Lies on the Internet

> Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable. > But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer. > Of those polled, 95% felt a loyalty to Britain, while 93% believed that Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws. 24%. 24% = 1/3. You seem like the kind of person who caused the McDonalds 1/3 pounder flop. ▶ this video But the better argument is that 24% of people saying "it could be justified" is that it actually could be justified. Should I punch everyone who includes Nazi symbology in their art? No. Should I punch a Nazi who repeatedly promotes his ideology through his art? Yes.

At the end of the day, it's your choice how you determine what's true, but I don't believe anyone has the right to tell you how to do that -- that the screening should happen between you and the content, not between the submitter and the platform -- kind of like XSS prevention (you must assume anything can get into the database, but all that matters is how it's executed by the end user). I'll give my personal opinion, which you may want to treat as one of many possible viewpoints: ▶ this video link The internet has run on the concept of trust and reputation for a while now, but IMO, if you want anything close to the full story, you have to put in the work yourself: Compile your sources, evaluate your and their biases, and come to a conclusion. Ground News is a pretty neat tool to help me with this if it's a widely-reported story. Some examples: - Something from a reputable news source? Probably true, but not always. I try to wait for a decent handful of other, diverse outlets to report on it before believing it, sharing it, etc. - Something from a single account on Twitter on Hacker News? Probably not, but not always. I try to wait for other confirmations before believing it, sharing it, etc. I personally believe it to be a case where free speech wins, people raise the bar for what's worth their trust, and fake news begins to decline as a result -- the opposite being one where people lower their guard due to blind trust in other entities, and fake news can therefore take advanta

I particularly enjoy Arthur the Aardvark's take on false information on the internet[1]. The author is right. Letting the community decide what is true will be a disaster. Really, truth (or lack there of) is outside Twitter's scope. Twitter exists to allow users to communicate. Not to educate users on critical thinking, or arbitrate truth. Even if they "democratize" truth. 1 - ▶ this video

"Anon, I suggest you start flossing more regularly to clean debris in-between your teeth" "No thanks Mr. Dentist, an article I read on the internet said that is dumb :-)" ▶ this video