I definitely think that dumb content makes the consumer dumber with repeated exposure just like smart/educational content makes them smarter (well, in simple terms). I don't think there is a baseline intelligence level for each person below which they can't possibly fall regardless of what they do.

So yes, platforms making dumb content more available do make people dumber long term. I don't know what to do about it, but at least we have to recognize that this is a legit problem.

> I definitely think that dumb content makes the consumer dumber with repeated exposure

Sure, but even if that turns out to be the case what concerns me is how often people automatically take the next step and assume that it should or CAN be controlled top-down, and that doing so will surely result in the average/lowest common denominator consumer suddenly becoming smarter and less ignorant.

Basically the assumption that it is such a significant problem, that people would be far better informed/smarter if we just banned/regulated what some central organization or individual mega-corporations deem as not good content.

That's a significant leap - and one that I feel is very often disconnected in these discussions. Just because problem X exists, doesn't mean solution Y will solve it. Or that problem X is a significant enough problem that the rewards will warrant the costs/risks of attempting to fix it.

I would say the general public's level of intelligence in general, and the effect of dumb content on it specifically is definitely significant enough to need a solution. Many solutions, probably.

Of course no one will seriously suggest a gif prohibition (I hope), but regarding fake news specifically, regulation such as the FCC Fairness doctrine could possibly work.

The point is not to eliminate undesired behavior entirely, but to make it less available and less desirable compared to alternatives. For example, smoking cigarettes is being largely successfully solved by education, promotion of general health, gross packaging, putting cigarette cases out-of-sight in supermarkets, and taxes, not outright prohibition.

I don't think that just because the content is digital you can't do anything about it without introducing worse problems for freedom of speech and such. Tons of industries are successfully regulated, this one is not special enough to be unsolvable.

The Supreme Court ruled that the fairness doctrine was justified given the scarce nature of the radio spectrum. The doctrine never applied to cable TV and certainly wouldn't be able to be applied to the internet.

You can certainly apply and enforce such regulations on mainstream media, both TV and online. The world will benefit even without US getting onboard with it, and without the need to police every last website.

There is actually research showing that exposure to a series of fake headlines - even though you are told that they are fake - makes similar fake headlines more believable to you.

  People like to blame FB/Twitter

I am not blaming anyone. Simply stating that those places are expressly made for sharing low-quality content.

Just because there is a demand for something, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the urge.

This line of logic is so so so dangerous. I hope you understand what you're suggesting. "People deciding what people should watch / read / consume."

Are people not deciding what people should watch / read / consume?

Netflix chooses which shows to show in its spotlight section / email blast. TV stations decide which shows to put in prime time slots.

Newspaper editors decide which articles get placed where. Your friends decide which articles to share in their feed (and thus expose you to them).

Companies advertise their products on TV, create retail spaces in our neighborhoods, to entice us to consume their products.

If you’re worried about a world in which people decide these things for others, the sad reality is: we’re already in that world.

Editorialization is far, far different than outside parties or platforms controlling content...

The key difference is that editorializing affects individual outlets, or groups of outlets under one owner. In that case other parties can simply create the own competing outlets to provide a balance, aka a marketplace of ideas. But when it's a top down control from government or mega-corps then the controls applies across the entire marketplace and across all organizations/mediums, and is therefore far more harmful, open to abuse, and ultimately chills speech.

Not to mention in the top-down scenario the source of what's "appropriate content" is usually the most vocal special interest groups, lobbyists, or worse the latest public outrage of the day - not some editor/company trying to deliver what they think consumers want most. But instead other parties trying to control what content other people should and should not be allowed to produce/consume.

The only way to push back is by rallying your own outrage, lobbyists, and special interest groups - a highly unoptimal process, valuing the powerful and entrenched parties, not what is "right" and moral. And if history is any indication, bad laws/regulations rarely get removed anywhere near as quickly as they are added.

As you comment on a moderated, curated fucking news feed...

> Stumbleupon

That's a name I haven't heard in a long time.

Yeah, he's seemed to have moved on to Facebook and individual news sites since then.