How does Sup Forums feel about this?

How does Sup Forums feel about this?

inb4 dumb fucking sarcasm
inb4 "whats wrong with censoring false news?"

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6rzwo7BrU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>these faggot psychopaths who already mine data at every possible turn
>are churning out "fake news" at shocking rates
>now promise to promote and display only factual events
you don't see how they're the ones churning out the fake news narrative and are trying to give themselves the only trustworthy name?
what kind of a fucking retard gets their news from the internet though, this shit is so easily hacked, or simply shitposted from retards without an ounce of credibility.

fuck any dumbass who believes what they read online to be real, they'll likely die from mustard gas attempting to make crystals lol

somebody's got to do something

I think that if it's just being flagged based on votes and then Google or Mozilla are just providing a report on those votes then it's fine.

What makes something fake or not is the quanitity of people that believe it, and the individual that decides to listen to it.

We will always live within the threat of whatever you're afraid of with censoring so long as healthy people can choose for themselves.

It's better to have a standard for categorizing information and have more individuals choose than to have a free market of truth where in some groups have more power than others to produce their ideas.

Honestly, I'm beginning to think it's more tyrannical to have the free open internet, because of the tyranny of the majority we are just grandstanding the loudest and most radical ideas.

Because we're too stupid to have a dialogue that doesn't involve inummerable fallacies and unpragmatic manipulation or distortion of stories and information.

We're too reletivistic still to live as a hive mind, so we are fracturing into small cells that are impervious to new information.

We still want to be controlled, freedom is kind of a joke.

Feelings are for liberals. Fuck off.

It would be disturbing if it wasn't pointless.

You know the saying "information wants to be free?" Well, turns out, the information doesn't have to be factual for that tendency to operate.

Additionally i think this will cause more harm than good. Right now people believe news or don't believe news on the basis of sources. Some people believe fox news. Some people believe CNN, ect.

But now, if people know that every search they make for information has been filtered according to somebody's interpretation of truth, they will be less able to trust anything they see.

It's a good start. Not about to cede the battlefield to the Russians and the traitors here who've sold their souls to spread Putin's propaganda.

That could be beneficial, skepticism could lead to people finding more accurate information.

No, given lack of ability to be certain, people will decide things on the basis of their gut feelings more often.

Like, imagine the conservative perspective. You now know... that it's possible all the information which confirms your viewpoint is being withheld from you because it doesn't fit some person's arbitrary definition of "truth". So in that world, do you just accept the world according to that unknown person or do you reject it?

The same goes for every ideological perspective that SUSPECTS that there is information out there that confirms their beliefs but is being withheld from them.

At that point we couldn't even have arguments on the basis of difference sources information about a particular fact. At that point we'd be arguing about whether the disruption of the news caused by this system is favoring one ideology more than the other.

>What makes something fake or not is the quanitity of people that believe it, and the individual that decides to listen to it
That's not how fake and real work.
Like god or the boogeyman, they not real and just because a bunch if idiots think it is won't make it real

I beg to differ.

The more people have faith in an idea the more believable it becomes, people like to say they have a notion of what objectivity could mean but like infinity just because we can define the idea of it doesn't mean we will ever be able to hold it in our minds.

It is the reason god of the gaps works, we will never have complete knowledge or true and justifiable beliefs. As such the foundations for all notions of fake or real are subject to interpretation.

Maybe so, but those gut instincts won't feed you for long. Our survival depends on getting accurate information from our senses, we need tangible proof of a thing and news media and internet never give us that satisfactorily. It's not visceral or real feeling.

What we need to be, opposing opinions I mean, within physical vicinity of one another and to have humanizing moments. Collective efforts etc...

We aren't going to necessarily get anywhere trying to keep the conversation going online where everything is so easily blocked, disabled, or ignored despite its neutrality.

Perhaps unbalancing it would be a necessary foist for something to happen. Something visceral, war or enlightenment? IDK just something other than two guys in a room going "nuh uh"

>Maybe so, but those gut instincts won't feed you for long. Our survival depends on getting accurate information from our senses, we need tangible proof of a thing

So you've never heard of religious people then?

This idea you've come up with that it "wont feel us for long" is just something you imagine will have to be the shove when push comes to shove for this issue. No. It's possible for this to just further divide us in our ideological bubbles and for that problem to just not get better.

Proof Google is full of shit:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6rzwo7BrU

the news is useless. it's editorialized, curated, watered down, and completely uninformative.

and that's even if it's "real" news

>What makes something fake or not is the quanitity of people that believe it
So all the religions are true then?

kind of like Sup Forums tbh

>"whats wrong with censoring false news?"
how about
"what's wrong with calling out news articles that have falsified data or presented it in a misleading way?"

frankly, i don't give a damn if they censor it. it's not like the news was any good to begin with.

why haven't they censored theguardian though?

I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'm saying that the current situation is exactly that. We are reinforcing our idealogical bubbles every day, there is nothing that's going to stop it as long as my seeking of that confirmation is as simple as turning it on with a switch.

We don't need Google to attempt to take on "fake news" to show us what's already haopened, there are huge swaths if the population that just aren't trusting of certain media.

If their access is perceptual limited or threatened perhaps they will see to it to do something about it, and perhaps this will lead to visceral face to face interactions.

Religion got to where it was by having radically indoctrinared masses sure, but all systems have outliers, skepticism from within that disallows it to survive always. This interaction is exacerbated by stress...

Just for example, say I'm Joe the creationist and every day I turn to the biblical times radio hour for my indoctrination. Now normally Joe would live his entirely life potentially is blissful ignorance but here comes the liberal media to try to burst his bubble.

Alright says Joe well I'm going to respond by sticking to my guns. He does so, liberal media alienates him further and further until finally he decides he needs to fight back so he and some friends from the biblical times start producing a conterpoint show.

Whatever now it's gridlocked, it's familiar. Now let's just say we allow his show to have its reputability tarnished in some meaningful way, such that it's a perceived attack? Tensions flare, stress to break the gridlock? Progressive action to finite winner.

Perhaps it's possible, it could lead somewhere. Change the landscape a bit...

What is certain however is within the stress of the breaking gridlock some will see the strings, and the systemic problems inherent in each. Some will be forced to encounter the moment of facing absurdity, reality of their fight with no meaning.

To the people that believe them yes, with certainty. If your requisite for something being true goes beyond human abilities to produce then how do you formulate your certainty of the definition?

>all the ledditor spacing ITT
fuckoff back to your containment site shitheads.
goddanm faggitors are extra faggy this summer

Only Idiots who rely on fagbook for their news will be effected. Nothing of value will be lost.