10-24-2019, 10:30 AM
In terms of the crypto currency, I don't really care because frankly I don't think the concept is going to take off short of the U.S. Government issuing their own. The problem here is what value does a Facebook crypto currency provide over a credit card linked to a cell phone? The answer is none. The reason Bitcoin was unique was that is was truly a self sustained currency that couldn't be manipulated by a single government. In many countries Bitcoin became a way to store your money to fight hyperinflation by the government on local currencies. Bitcoin's volatility though has made it a better investing tool than actual monetary device.
In terms of Facebook and the whole misinformation campaigns, their job isn't to regulate speech, even speech that is false. As much as people hate Zukerberg he is right on this one and the fact people actually want to ask a company to do such a thing leads to a very dangerous precedent. Instead of trying to limit people's exposure to false information, we should look in the mirror and ask ourselves why it's so damn easy for people to believe it. We don't properly teach our children how to critically reason and question the information they receive. We need to equip people with the tools to make good decision over trying to shield them from potentially making bad ones.
Once you go down the road of asking platforms to block false information you open up the question of who gets to determine what is false? That definition of "false" can then be dictated by the person enforcing the rules and now you've empowered someone to control content and manipulate what people see. Let's say an Atheist is now in charge of regulating the information and they decide that religion is false information and they ban it, are people going to still be happy they have given someone that power? Regulation of speech is a really powerful tool that you have to be careful who you allow to wield it.
In terms of Facebook and the whole misinformation campaigns, their job isn't to regulate speech, even speech that is false. As much as people hate Zukerberg he is right on this one and the fact people actually want to ask a company to do such a thing leads to a very dangerous precedent. Instead of trying to limit people's exposure to false information, we should look in the mirror and ask ourselves why it's so damn easy for people to believe it. We don't properly teach our children how to critically reason and question the information they receive. We need to equip people with the tools to make good decision over trying to shield them from potentially making bad ones.
Once you go down the road of asking platforms to block false information you open up the question of who gets to determine what is false? That definition of "false" can then be dictated by the person enforcing the rules and now you've empowered someone to control content and manipulate what people see. Let's say an Atheist is now in charge of regulating the information and they decide that religion is false information and they ban it, are people going to still be happy they have given someone that power? Regulation of speech is a really powerful tool that you have to be careful who you allow to wield it.
