SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
How Facebook, Fake News and Friends Are Warping Your Memory
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
For recreational use only.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday March 19 2017, @04:01PM (1 child)
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
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.