Precisely! The democratic nature of Twitter allows the canaries and Cassandras their say. We need dissenting voices that diverge from the "credible" orthodox opinions of "experts." You must tolerate the speech of cranks to allow for Cassandras.
-
-
-
And, as
@EricRWeinstein noted in his recent conversation with@benshapiro, the democratization of the algorithmic switch, the ability to toggle on/off, x/y, the algorithms, might just reveal the extent of the 'benevolent' manipulation already underway... - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Imagine: Michael Burry on Twitter being shadowbanned for pointing out the dangers of synthetic CDOs because the housing bubble was *not true*.
@jack -
Consider expert opinion on recent political events - Brexit and the 2016 US Presidential Election.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Taking a dimmer view, some of those ‘experts’, while failing the rest of us, did do quite well for themselves...
-
...They come to do good, and end up doing very well indeed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
All central planning by experts, in government, and elsewhere, fails time and time again Letting systems, including Twitter, evolve in a laissez faire way always proves best. Fight this evolution and suffer but it will happen eventually anyway. Always has.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I getting my cancer treatment from a homeopathic doctor because I don't trust medical experts.
-
Lol. I hope you're joking. Otherwise RIP
-
I'm not joking, after watching the "intellectual dark web's" videos on youtube, I'm convinced my doctor is trying to turn frogs gay & that PizzaGate was real. We can't trust experts anymore.
-
As last, someone who gets it. Now.. have you met my Nigerian Prince friend?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would trade 100 true skeptics who embrace intellectual humility and scientific thinking, for 1000 'experts' who don't operate this way
-
The thing is, most experts (or at least scientists) do operate this way
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
These days the unknown journalists are putting forward more unbiased reporting than the mainstream outlets...so would these algos consider "true" expertise to be budgets, reach, or content? And then...who are the "true" experts writing the code or participating in the down voting
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
With this, we should recognize - as should Twitter - that it is only the cultivation of true skepticism, scientific thinking, & the humility to be honest about what we DON'T know, that can win out. To have the answers", people must learn to ask the right questions
#SkepticismThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Just reinforces the observation that people building these communications tech are optimizing for "How do we maintain our business model of monetizing engagement?" rather than "How do we build tech that enhances & emerges quality and trust in networks?"
-
If
@jack&zuck keep trying to solve for the "correct number of epicycles", they won't find the right answer. It really does feel like SV has gotten so high off smelling its farts that it can't see that the entire model of centralizing comms & social graphs is _wrong_ & unethical.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
isn't democratization of discussion THE POINT of Twitter? AND instrumental to its evolution & popularity among thinkers AND DOERS? twitter is "dangerous" b/c anyone can comment on an idea, (but that is what makes it powerful) we need less social engineering & gatekeepers
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.