6 ms·

Is anyone else disheartened by the fact that the discussion on "fake news" has focused around e.g. regulating social media, rather than just teaching people bas

Is anyone else disheartened by the fact that the discussion on "fake news" has focused around e.g. regulating social media, rather than just teaching people basic critical thinking skills?

threeseed 8y ago
Absolutely not. Because (a) most people simply don't have the time or skills to fact check every single piece of information and (b) even if they did it assumes that they have the awareness to do so. Both assumptions have been proven wrong again and again. What we can do instead as a society is force the the billion-dollar social media companies to take responsibility for the content that they chose to display and the ads they chose to serve. Same as newspapers do, television stations do, and every other media format do every single day.
- Moodles 8y ago
  But I don't think it's that hard or time consuming to fact check the news you read. Some people don't have the skills, yeah, which is why we should focus on teaching them critical thinking. That's not an argument for not trying to teach them.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    I never argued that we shouldn't teach them. I argued that it doesn't work. And that it's better to focus on regulating social media companies.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    It really depends on the article. Throw enough specialist jargon in the article and it will take hours to really understand 2 paragraphs. And fact checking may not be enough anyway. You can selectively report facts which seem to tell any story you want - everything will be correct, but could miss the bigger context, so what you learn is opposite to what you should learn from reality.
- kingofhdds 8y ago
  What I see in your comment: people are too stupid to understand what's right for them, so we "as a society" should make commercial entities to censor their platforms to pre-filter information available to general public. Few questions arise: If you believe that people can't be trusted to decide if not guarded against unwanted information, do you really believe in democracy? Who are "we as a society"? Apparently, you are not talking about all people, or even majority.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Yes societies has been doing this for generations. News organisations self-censor to ensure what they are posting is mostly factual, adheres to journalistic traditions and avoids slanderous and libellous content. We have laws that make it illegal to post certain content. You can disagree with it but it is the status quo in most countries and I see no reason why social media should be any different.
    - kingofhdds 8y ago
      I don't think we are talking about libellous content: as you noted yourself it is already covered by existing laws, and there's no need to invent additional regulations for that. As for thing you call "self-censorship" there are two very different parts: pursuing correctness is not, actually, self-censorship, it's building reputation, and a long-term trust with an audience - and done essentially for commercial success. But there's self-censorship in media, of course, it exists because if political pressure, sponsors' influence, and last, but not least because most of journalists are not magical creatures, they are humans too, and naturally biased as all of us are. And I never heard anyone claiming this self-censorship to be good for society, and worth expanding.
- azangru 8y ago
  > Same as newspapers do, television stations do, and every other media format do every single day. But newspapers, tv stations etc. are centralized hierarchical structures that can afford to have editorial policies. They have such thing as reputation to think about. Social media, on the other hand, at least how I envision them, are open platforms for anyone to find topics that interest them and express whichever ideas they want. Social media are amorphous, are different for every user, and should not have any agenda to push. They are a delivery mechanism, not an instrument for selectively amplifying some voices and selectively suppressing others.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    How is social media not centralised ? Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram etc. There are only like a dozen major companies involved here and they are not just a delivery mechanism since they already filter what content gets displayed.
    - azangru 8y ago
      > How is social media not centralised ? They may be centralized in the sense of them being specific companies or hosting their data on specific servers, but at the same time they are not centralized in the sense that they have an editorial staff that chooses which content to publish / air (as the traditioinal media are). Social media are entirely or mostly user-generated. That’s what I meant.
  - mike_hearn 8y ago
    Newspapers don't have much reputation anymore: https://www.impress.press/news/yougov-poll.html https://www.impress.press/news/yougov-poll.html In practice reputational value doesn't seem to be sufficient to stop newspapers routinely publishing false stories and people know it. Social media is not even a publisher and thus doesn't have the same issues.
sh1989 8y ago
