>Fake News It's ridiculous how much information people

>>723810708
How exactly would this service work?

>>723810708
so, a service that basically doesn't tell you what to think but points you to the person that will do it for you? you'd only add an intermediary to the same system with assumptions that media sources can be biased but the hoily intermediate cant.

just act like a grown up and start getting your info from various sources with various leanings

File: 1487889799394.jpg (75KB, 647x602px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 647x602px

Eh. It's a different variation on the same thing. The media has always been biased. It's practically impossible to be completely unbiased. Writers have always confidently strung together lots of unrelated events to create a narrative that validates their political views, and makes them look wise and correct.

We never adjusted to the new reality that everyone is now a journalist. Everyone can post their own opinion pieces. Everyone can ignore the 99 correct facts in an article, dwell on the 1 shaky one, and dismiss the whole thing as fake news.

We live in a strange era, /b/tards. People can no longer agree on what a fact is. It started with the billions of dollars that oil companies spent to convince people that climate change was a hoax and Stephen Hawking is not to be trusted. The disease spread. People now distrust any remotely qualified authority figure. Why trust a scientist to tell you about vaccines, when you can trust Jenny McCarthy? Why trust a teacher to decide what works in school, when you can trust a politician? Why trust anybody else when you can trust yourself?

>>723811129
I believe you're missing the point. Trustworthy sources of information are the cornerstone of academic, scientific, and even corporate advancement.

The idea isn't to find such trustworthy sources, but rather to disregard untrustworthy ones when they're encountered - with a clear mechanism for detailing the source of their bad reputation.

This isn't about being an adult and working harder, it's about being human and not working as hard as we have to. More than that, it's about stopping the unchecked flow of misinformation among the less disseminating of our populous.

the internet was a mistake
science has failed our world

>>723811321
>We never adjusted to the new reality that everyone is now a journalist.
Exactly. We had the same problem with the advent of the printing press. The solution was to identify publishers with a good reputation.

>>723811536
And yet that's how we got here
How would you stop this of ever happening again using your system?

>>723811515

This. The only viable defense is the George Carlin maneuver.

Leave it to you faggots to take the 8th wonder of the world and turn it into a steaming pile of rancid dogshit.

>>723811616
>How would you stop this of ever happening again
Considering the cause was a new technology and a new source of information, you'd have to stop the progression of science to prevent something like this from happening again. I think a better alternative is to give people the tools they need to clearly identify the source of information and its reputation. We'll at least return to a more reliable system.

>>723811923
>the cause was a new technology and a new source of information

Like with the printing press...
“…When ‘technology went to press’ so too did a vast backlog of occult lore, and few readers could discriminate between the two” (Eisenstein, 1985, pg 176). There was a lot of religious publications, such as bibles, being produced but also “Hermetic writings, the Sybilline prophecies, the hieroglyphics of Horapollo and many other seemingly authoritative, actually fraudulent esoteric writings worked in the opposite direction, spreading inaccurate knowledge” (Eisenstein, 1979, pg 78).

>>723811123
The first step is information tracking.
News information needs to be identified and logged. When information comes out that duplicates it, its source is identified.

The second step is giving a reputation. Votes from other users, combined with an information accuracy rating, would be a decent first step.

The last step is to display this. Inline, next to the information people are consuming, a hover link to the source and their reputation should be displayed.

>coming on 2016-2017 4chan to plan against fake news
wheredoyouthinkyouare.jpg


also that idea is awful and wouldn't actually help anything, reputation on a social media website doesn't mean you're reliable

>>723813958
I know exactly where I am. People on 4chan have been navigating this stuff for ages. Who better to talk to about it? Also, I don't think you understand the idea. Try this summary >>723813776

>>723814101
How do you think that determining the truthiness of a source by user vote is a good idea?

>>723813776
In other words, you want social media to have automatically generated citations?

>>723813776
>votes come from other users
Inherently bad. Paid shills will exploit this, and normal users are biased

>information accuracy rating
Theres no metric ive ever heard of that allows you to measure how true a story is with regards to real life events. Outside of human intervention, how would you lropose to overcoe this?

>>723814312
>propose to overcome
Idek what happened there

>>723814101
>Navigating
You are talking to the original creators of fake news.

>>723814220
Honestly, I think that if this system was developed, people would ascribe different reputations to different sources just like we do with say Fox/CNN. There would invariably be different reputation metrics that pop up as a result. Regardless, it still brings us back to where we used to be.

>>723814269
Yes.

>>723814312
I'm aware of the flaws of democratizing reputation. I called it a first step for that reason, also see first response. As for measuring information accuracy - that's not the same thing as truth. If the original source says 32 people died, and I say shit tons of people died, or 33 people died, my accuracy would decrease.

>>723814517
Except fake news has been around for hundreds of years. I've only been here for 7.

>>723814312
I forgot to address your question, and I apologize.
Because truth is as much a matter of perspective as objective analysis, we can't define it philosophically, let alone systematically. I'll grant you that, but then ask the important question: Why should that stop us from trying? If we can get closer to the truth by reducing our uncertainty, then I say that's a good thing.