The general argument that it’s a bad idea for them to admit this still holds.
Generically moaning about how people are speaking from a position of being uninformed, especially when one is also uninformed, is a useless behavior here.
Bringing information or asking questions is the only way to solve that.
That's because you're misrepresenting my position, which I have been very careful to explain.
There is nothing wrong or shameful about being uninformed on a topic and wanting to discuss topics that one is uninformed about. I am uninformed on a lot of topics, including law, and I'd love to participate in a discussion to better inform myself. I also encourage people to seek out information and participate in discussions that they do not understand, it's a great way to learn.
My complaint is that on this site, people who are uninformed speak with a degree of certitude that a reader who didn't know any better could confuse with expertise, and that results in widespread misinformation and degrades trust in this site. It also discourages actual experts from participating in discussions since people informed on a topic have to then compete with those who are uninformed, and based on my own experience having done so repeatedly, the amount of effort needed to do so is disproportionate. It's a lot easier to spread false information that's appealing and sounds good than it is to spread truthful information.
Asking questions is great, having experts answer questions is great, having people with different backgrounds relating topics outside of their area of expertise is also great and can lead to unique insights. But having someone make bold, unverifiable claims and everyone else upvoting and giving those claims prominence when they are false, simply because it sounds appealing is not good because it pushes away people who are experts.
I’m not misrepresenting you.
Are you somebody who doesn’t know any better? I don’t think think so, so why are you trying to protect this imaginary victim?
Do you speak with a degree of certitude? I think you do.
It’s pretty easy to question unverifiable claims, whereas complaining about other people’s tone of confidence while doing the same thing yourself just seems like it’s not likely to have a useful effect. It too is just a generic and unverifiable claim.
You aren’t wrong that misinformation spreads on public fora. However there is no evidence that you are an authority on how to resolve that issue.
For example you said that FB can't be sued over this. That's wrong - it's just unlikely to succeed under current laws.
The rest of their problems with it are probably true, but the specific point is incorrect. That's the point being made here.
Are you sure? Where?
> The issue is that statements here about topics people don't understand are often outright wrong, but go unchallenged.
Are you sure you are responding to the correct commenter? Here’s something I did write:
> It’s pretty easy to question unverifiable claims…
Which is what I recommend when you see something that you think is outright wrong.
Moaning long windedly about the fact that people say things you think are wrong is pointless.
If you see something you think is wrong or unclear to you, you can contribute to the conversation by asking a clarifying question.
Kranar is basically right here. It isn't at all clear that FB would be liable, and there isn't even a particularly strong case.