Not really. If you take a look at some of the publications that Vote Leave put out during the 2016 referendum, some of them actually had nothing to do with the campaign! They put out advertisements about seemingly unrelated subjects, purely to build, collate and triangulate a distribution list for the main material. There was no sign these were from a political organisation. In my opinion the regulation and reporting of political campaigning and advertisments is absolutely necessary. The ground has shifted below the regulators so much and it's perfectly reasonable to keep regulation up to date.
saulrh 8y ago
Is anyone else disheartened by the fact that the discussion on "snake oil" has focused around e.g. regulating clinical trials and pharmaceutical manufacturing, rather than just teaching people basic critical thinking skills and label-reading skills? Answer: No. Modern advertising techniques are effective enough that most people simply cannot defend themselves against them. Micro-targeting of extremist viewpoints is so effective that I tend to think of it as a low-grade basilisk attack of sorts, a political equivalent of the langford death parrot: If you don't have your special protective goggles on there is nothing you can do to keep your opinion from being pushed around in depressingly predictable ways. There are studies that demonstrate that information that you consciously and correctly refute and disregard still affects your beliefs. And that's only useful if you're perfect; there's a rather nasty ratchet effect at work on your confidence bounds, so every single error leads to a nearly permanent skew that can be used to lever you arbitrarily far away from "truth". Even if you could correctly discard information that was outside believable confidence bounds, these systems can just denial-of-service your ability to gather competing information and pull off a good Cartesian evil demon act.
- Moodles 8y ago
  But I think teaching kids to read the label on their food is a good idea...
  - saulrh 8y ago
    It is! It's good for their health, but at a much finer grain and for different purposes than protecting them from, for example, buying beef that's full of arsenic or a bottle of tylenol 500mg +/- 2000mg. Being able to read critically is absolutely a necessary skill. But it's fallen behind as a defensive measure against outright attacks on your knowledge base. There's simply no level of critical reading that can keep your opinions correct in the face of a torrent of falsely-attributed hate speech.
    - Moodles 8y ago
      Perhaps you are right that the most effective long-term way to stop the masses believing bullshit and eating shitty food is by forcing the companies to do something about it, rather than teaching kids to think and look after themselves. I hope you're wrong, though. It just seems that teaching kids good habits early on will kill off all the bad habits, fake news nonsense at the source. Fake news would die by natural section because everyone would see through it. I hope it is possible. It would be nice to see more of a focused effort on teaching kids that anyway. Perhaps evidence shows it's futile, though. The current state of affairs is very disheartening in any case.
azangru 8y ago
I am, yes! Nice to see a kindred spirit :-)
arel 8y ago
Its both: 1. Platforms have a civic responsibility to not promote disinformation. 2. Citizens have a responsibility to escape their bias and bubbles and reject disinformation. But in the current environment where even basic truth and sources are under attack by yelling 'fake news' where is the foundational truth on which to even arrive at critical thinking? This is the authoritarian's great trick. Critical thinking is hard work and discomforting, its much easier to pick a side and allow yourself to be manipulated. We need critical thinking but more importantly we need to attack the tribalism and polarisation that prevent us even making the journey to critical thinking.
- tajen 8y ago
  and 3. Public media I mean we’ve been told for 40 years that men can only perform conjugal violence and never be victims, only to discover the media has been hiding exactly half of the stories, being silent over 1/4 husbands who will be beaten across their life (the other figure, 1/3 wives, is well-known). It wasn’t literally a lie because each sentence said by the media was true, but they only presented a biased viewpoint. And that’s why a famous « info » channel has lost 30% viewers since last election: recurrent demonstrated bias. People inform themselves on social media because of an immense lack of trust after all media said Trump was going to cause a nuclear war. 18 months later, still waiting. These « fake news » laws, both in USA and Europe, are only the media trying to keep their monopoly in deciding who gets audience or not. And it’s inimaginably dishonest, but they will be voted, because people are gullible.
- azangru 8y ago
  > But in the current environment where even basic truth and sources are under attack by yelling 'fake news' where is the foundational truth on which to even arrive at critical thinking? > This is the authoritarian's great trick. Is it an undeniable fact that the current environment is significantly different in people’s attitude towards foundational truths than the previous environments? In truly authoritarian (or totalitarian) countries, there are very few outlets broadcasting what goes there for the foundational truths. People are supposed to believe what is being told them via these outlets, yet many (especially the intellectuals) develop defensive mechanisms and learn to ignore what is presented to them as foundational truths. Take the Soviet Union as an example. There were several state-run newspapers and TV channels translating what went for foundational truths, yet with time many learned to disbelieve what they saw on TV or read in newspapers.
