Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

Re:Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning... by ausbah on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @06:37PM (#25053601)

giving everyone a platform is a noble goal from some perspectives, but is it also what makes up the worse parts of platforms like Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube. suddenly every crackpot and grifter has been given room to spread their garbage opinions and views. just look at the massive disinformation and radicalization pipelines that have popped up. letting people beam info right into their heads would only make this issue worse.

I'm am not trying to say gatekeeping information platforms would solve this or is even morally correct - I am just trying to demonstrate the downsides of such a system that lets the floodgates open to content creation with lax moderation. if you want some semblance of truth and accuracy in the media people consume, it doesn't hurt to have some bounds on what is an acceptable source of news (again with caveats)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning... by IgorPartola on Tuesday November 10, 2020 @08:20PM (#25054489)

I don’t think there is anything noble about this setup. It would be incredibly messy and lead to more crap like what we just went through with having no leadership in the US whatsoever. It would likely be the beginning of the end of us, if climate change doesn’t get us first.

I imagine that having some sort of reputation system might eventually be the answer. After all “is [email protected] a liar?” would also be instantly accessible information. But again we know there are lots of powerfully people today who are dishonest and yet there is little consequence for them because enough people like the lies to prop them up. I don’t see that changing.

[ Parent | on HN ]