Leaked email shows how Cambridge Analytica and Facebook first responded in 2015
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
No one is impervious to this and I’ve seen many articles on both left and right that are completely false. We need to be very careful to do proper research on the likely correctness and fact checking of articles, images and even videos before they are shared, but you can go too far the other way if you try to automate this. Social media should probably warn you with algorithms if you share something likely to be false.
But I suspect the bigger problem is that the amount of research needed to hold an informed opinion is growing exponentially in many fields.
Which is why trust becomes more important than ever.
[1] This article summarizes some of the findings of one such study and links to further resources https://qz.com/638845/americans-are-spectacularly-bad-at-ans...
It also would help, if there was a App-Agent, checking the facts in a text.
For example:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Nonsense, is just the AI enhanced propaganda that is making you think that.
If this is true, then I wonder if one could repurpose the machinery towards making people resistant to such manipulation. Push people's buttons to make them think there's something wrong with bleu cheese, then follow up (perhaps at the end of the article, perhaps later) with a description of how their buttons were pushed and a listing of everything that was faked. The analogy would be vaccination.
If you get hoaxed once and learn that it was a hoax, that may not have much effect (see Gell-Mann amnesia). If it happens six times in a row, I suspect that will make you significantly less liable to believe things you read without question.
Another side effect is that any other tech company (like Twitter) might close down their APIs etc even more.
One basic problem which I don’t understand from Facebook which could’ve prevented most of all this is: why aren’t the default settings of an account more secure and private?
That goes for everything for those with position of power.
"It's creepy what all these policemen do, but what can I do?" "It's creepy what all these politicians do, but what can I do?" etc etc
In case of FaceBook, whey know what to do. So "Regular people don't care much..." is the correct conclusion as as far as I can see.
My anecdata is that I met plenty of people who said "Facebook is the best", then they take a picture of you to upload it there regardless of what anyone thinks (would even tag it by the name). And I can't see how they would change their mind unless it is by public shaming - the same way that smoking has been reduces in many places.
They are (for the most relevant definition of your question).
Specifically a Facebook app you choose to install can no longer see any of your friends information. That was done in 2014 before any of this happened, more details and timeline here: https://www.facebook.com/boz/posts/10104702799873151
I think there is something of a threshold for "liar", i.e. the implication is that it's habitual, or that the consequences are serious (sometimes, but not always both of those). And there is a huge variation in the trustworthiness or lie-frequency of individuals, that I think would be fairly consistent if you watch the same person over time, then compare them to others. A reasonable person has probably spotted high frequency liars at various points of daily life and made mental notes not to trust them, or the opposite for the opposite traits, and made these determinations correctly.
So I think the point is a little facetious.
Link to email snapshot.