People Twitter

5392 readers

453 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a tweet or similar
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

769

Twitter disinformation is getting substantially more dangerous (lemm.ee)

submitted 2 days ago by WeUnite@lemm.ee to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source: https://bsky.app/profile/aoc.bsky.social/post/3ldyajiajrk2w

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BeeDemocracy@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It feels like the more speech we produced on the internet the more of it turned out to be bullshit. We need to turn to quality over quantity.

That's a really interesting point. The question to me becomes: what facilitates quality over quantity? What encourages earnest dialectic dialogue over raging and trolling? I don't see the twitter format as the answer. Lemmy I feel is somewhat better at facilitating such a culture.

We need non-profit news outlets that are publicly and internationally founded with transparent decision-making.

~~Non-profit, public, transparent, those are all things any government body should be. What it seems you're describing is a centralised government body for determining truth/falsehood. To the exclusion of all others?~~

~~If you want to know what's going on in the world, read from at least 4 news sources from different parts of the world with different slants and ideologies. Note: they will contradict each other.~~

woops sorry, I misread outlets, thought it read outlet...

[–] killingspark@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The question to me becomes: what facilitates quality over quantity? What encourages earnest dialectic dialogue over raging and trolling?

Yeah that definitely is the question. And I'm not going to claim that I have the definitive answers.

I think one aspect is that it used to take a lot of effort to publish something. So there was an incentive to only publish stuff that was worth publishing. That doesn't mean it was necessarily close to factual or even strictly objectively "better". But it was harder to unleash a shitstorm on small things and, since a lot less was published, there was more time to consider the things that were.

I think that ties into the second point, people had more time to process stuff. We are racing from headline to headline and only processing using emotions not rational thinking.

But I also have to admit that manipulation and propaganda obviously were a thing and worked in the past too so maybe that's all just romanticism for a time that wasn't actually better, just different.

Edit: I think Lemmy is better only because we are still in relatively small spaces and many instances are relatively quick with banning trolls (and even defederating entire instances). So maybe smaller but diverse spaces with harsh moderation on trolling/intentional misinformation are the answer?