Why the marketplace of ideas needs more markets

Episteme:1-18 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is frequently argued that false and misleading claims, spread primarily on social media, are a serious problem in need of urgent response. Current strategies to address the problem – relying on fact-checks, source labeling, limits on the visibility of certain claims, and, ultimately, content removals – face two serious shortcomings: they are ineffective and biased. Consequently, it is reasonable to want to seek alternatives. This paper provides one: to address the problems with misinformation, social media platforms should abandon third-party fact-checks and rely instead on user-driven prediction markets. This solution is likely less biased and more effective than currently implemented alternatives and, therefore, constitutes a superior way of tackling misinformation.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,010

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-01-23

Downloads
8 (#1,580,566)

6 months
8 (#587,211)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Fake News and Epistemic Vice: Combating a Uniquely Noxious Market.Megan Fritts & Frank Cabrera - 2022 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association (3):1-22.
The marketplace of rationalizations.Daniel Williams - 2023 - Economics and Philosophy 39 (1):99-123.
Is the Attention Economy Noxious?Clinton Castro & Adam Pham - 2020 - Philosophers' Imprint 20 (17):1-13.

View all 9 references / Add more references