There seems to be a consensus now that the exposure to ideas, arguments and memes on youtube, facebook, google search and twitter must be carefully manipulated to make sure people don't elect the wrong politician or have the wrong idea about gay marriage. But why stop there?
-
-
Twitter is already modeling whom you follow and who reads/likes your posts to detect if you are likely to hold unwelcome opinions, and curbs your influence by reducing how often your posts will show up in the feeds of your followers. Why not directly regulate belief formation?
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Show me this uncurated media source.
-
An uncurated media source is one where random people can post whatever they want, and others can read it if they want. Curation implies that an entity judges submissions and decides what gets displayed. Censorship means that entity is acting against the preferences of the reader.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
what made you say that
- 4 more replies
-
-
-
The obvious concern for this would be a government trying to control people's opinions on the government by hiding/regulating anything critical of the government.
-
A government can at least be elected. Is it less problematic if the church or groups of academically organized political activists or corporations decide about permissible opinions?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
what could go wrong
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
'Correct' may be situational or even unknowable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
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.