US Politics Thread

Interesting take on the corrosive impact of social media on American society.


I agree with most of Jonathan Haidt's points, but disagree with his view that social media need not be regulated per se, but rather that the algorithms which lead to sensational posts becoming viral needs to change.

For starters, isn't this algorithmic change of necessity going to come about by regulation? - social media companies are out to make money - they won't change this on their own.

Secondly, it's not just sensational posts that are the problem - at all. Rather, it's the spread of disinformation as I've posted numerous times above. If one can view non-factual posts in support of ones views and such posts are completely unregulated - no warning at all as to veracity or in extreme cases removal of posts - then viewers of such content are never, ever, ever going to change their minds. Content regulation is a key to informing voters of what is fact.
 
I mean 2 posts down from the tweet was this Politifacts post debunking it.
Oh the irony!

You decry Politifacts as unreliable whenever they're proving your viewpoint wrong... but wham! Any source at all will do - including those you deem "unreliable" - so long as the source agrees with you.

So what is it, Dax? Politifacts is unreliable and politically biased - as you previously stated? - or, is it a neutral entity concerned only with truth which you rely upon to fact-check political statements?
 
Last edited:


I'm sure the GOP do the same. I'd use it as a election point if the opposition party were paying for ads to promote me.
 
Interesting take on the corrosive impact of social media on American society.


I agree with most of Jonathan Haidt's points, but disagree with his view that social media need not be regulated per se, but rather that the algorithms which lead to sensational posts becoming viral needs to change.

For starters, isn't this algorithmic change of necessity going to come about by regulation? - social media companies are out to make money - they won't change this on their own.

Secondly, it's not just sensational posts that are the problem - at all. Rather, it's the spread of disinformation as I've posted numerous times above. If one can view non-factual posts in support of ones views and such posts are completely unregulated - no warning at all as to veracity or in extreme cases removal of posts - then viewers of such content are never, ever, ever going to change their minds. Content regulation is a key to informing voters of what is fact.

While you raise some points that need debating in general I think those that make money both at a corporate and individual level underestimate that in the end common sense and critical thinking albeit many believe they are often in short supply on social media will dictate what one believes but more importantly how they act and respond to such belief.

I agree there is a lot of disinformation on social media as there is in MSM but in the end you have to make up your own mind what is relevant and important in your life.

Preaching misinformation might get some the notoriety they seek for a while but in the end the mob will ignore them.

Cults were around in various guises long before social media gained some prominence and always will be.

For me its like watching TV if you don't like the program for what ever reason or the commercial tune out , its free and harmless.
 
For me its like watching TV if you don't like the program for what ever reason or the commercial tune out , its free and harmless.
"Free and harmless"?

Is or is not the Capital invasion a direct result of "free and harmless" unregulated mistruth?
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.