The War That Broke Social Media

5 points by LunarAurora 1 year ago | 6 comments
  • beardyw 1 year ago
    A few days ago I posted "It's more that robots don't care if people die. Some humans too." -in a discussion about robots.

    When I got a down vote I guessed that it was for the second sentence. But it sent me into a whirl of thought. What do you feel that results in a down vote for something so abstract? I assumed it was someone on one side of that conflict, but which. Either way they must feel that they are somehow culpable or why take offence. So really was it for highlighting what they already thought? Is that the real cause, something like - I feel uneasy about my side so I would rather you didn't challenge me with it?

    Or maybe it's just about robots.

    • LunarAurora 1 year ago
      https://archive.ph/XQhKb
      • _mitterpach 1 year ago
        I’d tend to agree here. While I haven’t noticed it much during other conflicts, I think this one has been a hive of disinformation and lies, probably from both sides?

        I find myself actively disregarding every article and a piece of news, especially since the hospital bombing affair. Just can’t trust anyone to not be pulling a trick by embellishing numbers or leaving out a crucial piece of information. I don’t think that’s a new concept or that it started now, but it’s become apparent to me in the last few weeks.

        I don’t envy the role of people who have to make actual impactful decision, often on the basis of incomplete reports.

        • AnimalMuppet 1 year ago
          Other conflicts were less on social media. There was still propaganda, "a hive of disinformation and lies", but it was easier for one side to control the narrative (at least within any one country).

          > I don’t envy the role of people who have to make actual impactful decision, often on the basis of incomplete reports.

          They often have more accurate information than we have. (If nothing else, they don't have to wade through their side's propaganda and lies.) But yes, they still have the problem, and it's still really hard.

          • progne 1 year ago
            > (If nothing else, they don't have to wade through their side's propaganda and lies.)

            I don't get it, I have to wade through my own country's propaganda and lies to get to the truth. Why would that be different for an Israeli or Palestinian? Unless you're part of creating it, the rest of us are as vulnerable to our own government's propaganda as the actual target.

            • AnimalMuppet 1 year ago
              I read the statement "people who have to make actual impactful decision" as being high-level government people. I assume they can get information untainted by their own government's propaganda and disinformation. (They can also probably get information less tainted by the other side's propaganda and disinformation, though not perfectly so.)