When it works, the market gives people what they want, at the lowest price.
Do you think people want truth from their social media posts?
2 Likes
two questions
- Can your position be summarized as ignore the disinformation campaign problems they will go away, or be mitigated by the invisible hand?
- What aspects of “an unelected government bureaucrat making decisions” make them so bad or why do they have an abysmal record?
I think people want truth from the media sources (whether it be print, TV, radio, social media, neighborhood gossip).
- combat disinformation with truth.
- millions (billions) of decision vs a concentrated few.
I do not, at least not most of them. They want affirmation- how else do you explain the popularity of figures like tucker carlson who peddle in opinion and lies instead of truth?
And they want a heightened reality- how else do you explain the popularity of reality tv shows?
This is why the companies that the market has rewarded have algorithms designed to show people articles they want to read, and those algorithms amplify nonsense and lies, such as all the covid misinformation.
1 Like
The average amount of time people spend on social media is about 2 hours 20 minutes a day.
Average Time Spent Daily on Social Media (Latest 2022 Data) - BroadbandSearch
Here’s a list of the top ten social media companies.
The Top 10 Social Media Sites & Platforms 2021 (searchenginejournal.com)
Facebook
YouTube
Whatsapp
Instagram
TikTok
Snapchat
Reddit
Pinterest
Twitter
LinkedIn
If you assume between ownership, board, executive management 50 people per company with ultimate control over each company we have 500 people controlling over 2 hours a day of the average American. Would that be considered a concentrated few?
1 Like
Kind of agree with Ranger that Newspapers and TV have a long history of monopolistic control of what people think and believe. And even now Carlson is a bigger influence than Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.
OTOH, I agree with magillag that people do not really want the truth. They want the Truth to be facile and exciting, a lot more like a movie or a game.
And here I think this is the problem. The market did correct a flaw. The flaw was that the Truth is boring. The invisible hand fixed that by making the truth much more exciting.
1 Like
So much this, caused by a large population of dunces.
Or possibly
maybe the same as boring to many…
How is it a 1st Amendment issue when Twitter locks an account? How is that any different than “The Town Democrat”? People can cancel their accounts and go over to Truth Social.
He has a problem when a government agency is doing the locking down or telling Twits to lock accounts, which is definately (sic) happening right now, it’s just that YOUR news sources aren’t reporting it.
Eh, according to Ranger, Twitter and Facebook’s failures are examples of how we can fail to police information, and the government will do a worse job than them, if we task them with similar work.
No. Excitement is key. Shocking headlines and hooks have worked for years. Better still if you have recognizable good guys and bad guys and sex and violence and cliff-hangers and surprise-reveals in your “truth”.
Better still if you can turn “truth” into a sport, with rival teams. And we can participate in it by believing what our home team says and repeating it back at the other team.
This is speculating, but i think it is not a matter of it being complex, or really even boring.
It’s a matter of news being emotionally bewildering, even threatening.
I believe this is trump’s big appeal, for example. It is not an economic payoff. It is emotional validation, which narcissists are very good at as long as you support them.
We all want to see our values affirmed.
1 Like
You’re either purposely mis-representing my statements and position, or your understanding of the 1st Amendment is fundamentally flawed (maybe both?) in some sort of half-mocking attempt to ridicule me.
Either way - you’re not accurately re-stating my thoughts.
Looks like the DGB failed to flag Biden’s misinformation on Twitter today.
Shrug, I was trying to do you a favor since I don’t like people having to defend themselves twice just because they’re out-numbered. There was no ridicule meant. I thought your point was fine, as I understood it.
I’m used to being out-numbered here. I could say that water is wet and the usual hoard would descend upon me and argue just because I’m not espousing progressive dogma.
You and I might often disagree, but at least the disagreements are real and not based on always attacking my posts.
Netflix has an aha moment about self-censoring.
This is an exaggeration at best. Should I report you?
Please answer the question is 500 people a concentrated few?