I think we can all agree that putting information on the internet was a mistake. Ask Google who invented running, or how many legs a horse has. The answers are clear, authoritative, and obviously wrong.
And they make billions of dollars. We're expected to believe some Podunk in the middle of Podubkstan has more access to facts? Please.
The internet, as in its companies and its users, cannot separate truth from fiction. Thus, we need to simply remove all facts. An internet without the pretence of truth would be a much more honest place.
> We're expected to believe some Podunk in the middle of Podubkstan has more access to facts?
Certain facts, yes. A lot of great minds are disconnected from institutions and corporations (Gwern comes to mind-https://www.gwern.net/index). And when some of the things they've taken the time to research or present arguments on go against the preferred narrative of those institutions, now, they can be disappeared with this decision as precedent.
Putting that into an example: say Corporation X releases a new frozen food that triggers a rare autoimmune disease leading to death in certain people. A small-town doctor ("Podunk") has experience with that disease, understands why the food triggers the response it does, and speaks out.
If Corporation X doesn't like that message, with moves like this, now it will be justified (or at least, rationalized) to get rid of that doctor's information. The argument you're presenting here—that they're not credentialed enough—means more people are ultimately in harm's way.
But what could possibly separate this from a hit piece by a competitor? Or lies made up by health-food advocates? Or someone with too much time on their hands making up things for fun?
If it's amplified enough, if it agrees with what people already think, the actual truth or reliability is lost. It's impossible to tell a doctor from someone pretending to be a doctor from someone pretending to be someone who saw a doctor. The impenetrable layers of deception practicable by average people, combined with the unfortunate necessity of credulity for the average person's sanity, means there's no way that outrageous lies won't be hopelessly amplified in an endless feedback loop.
I'm sure you can fill in your own example (flat earth, 5G-covid lies, people who believe wifi gives them headaches...) When it's to something someone has vested interest in? The world has no chance.
> But what could possibly separate this from a hit piece by a competitor? Or lies made up by health-food advocates? Or someone with too much time on their hands making up things for fun?
Ultimately? Nothing but personal responsibility.
If people want to be ignorant, they should be free to, whether you or I like it. Adults can and should make their own decisions. There is no need for babysitting or thought policing. Arguably, that's the beauty of natural selection—the water finds it's level.
The solution, and arguably where efforts should be focused (as opposed to on censorship) is on education. Very few people know how to think critically, primarily because it's not taught. The inability for adults to parse truth from fact, or conversely, be critical of what they're told is fact should be core curriculum.
It's not because, well, it doesn't benefit the system. A dumbed down mass is easy to control and cheap to employ, but that manufacturing of the mind has consequences.
The reality is that companies like YouTube (and other social media co's) are reaping what they sowed. They built their networks and platforms on encouraging short-form, entertaining content and designing experiences that take advantage of human psychology. This is just the end result.
Sadly, instead of working on remedying this—by educating critical thought—now they're just taking the 1984 route.
They certainly could. I'd love to see a guide to navigating social media/social networks that gets delivered to school teachers for addition to their curriculum. These things are a part of our world and who better to suggest how to navigate them than the people making them?
