
Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart - raleighm
https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/lets-disrupt-the-logic-thats-driving-americans-apart/
======
keiferski
Pretty much a non-article. The only argument presented seems to be in favor of
restoring the old gatekeepers:

 _because although many of us (early 2000s “us”) had imagined that digital
technologies would empower citizens by facilitating collective action and
eroding the control of elite gatekeepers, many of us have had to accept that,
without those gatekeepers and with horizontal networks, users become readily
exploitable by algorithms and bad actors._

...because the traditional media has always been trustworthy, right? Whatever
solution there is to growing polarization, it isn't going to come from the
establishment.

~~~
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
I thought this was a funny conclusion to come to as well. Let the
organizations (known to be a mouthpiece of governments) shape public opinion
and be the trusted gatekeeper to our knowledge? No thanks.

Personally I’ll take the present situation, where average people can learn
uncomfortable truths about our society.

------
fallingfrog
The issue here is that the center has become decidedly rotten; something has
to give, and everyone knows that on a political, social, and economic level,
there is no longer any normal to go back to. The good times were never a
product of our national unity or our figuring out the best way to do things.
They were a historical phenomenon arising from a specific set of
circumstances. You can’t just go back to how things were in the 90’s or 80’s,
that time is gone.

------
robomartin
In some ways one part of the solution is simple: Pass laws that deliver
consequences for lying and disseminating false information or fabricating
narratives.

 _Note I am NOT identifying any one political party as the culprit. They are
all at fault here._

These laws should apply to everyone, from traditional news networks to
politicians and individuals. I know the situation is a bit different with
social media. If the argument is that all they do is provide a means for
interpersonal communication with minimal or no supervision, then, OK, the laws
apply to individual users and perhaps only apply to social networks if users
are allowed to post and exist anonymously.

This isn't a new concept. Human life is about reacting to consequences. From
learning how to walk to learning not to touch hot pots or when to cross the
street. The most basic of human behaviors are self regulated due to very clear
undesirable consequences we learn about along the way.

Politics and the media are absolutely rotten. They both hide behind the abject
lack of consequences. Both politicians and media outlets can lie and fabricate
with absolute impunity. I won't list examples here, suffice it to say we could
easily fill thousands of hours of videos with examples of both media and
politics (on all sides of political thought) lying or misguiding the public
with impunity.

This is a forcing function these people do not have. And, because of that,
they can say and do almost as they please without consequences. Taking things
out of context, fabricating "facts" and threading ridiculous conclusions are
every-day realities. Sadly, the Internet and Social media has expanded this
exponentially through massively greater access to all of it and the ability
for people to interconnect and interact like never before.

If we implement consequences for this most insidious problem we will be
treated to a very different kind of politics and politicians as well as media
that actually does the homework necessary to report well researched facts
rather than distortions and politically aligned falsehoods hour after hour,
day after day, year after year.

This would be a refreshing start. Not perfect, but it would address one of the
most serious issues pulling people apart: The dissemination of lies that, when
repeated enough times, are taken to be true by a population seemingly
uninterested or incapable of research and critical thinking (factors that are
openly exploited by political actors).

~~~
ahartman00
It has been done. It's not as simple as it seems, the link explains furthur.

"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs,
effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to
a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or
ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel)

edit: made less snarky

~~~
specialist
Now I want to learn why there aren't more defamation lawsuits.

I'm uncomfortable muzzling people. But I enthusiastically support holding
everyone accountable for the harm they cause.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation)

If you say it, you gotta own it, for better or for worse.

------
qnsi
Waste of time article. Perpetuates myths that are inaccurate like with the
information silos.

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
I don’t really see a simple way out of the present situation. Maybe there was
once a time when people tolerated the “wrong” views of others, but that’s long
past.

Now the hegemony is enforced in many ways. Social firing campaigns being one
of the popular ones.

~~~
Nasrudith
Social firing for the wrong views was always a thing. Before even the HUAC -
just ask any unwed mother who was fired or look at "morality" clauses. The
Supreme Court accepted special pleading of "because drugs" in the "Bong Hits
for Jesus" case of school jurisdiction.

It is just a matter of whose ox is being gored - listen closely and you will
hear the long echoes of "Welcome to my world.".

