[10/*] So you don't have to wonder what the future of communication looks like! It looks just like the past. If books were banned, movies will be banned; if movies were banned, YouTubes will be banned.
-
Show this thread
-
[11/*] So computers didn't really offer anything different. The only thing they were was _new_. And something new has a brief period when the majority of people aren't using it, so their desire to force people to conform isn't applied.
3 replies 6 retweets 76 likesShow this thread -
[12/*] I'm not sure if that makes me more or less depressed. It's a depressing thought, but maybe also one that is slightly motivating: it means we can always make a new - albeit shortly lived - place free from the demands of social conformity.
1 reply 2 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
[13/*] We just make a new medium for communication, and for a brief time, before it becomes popular, people will be able to be themselves there. The depressing part is, of course, that it will only last for a short while.
19 replies 2 retweets 71 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cmuratori
Well, you kinda have such internet. 4chan and darknet are mostly unmoderated, and, well, there is a lot of illegal, unethical or just gross stuff. And it's clear, why people want this stuff to be removed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @leviska0
If it's illegal, it's a matter for the FBI. If it's "unethical" - well, who decided that? You? And if it's "just gross", then, don't look at it? Why would it matter if someone else is posting gross stuff on a Twitter feed? Just don't subscribe to that feed?
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @leviska0
I have been thinking about this, and I would like to share it with you and hear your take. Our society decided what is illegal (well, yours did, but you get my point). How? Isn't that just a collective imagine line on what we call "too unethical" or "too gross"?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Also, if moderation is not the answer, how do you deal with lies spreading on chat platforms and social media? I'm talking about accusing someone of a hideous crime and spreading false scientific information that could do collective harm (vaccines, environmental issues, etc).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @poliveiracastro @leviska0
First, I would start by asking, why has this never been a concern before? Why are people only _now_ concerned with mass dissemination of blatantly false information, when it has been going on for hundreds of years?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @poliveiracastro
Because 100 years ago you needed to tell this in person, write a book or smth, and now you literally can write it with device in your pocket in 5 seconds and basically anyone can see it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And? Are you suggesting that people believe more weird things now then they did 100 years ago? I'm not sure how anyone could possibly arrive at that conclusion, but I'm willing to entertain it if you have some evidence.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @poliveiracastro
Well, I think, that it's plain wrong to compare "how many weird things people believe", because now we have _an_ education system now, for example. Your original question: Why people concern about spread of false information now? Because it's easier and faster now.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.