Technology

59086 readers

3563 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

669

How do people find good information on the internet these days? (programming.dev)

submitted 1 year ago by catch22@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

212 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It used to be that you would do a search on a relevant subject and get blog posts, forums posts, and maybe a couple of relevant companies offering the product or service. (And if you wanted more information on said company you could give them a call and actually talk to a real person about said service) You could even trust amazon and yelp reviews. Now searches have been completely taken over by Forbes top 10 lists, random affiliate link click through aggregators that copy and paste each others work, review factories that will kill your competitors and boost your product stars, ect.... It seems like the internet has gotten soooo much harder to use, just because you have to wade through all the bullshit. It's no wonder people switch to reddit and lemmy style sites, in a way it mirrors a little what kind of information you used to be able to garner from the internet in it's early days. What do people do these days to find genuine information about products or services?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 790@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Alignment with the facts? Depends. https://quillette.com/2022/07/18/cognitive-distortions/

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What I'm getting from that is:

(1) Wikipedias editors don't want to use racists as sources for articles.

(2) The author thinks refusing to give equal time to fringe arguments that link genetics and intelligence is a surrender to "woke ideology" that will kill Wikipedia in the long run.

Yawn.

[–] 790@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"fringe arguments that link genetics and intelligence" -- genes influence intelligence, that's the state of science.

I've always wondered how people who think the link between genes and intelligence is false explain the evolution of intelligence. I'm honestly shocked that people here in "Technology" give your comment so many upvotes. Shouldn't we be more sciency here? Also, AI is a good example that intelligence is not independent of the material world.

Your point (1) probably gets applause because of camp thinking. Don't let your beliefs become your identity. http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxqTOm3TzsY

However, I understand that the topic is extremely uncomfortable and personally even think it should be avoided because society is not ready for it. There is still too much racism and hatred existing in society for this knowledge not to be abused. The same social immaturity also explains why currently many suspect this research to be motivated by racism.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=NxqTOm3TzsY

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If you feel something doesn't align with facts, there is a whole multi-level system. Check the talk page to see if the page isn't part of some sanctioned case. Make a referenced change. If it is revered, bring it up on the talk page. Seek consensus. If there is a coordinated group of people reverting you, then bring your case to Request for Comment (RfC). If you are following the rules and being civil, others will come to your aid through the RfC process. If it breaks out into an edit war, the thing will go to the Arbicom and those that were civil will "win", e.g. the people not being civil will be banned.

[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Well that was interesting. Useful to know I cant rely on Wikipedia any more for anything on human intelligence.

With anything controversial like this its best to go direct to the source if possible - the research itself