CM30 8y ago
Yes. Because it feels like a blatant attack on alternative news sites and media sources, and makes me worry that any attempt to shut down fake news will be used to shut down real news that paints authorities or the mainstream media in a bad light. It makes me think of the debates about encryption backdoors and police master keys for security systems. In the same way a backdoor for the police/authorities can quickly become one for criminals and foreign agents, limits on news sites, media sharing or freedom of speech can become weapons of government or corporate oppression/censorship. Fake news can certainly be an issue, but it feels like any solution will just be another tool for incumbents to secure their power and freedoms to be restricted.
- Moodles 8y ago
  I'm not sure if it's a "blatant attack on alternative news sites". I think probably people actually have good intentions here rather than some establishment conspiracy. I'm not convinced that regulating social media news is the best policy to focus on, though.
  - vowelless 8y ago
    > I think probably people actually have good intentions here. Everyone thinks that their own intentions are good.
    - Moodles 8y ago
      What are you trying to tell me? I'm just saying that my opinion is that I doubt this is some establishment conspiracy to make voters vote for them. I think the MPs are probably just trying to get rid of fake news right now. I certainly don't know how anyone can see this as a "blatant" attack. It certainly doesn't look blatant to me. It is at least plausible that they're trying to genuinely help without malicious intent.
  - lesss365 8y ago
    It's a term blatantly used for censorship and blanket discrediting of sources of information, whether credible or not. It's popularity began with the Clinton campaign and was quickly adopted by GOP candidates Edit: By "it" I mean "fake news"
bepotts 8y ago
I've noticed that the politicians who discuss regulating social media the most are often times the same politicians who've had their worldview challenged recently. In the US we have Democrats using Facebook and Twitter as a scapegoat for the rise of Trump. To Democrats, it's not that they're smug and look down on half the country, it isn't that they want to raise taxes to fund programs half the country doesn't want, or that they look down upon gun owners. No, it's the fact that Facebook's algorithms keep people bubbles, and Twitter gave Trump a megaphone that's the problem. To them, if those social media companies were heavily regulated then Trump wouldn't exist. First it was "fake news"; then it the Russians; then it was the affect social media has on society; then it was Cambridge Analytica; and now we're at Silicon Valley as a whole being a problem, with Google's search algorithms distorting democracy and social media companies not allowing "real news" to flourish over fake news. At no point do these people take a step back and say,"hey, maybe Trump got elected because people don't like us?" And I say this as someone who is socially liberal. I see this as clear day and I get annoyed by it; I can only imagine how I'd feel if I were a conservative. You see a similar process play it in the UK, except with Brexit. At first it was leave voters being too stupid to know what's good for them, then it was the dishonesty of Farage and Johnson (as if politicians lying were a new phenomena), and now they're on to blaming social media and some shady campaign financing from leave groups. The world order has been challenged in the West and instead of mounting a defense of the establishment, the establishment blames the methods that the dissenters used to organize and punch them in the face. That's what makes the who social media debate frustrating to me. Politicians are obfuscating their true intentions and motives. It's as clear as day. Social media needs to clean up its mess, but the fact that there's no gatekeepers and everyone can have a voice is a good thing. That ability has allowed people in the middle east to topple dictators and shine a light on human rights abuses. Politicans in the UK and the United States should just learn how to govern better.
- CM30 8y ago
  > At no point do these people take a step back and say,"hey, maybe Trump got elected because people don't like us?" This is arguably the key point. And I think the reason that's the case is because well, what were the mainstream politicians and parties offering? Not much. At least, not much that their bases wanted, and not much that'd improve people's standard of living. It was 'more of the same', with a helping of pro corporation laws and tax breaks. And their marketing was especially dire during the EU Referendum and 2016 election. Tons of comments about how wrong or stupid or 'deplorable' the other side was, lots of assumptions about how they'd automatically win. No promises about how the world/population would be better off under their system or how things would improve in general. Will either Trump or Brexit or what not make things better? No, likely not, but the solution isn't to try and lock down communication systems to stop it happening again, it's to take a long look at your party and political platform and start offering things people want rather than what gets you money or power.
pohl 8y ago
Unfortunately, the forces that fake news are currently being leveraged for happen to be the ones who do not want strong education policy (because tax cuts) and they currently have the upper hand. The boil-the-ocean strategy of just teaching everyone critical thinking isn’t really on the table at the moment.

