Short of that, there are certainly better practices and good examples out there. We at the Center for Humane Technology focus all our time on systemic change. The system in place rewards values that are not congruent with the scientific process and that kind of epistemic practice. So it’s not a content moderation problem it’s a design and paradigm and business model problem.
This is a side effect of sorting for what is engaging-and engaging is sticky and mimetic and simple. Harris: Oftentimes people think, “Well, I’ll do it personally in a way that is nuanced and offers context, and if I can be one of the good actors, maybe I can set an example, and maybe other people will follow me, and then maybe it’ll be a race to the top for who does that nuanced, context-driven thing better.”īut the fundamental problem is an engagement-based design paradigm in which, for example, social media algorithms rank which content we see, and the design choices reward shorter, bite-sized bits of information that prefer a lack of context and nuance. In the current online environment, is it even possible to convey scientific information well? If so, how should scientists and journalists approach that? Science aspires to be accurate and impartial and nuanced.
0 kommentar(er)
