An example to illustrate how hard it would be for forums to implement fact-checking: Is there an exemption for religious beliefs? And if so, how do you define a religion? Is young Earth creationism banned?
-
The problem of verifying claims was solved long ago with burden of proof. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel, we just need to use it.
The problem is not that young Earth creationism is hard to verify. That's probably easier than the median forum post. The problem is that false statements are customarily given a pass when they're religious beliefs, and if you change that, people will be really mad.
-
-
What if we provide the option to make a statement with flair that it is a provable fact or that we believe it is not provable and we allow other users to mark each others statements. I think neither Young Earthers or anyone else will mark Young Earth as verifiable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They’ll go crazy and also say you’re infringing their right to freedom of religion.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Human brain circuitry evolved when there was more danger and therefore fear was more often a rational response. Our customs evolved pre-internet and don't align with the current situation. The question is how can we best manage pain from the adjustment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Religion gets a free pass not just on being fake news, but also being "hate-speech".
-
... masquerading under the “freedom of religion” cover
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Boo hoo
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There would have to be. And it’s less obscure than creationism. The resurrection of Christ or the Virgin Birth. All Christians agree that they are scientifically impossible. But thats bc Christians would say that they were miracles. You can’t “fact check” miracles.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Many of the people who want censorship are in fact not religious and would be quite happy to ban religious beliefs, even if they won't put it in those terms. The problem is that this is and cannot be stable because humans are naturally religious.
-
The very same people have their own ideological opinions that are factually and verifiably just as false, e.g. "Any two groups of people that differ on average in any significant way, differ because of socialization."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is there an exception for enlightenment thinking which has been disproven by cognitive science?
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.