understanding is incomplete, so fill in my gaps:

              1. Personal anguish is a real thing.

              2. This real thing has causes.

              3. Removing the causes removes the anguish.

              4. The eightfold path removes the causes.

              I mean, really, it reads something straight out of a beginner's Boolean logic class.

              --
              Offended and laughing about it.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @11:03PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @11:03PM (#481287)

                I fit in my suit, my suit fits in my plastic bag, therefor I fit in my plastic bag...

                You're still making some leaps there, friend.

                • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday March 20 2017, @01:22AM

                  by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Monday March 20 2017, @01:22AM (#481310)

                  Karma can be rephrased as "don't piss in you own pool". (Not that I am Buddhist myself)

                  You do have an effect on those around you. If you believe in reincarnation, there is a good chance you will eventually experience both the good and bad vibes you put out (behaviour seems to be at least somewhat contagious).

              • (Score: 2) by Zyx Abacab on Monday March 20 2017, @09:07AM (3 children)

                by Zyx Abacab (3701) on Monday March 20 2017, @09:07AM (#481417)

                Buddhism is a complex religion, with an enormous number of schools and branches, some of which have radical departures from mainstream Buddhism—such as Zen Buddhism. I can't accurately speak for such schools, but my knowledge of the Four Noble Truths consists of:

                1. Dukkha: pain and dissatisfaction. The craving of and clinging to impermanent things. Karma, which binds us to this world, comes about as a result of dukkha.
                2. Samudaya: the thing that generates dukkha. The cycle of death and rebirth is predicated on Samudaya.
                3. Nirodha: the cessation of dukkha and, in turn, the death/rebirth cycle. Nirodha is the path to nirvana.
                4. Magga: independence from dukkha and freedom from the death/rebirth cycle. Like you point out, it's in relation to magga that the Noble Eightfold Path is mentioned.

                Most teachings imply that dukkha is synonymous with unenlightened life, but the actual content of all the texts I've ever read are incredibly vague.

                1. Personal anguish is a real thing.
                2. This real thing has causes.
                3. Removing the causes removes the anguish.
                4. The eightfold path removes the causes.

                Your points are a really, really, really boiled-down interpretation of the Four Noble Truths. These points ignore a lot of both the teaching and the spirit of the Truths (at least as practicing Buddhists understand them).

                For example, the First Truth is not that personal anguish is a thing. (Although, clearly, it is a thing.) Rather, the First Truth is more like "life sucks because shit hurts and you get old and nothing lasts forever". That is a much more involved idea than merely pointing out that personal anguish exists; and it is an idea that one might have a fundamental difference of opinion against.

                Even if we were just going by the one passage from the Dharmacakrapravartana Sūtra, we would still have a list of what suffering is, not a mere statement that suffering is.

                Some schools of Buddhism reveal the idea of karma, as well as the cycle of death and rebirth, along with the First Truth (dukkha), while others reveal it along with the Second Truth (samudaya). In either case, the notion of death/rebirth is usually keyed to one of these Truths—and, as I pointed out before, I am very skeptical of this whole death/rebirth thing. The simplified interpretation completely ignores these (very relevant and very important) ideas.

                Admittedly, the passage from the Sūtra does not directly mention karma or the death/rebirth cycle, but I was taught that these ideas go together.

                The Third Truth and Fourth Truths are actually pretty much as simple as you make them out to be—though, again, anguish is still a very broad simplification of the idea, whether it is drawn from only the Sūtra or from other texts as well. (And the Third Truth presents the idea of nirvana, which further complicates things.)

                To make clear: the Truths as you state them are logically sound, but misrepresentative of the teaching and practice of the Truths. It doesn't do justice to what Buddhism is, and to what is an intrinsic part of the Four Noble Truths to Buddhists.

                -----

                N.B.: I am no longer a Buddhist; don't worry about offending me. I hope I haven't offended you. :)

                • (Score: 2) by https on Monday March 20 2017, @02:29PM (1 child)

                  by https (5248) on Monday March 20 2017, @02:29PM (#481503)

                  I'm not a buddhist, but a few years back I figured I'd look into it before trashing it blindly. You said it best yourself:

                  Admittedly, the passage from the Sūtra does not directly mention karma or the death/rebirth cycle, but I was taught that these ideas go together.

                  What schools teach and what buddy said are frequently different no matter what faith you discuss.

                  --
                  Offended and laughing about it.
                  • (Score: 2) by Zyx Abacab on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:59AM

                    by Zyx Abacab (3701) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:59AM (#481977)

                    I didn't think you would trash it blindly; just that some relevant details were being ignored in your logic-reduction of the Four Noble Truths.

                    It's true that dogma and the text-as-written are very often divorced. So let's ignore dogma and focus on the earliest known text of the Buddha's teachings.

                    How do you respond to the fact that the First Truth, as stated in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sūtra, does not, as you suggest, state only that anguish is; but that it states what anguish is?

                    In opposition, your logic is premised on the notion that personal anguish exists, not on a definition of what personal anguish is. That logic does not accurately reflect the nature or the actual words of the First Truth.

                    (Furthermore, as part of the First Truth, the text of the Sūtra explicitly refers to the five skandhas; this involves a definition of existence and the self. A reduction of the First Truth to just "personal anguish is a real thing" also leaves out this detail.)

                • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:22AM

                  by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:22AM (#481886) Journal

                  Karma, which binds us to this world, comes about as a result of dukkha.

                  That's obviously wrong. Karma comes as a result of moderation! :-)

                  --
                  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @03:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @03:43PM (#481174)

      Are you really that naive, or is this just Poe's Law at work?

