Ask Lemmy

It's the nature of social networks. People mostly upvote (or whatever term) content they like/agree with, without vetting it. Contradictions or discomfort are voted down.

Some of what we call misinformation is just ignorance, some is people who lack context and some is on purpose but for a "good" cause. Similarly, one person's bad actor is another's reasonable critic. (In debate, you often examine something through someone else's lens/given framework, which necessitates examining from a position with which you do not agree. Which is often called bad faith acting.)

Trolls are the silliest and I don't get it but again, any community large enough will attract a weird subset who want to mess with it or, legit don't have the social skills. (I think of a sad account that saw a star trek or wars joke and wandered in to tell people they didn't like the series because it was for kids and then seemed to relish in the backlash. But looking over their comment history, they seemed an otherwise normal person.)

So, unless we really fundamentally change the nature of social media, I don't see those as solvable problems.

And if we could solve those issues, would people even want it? Would folks want to constantly see things that implied they might not be good people or that their politics or beliefs might be wrong? I think back to a post, somewhere on the fediverse about a vegan criticizing carnivores re: climate change. Even in the Leftist fediverse, it was downvoted to oblivion. But had it been about say cars, ai etc making the same point...