Most hard problems are not solved simply by creating a technically superior product, they are often unsolvable due to mundane factors like user adoption, distribution, financial issues, server issues, etc.
We have been attempting our best to come towards the most correct answers for everything, since forever. To suggest all of a sudden that this method is irrelevant is odd. It is to suggest that we should no longer pursue truth and instead lay everything on the table and say it's all correct and you should just pick whatever makes you feel the best.
> Show me a rigid decision procedure proving it right or misinformation.
You and another commenter missed a crucial part of my sentence: dialectics.
The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Dialectics. Immanent critique. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
If you only believed lies, your thoughts can never truly be free. However if you believe some truths, your thoughts as expressed and built on top of those truths are free, whereas those built on top of lies are not. Freedom here means freedom of expression. You can still tell lies, but you will never truly be free to produce confident thought because your mind is trapped in a prison of delusion.
Something i rarely see come up: misinformation is itself an assault on free speech. You are confusing the minds of people who have a right to the truth and therefore the freedom to express themselves. If someone believes a lie that was told to them, their thoughts aren't really their own. They were manufactured by a people whose goal was to gain something out of their ignorance. By contrast, if you were told the truth, you actually have the axiomatic foundations necessary to produce unique thought.
Your right to spread misinformation cannot be justified on the grounds of free speech.
I've always felt this, I've never seen a business actually _do_ this. Why don't businesses just stop employing so many people? Stop expanding? Stop trying to acquire more users?
I mean, I know from my economics studies that businesses kind of have to keep competing or they die. It's just really sad.
It's pretty naive to think this is the extent of it. They didn't make a billion dollars by sending people information about how much time you spent on the app. They analyse your chats and posts to see what kinds of things you're interested in so they can build a sort of 'person data structure' full of data points unique to you that they can package up and sell to advertisers.
This is just my best guess anyway, based on what I've seen elsewhere in the industry. It's safe to assume Facebook is hoarding any data about you they can legally get their hands on, including contact info, speech info, facial info, information of people who don't even use Facebook.. There's almost no laws for this industry yet, you can collect anything.
Eh, plenty of studies I've seen, from economics to environmental science, has some policy recommendations at the end. It's a problem but if you're going to discard this study you have to discard many others.
I am not insulting you, and I think you are smart. I'm saying that it's unreasonable to expect that banning people is a slippery slope unless you already think corporations and government have too much power, in which case the conversation becomes something entirely different and unbanning these people is not going to solve anything.
Or... competition responds to other competition. If your competition fires 50 employees, you no longer have the pressure to keep an extra 50 employees just to compete with them. Same principle here, that's why all these bans are happening together.