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?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @leviska0 @poliveiracastro
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Not really. If you go look in history, the exact same arguments were made against the printing press.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There a big difference with a newspaper and internet: for a newspaper to get big audience you need to print it, store and distribute. All of which takes money, workers, and etc. In the internet it's literally 5 seconds and no expenses (well, you probably already have a phone)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @leviska0 @ToseNikolov and
And often you can do it anonymously. I think trolls became a thing only in the internet era(?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If you'd like to read about anonymous publication and extensive (often personal!) trolling, I would invite you to read the kinds of things that were circulated during the late 1700s in revolutionary-era America :)
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.