"Human nature has good & bad sides, and social media is just a reflection of human nature, so it includes the bad stuff" is not the wise take you think it is. Disinfo on social media is not an organic side-effect of free speech, it's the product of highly coordinated campaigns.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @fchollet
That are incentivized by a business model that relies on clicks and eyeballs to make money. Change the business model, change the incentive. Change the incentive, change social media.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @jkwong
The business model is not the problem. It's a matter of willingness to combat disinformation campaigns. Compare Twitter 2016 and Twitter 2020, for example.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @fchollet
Isn’t that the business model? If ads represent a majority of revenue, what is the incentive to combat disinformation? A headline is a headline and a click is a click — whether it’s real or fake news.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Two social networks with the same business model can end up with very different outcomes wrt disinfo (e.g. Twitter 2016 vs 2020) and ad-free networks (e.g. chat apps with large scale groups) can end up having a disinfo problem.
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.