Additional thoughts on Elon's media rating site:
First, more critical scrutiny of the media is good, all else equal, even if most critiques are bad. It's the voting/rating part, and taking votes as indicators of accuracy, that I think is doomed and naive.
(1/n)
First, more critical scrutiny of the media is good, all else equal, even if most critiques are bad. It's the voting/rating part, and taking votes as indicators of accuracy, that I think is doomed and naive.
(1/n)
Second, some people brought up Wikipedia. I agree they're an impressive success story. But their job is adjudicating disputes about *facts*, which is much less hard than disputes about fairness/bias. (2/n)
For example, the genesis of Elon's media rating site proposal was his claim that the media is biased against Tesla, and that coverage of Tesla crashes proves that.
I think he's wrong, and that Tesla crashes are genuinely newsworthy, for reasons I've explained elsewhere. (3/n)
I think he's wrong, and that Tesla crashes are genuinely newsworthy, for reasons I've explained elsewhere. (3/n)
But notice our dispute is not as cleanly resolvable as, like, "Did a Tesla crash occur?" which is the kind of thing Wikipedia would be adjudicating.
(4/n)
(4/n)
Lots of people agreed with Elon, and many of them did so for (IMO) bad reasons, like love of Elon.
Lots of other people agreed with me, and many of them did so for (IMO) bad reasons, like hatred of Elon.
(5/n)
Lots of other people agreed with me, and many of them did so for (IMO) bad reasons, like hatred of Elon.
(5/n)
This is the discussion over the *motivating case* for Elon's media rating website, & it's a mess.
That Elon thinks his side is self-evidently correct does not give me confidence for whatever voting system he's going to implement to make his site produce "correct" answers. (6/n)
That Elon thinks his side is self-evidently correct does not give me confidence for whatever voting system he's going to implement to make his site produce "correct" answers. (6/n)