Is anyone else disheartened by the fact that the discussion on "fake news" has focused around e.g. regulating social media, rather than just teaching people basic critical thinking skills?

threeseed 8y ago

Absolutely not. Because (a) most people simply don't have the time or skills to fact check every single piece of information and (b) even if they did it assumes that they have the awareness to do so. Both assumptions have been proven wrong again and again. What we can do instead as a society is force the the billion-dollar social media companies to take responsibility for the content that they chose to display and the ads they chose to serve. Same as newspapers do, television stations do, and every other media format do every single day.

Moodles 8y ago
But I don't think it's that hard or time consuming to fact check the news you read. Some people don't have the skills, yeah, which is why we should focus on teaching them critical thinking. That's not an argument for not trying to teach them.
- threeseed 8y ago
  I never argued that we shouldn't teach them. I argued that it doesn't work. And that it's better to focus on regulating social media companies.
- viraptor 8y ago
  It really depends on the article. Throw enough specialist jargon in the article and it will take hours to really understand 2 paragraphs. And fact checking may not be enough anyway. You can selectively report facts which seem to tell any story you want - everything will be correct, but could miss the bigger context, so what you learn is opposite to what you should learn from reality.
kingofhdds 8y ago
What I see in your comment: people are too stupid to understand what's right for them, so we "as a society" should make commercial entities to censor their platforms to pre-filter information available to general public. Few questions arise: If you believe that people can't be trusted to decide if not guarded against unwanted information, do you really believe in democracy? Who are "we as a society"? Apparently, you are not talking about all people, or even majority.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Yes societies has been doing this for generations. News organisations self-censor to ensure what they are posting is mostly factual, adheres to journalistic traditions and avoids slanderous and libellous content. We have laws that make it illegal to post certain content. You can disagree with it but it is the status quo in most countries and I see no reason why social media should be any different.
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    I don't think we are talking about libellous content: as you noted yourself it is already covered by existing laws, and there's no need to invent additional regulations for that. As for thing you call "self-censorship" there are two very different parts: pursuing correctness is not, actually, self-censorship, it's building reputation, and a long-term trust with an audience - and done essentially for commercial success. But there's self-censorship in media, of course, it exists because if political pressure, sponsors' influence, and last, but not least because most of journalists are not magical creatures, they are humans too, and naturally biased as all of us are. And I never heard anyone claiming this self-censorship to be good for society, and worth expanding.
azangru 8y ago
> Same as newspapers do, television stations do, and every other media format do every single day. But newspapers, tv stations etc. are centralized hierarchical structures that can afford to have editorial policies. They have such thing as reputation to think about. Social media, on the other hand, at least how I envision them, are open platforms for anyone to find topics that interest them and express whichever ideas they want. Social media are amorphous, are different for every user, and should not have any agenda to push. They are a delivery mechanism, not an instrument for selectively amplifying some voices and selectively suppressing others.
- threeseed 8y ago
  How is social media not centralised ? Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram etc. There are only like a dozen major companies involved here and they are not just a delivery mechanism since they already filter what content gets displayed.
  - azangru 8y ago
    > How is social media not centralised ? They may be centralized in the sense of them being specific companies or hosting their data on specific servers, but at the same time they are not centralized in the sense that they have an editorial staff that chooses which content to publish / air (as the traditioinal media are). Social media are entirely or mostly user-generated. That’s what I meant.
- mike_hearn 8y ago
  Newspapers don't have much reputation anymore: https://www.impress.press/news/yougov-poll.html https://www.impress.press/news/yougov-poll.html In practice reputational value doesn't seem to be sufficient to stop newspapers routinely publishing false stories and people know it. Social media is not even a publisher and thus doesn't have the same issues.

sh1989 8y ago

Not really. If you take a look at some of the publications that Vote Leave put out during the 2016 referendum, some of them actually had nothing to do with the campaign! They put out advertisements about seemingly unrelated subjects, purely to build, collate and triangulate a distribution list for the main material. There was no sign these were from a political organisation. In my opinion the regulation and reporting of political campaigning and advertisments is absolutely necessary. The ground has shifted below the regulators so much and it's perfectly reasonable to keep regulation up to date.