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:01PM (1 child)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:01PM (#481182) Journal

      I'm really not sure if this post is meant to be serious or is just sarcasm of some sort. But assuming it is serious:

      Stomping out fires before they spread is an incredible task that will without a doubt prevent the next Crusades or Holocaust from taking place. If only we had this technology sooner, there would have been less of a chance of slavery or genocide, specifically in places like the US and Africa. It makes me happy to know that the time is coming when Nazis and KKK members will be instantly silenced. Maybe, just maybe, we can start living in peace then.

      I thoroughly believe that "fake news" as well as other things like propaganda (which may or may not be actually "fake," but is likely distorted) is a serious problem. On the other hand, I absolutely think "silencing" people pre-emptively is absolutely the wrong approach. Because the reason you get stuff like genocides and Holocausts, etc. often has to do with the "right people" deciding which news gets out. For a classic example, you have had lots of eugenics movements over the ages, many of which were based on incomplete, misleading, or downright false views on various minority groups or the causes of social ills from genetics. Yet these were often believed by leaders of the scientific community in their day, who completely believed they were promoting "facts" as they understood them.

      In fact, you might even argue that your targeted religious beliefs in your post were also spreading what they truly believed to be true. When they argued for the Crusades, some may have been engaged in insincere propaganda, but there were also plenty of leaders who thoroughly and completely believed that God willed it and that they were necessary to eradicate evil in the world. That was based on their understanding of the world at that time, according to what they thought were the most "reliable sources."

      If you "silence" opponents to prevent slavery or whatever, what's to prevent the same tech from being used to promote "well-meaning" views of intelligent people who also happen to be horribly wrong? What's to prevent them from "silencing" their opponents to prevent the truth from coming out?

      I think in many cases some sort of rating or warning system may be appropriate to flag content of potentially false or misleading or inaccurate or whatever. But actually "silencing" anyone pre-emptively? That's a very dangerous road to head down.

      • (Score: 2) by https on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:45PM

        by https (5248) on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:45PM (#481199)

        If you think anybody should be a slave, you don't deserve discussion. History has shown this over and over, that some ideas are worth punching you in the face for expressing, rather than allowing the poison to spread.

        And no, it's not possible to absolutely prevent a silencing tech from being used to suppress valid viewpoints as well. But once you're in a cage with two people overhead arguing over your price, you'll wish that something other than words had been used.

        --
        Offended and laughing about it.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:17PM (#481216)

      I think stopping the spread of 'unacceptable' information is exactly how to get another "crusades or holocaust" to happen.

      The thing people miss out about what effectively boils down to censorship is that it doesn't just stop 'bad' things. Censorship is invariably a top-down affair. And when we openly endorse the censorship of information, even "fake" information, it grants them that power in capacity and precedent. Now you get a bad actor in power, which will happen as sure as day will turn to night, you just gave them the toolkit for control.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday March 19 2017, @08:38PM

      by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Sunday March 19 2017, @08:38PM (#481247)

      There is enough in that short post that if I had the time and inclination I could get a really big takedown out of it, it is so pure in the oblivious evil that shines forth from it that it approaches an ultimate Platonic Form.

      First we should all be able to imagine the wild eyes of a religious zealot that simply had to be there while composing it, as it looks forward to a purge of all heretics in the fire of His righteous flame of Truth. A daily confirmation that Moldbug was right when he observed that the Cathedral is little more than Puritanism / Calvinism shorn of God and made the State religion across most the world. It kept all the worst parts and replaced the good parts with far inferior replacements. But by deleting God it allowed Scientism to pretend it isn't a religion and avoid the unease with State religions that had developed in the West, establish itself and then set about purging all competing faiths. So from an evolutionary perspective it was a winning move. I have posted enough times the unavoidable Truth that Scientism is merely another religion requiring Faith in unprovable foundations that I do not plan to repeat it here.

      we had this technology sooner, there would have been less of a chance of slavery or genocide, specifically in places like the US and Africa

      Here I will make a detour to observe this is a fetid load of dingo's kidneys. Those things happen and will continue to happen when conditions are favorable, social media will have zero impact other than on the far margins in influencing when those conditions appear. Slavery happens when it is a practical solution to a problem. When you have a total war, you generally either kill or enslave the losers, you don't have to like those choices, reality does not care about your feelz though. The U.S. is pretty much the only historical example of a third way being tried, and considering it has a fair record it will likely be tried in the future until we learn the conditions it can and can't work. So far we can say it requires a total war, one where genocide or enslavement would be valid options, or nation building doesn't work. You can say genocide is morally superior to slavery but nature usually considers it a waste and will select against it.

      Facebook and Google are committed to tackling the Fake News menace..

      The Internet considers censorship as damage and routes around it. Has everyone forgotten that maxim or do they think Google and Facebook are unstoppable? MySpace was unstoppable. Yahoo! was unstoppable. The Internet Archive is full of sites that nobody could imagine ever falling into insignificance.

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 19 2017, @12:57PM (1 child)

    by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19 2017, @12:57PM (#481120)

    what's more dangerous is inability to tell truth from lies because your input feed has been filtered.
    This article is just fodder for furthering censorship of the internet.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @06:10PM (#481213)

      > what's more dangerous is inability to tell truth from lies because your input feed has been filtered.

      That is literally the article's very thesis.
      You could not be stronger agreement.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by RoxTeddy on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:09PM (1 child)

    by RoxTeddy (6500) on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:09PM (#481184)

    I ignore commentary, seek out the facts. Social media is all propaganda. If you don't think so, think again.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @10:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 19 2017, @10:47PM (#481281)

      > I ignore commentary, seek out the facts.

      Facts without context are just as much tools of propaganda as commentary.
      And if you think you are educated enough to know the context of even just 1% of the facts in the world, in you are delusional.

(1)