saulrh 8y ago

Is anyone else disheartened by the fact that the discussion on "snake oil" has focused around e.g. regulating clinical trials and pharmaceutical manufacturing, rather than just teaching people basic critical thinking skills and label-reading skills? Answer: No. Modern advertising techniques are effective enough that most people simply cannot defend themselves against them. Micro-targeting of extremist viewpoints is so effective that I tend to think of it as a low-grade basilisk attack of sorts, a political equivalent of the langford death parrot: If you don't have your special protective goggles on there is nothing you can do to keep your opinion from being pushed around in depressingly predictable ways. There are studies that demonstrate that information that you consciously and correctly refute and disregard still affects your beliefs. And that's only useful if you're perfect; there's a rather nasty ratchet effect at work on your confidence bounds, so every single error leads to a nearly permanent skew that can be used to lever you arbitrarily far away from "truth". Even if you could correctly discard information that was outside believable confidence bounds, these systems can just denial-of-service your ability to gather competing information and pull off a good Cartesian evil demon act.

Moodles 8y ago
But I think teaching kids to read the label on their food is a good idea...
- saulrh 8y ago
  It is! It's good for their health, but at a much finer grain and for different purposes than protecting them from, for example, buying beef that's full of arsenic or a bottle of tylenol 500mg +/- 2000mg. Being able to read critically is absolutely a necessary skill. But it's fallen behind as a defensive measure against outright attacks on your knowledge base. There's simply no level of critical reading that can keep your opinions correct in the face of a torrent of falsely-attributed hate speech.
  - Moodles 8y ago
    Perhaps you are right that the most effective long-term way to stop the masses believing bullshit and eating shitty food is by forcing the companies to do something about it, rather than teaching kids to think and look after themselves. I hope you're wrong, though. It just seems that teaching kids good habits early on will kill off all the bad habits, fake news nonsense at the source. Fake news would die by natural section because everyone would see through it. I hope it is possible. It would be nice to see more of a focused effort on teaching kids that anyway. Perhaps evidence shows it's futile, though. The current state of affairs is very disheartening in any case.

azangru 8y ago

I am, yes! Nice to see a kindred spirit :-)

arel 8y ago

Its both: 1. Platforms have a civic responsibility to not promote disinformation. 2. Citizens have a responsibility to escape their bias and bubbles and reject disinformation. But in the current environment where even basic truth and sources are under attack by yelling 'fake news' where is the foundational truth on which to even arrive at critical thinking? This is the authoritarian's great trick. Critical thinking is hard work and discomforting, its much easier to pick a side and allow yourself to be manipulated. We need critical thinking but more importantly we need to attack the tribalism and polarisation that prevent us even making the journey to critical thinking.

tajen 8y ago
and 3. Public media I mean we’ve been told for 40 years that men can only perform conjugal violence and never be victims, only to discover the media has been hiding exactly half of the stories, being silent over 1/4 husbands who will be beaten across their life (the other figure, 1/3 wives, is well-known). It wasn’t literally a lie because each sentence said by the media was true, but they only presented a biased viewpoint. And that’s why a famous « info » channel has lost 30% viewers since last election: recurrent demonstrated bias. People inform themselves on social media because of an immense lack of trust after all media said Trump was going to cause a nuclear war. 18 months later, still waiting. These « fake news » laws, both in USA and Europe, are only the media trying to keep their monopoly in deciding who gets audience or not. And it’s inimaginably dishonest, but they will be voted, because people are gullible.
azangru 8y ago
> But in the current environment where even basic truth and sources are under attack by yelling 'fake news' where is the foundational truth on which to even arrive at critical thinking? > This is the authoritarian's great trick. Is it an undeniable fact that the current environment is significantly different in people’s attitude towards foundational truths than the previous environments? In truly authoritarian (or totalitarian) countries, there are very few outlets broadcasting what goes there for the foundational truths. People are supposed to believe what is being told them via these outlets, yet many (especially the intellectuals) develop defensive mechanisms and learn to ignore what is presented to them as foundational truths. Take the Soviet Union as an example. There were several state-run newspapers and TV channels translating what went for foundational truths, yet with time many learned to disbelieve what they saw on TV or read in newspapers.

CM30 8y ago

Yes. Because it feels like a blatant attack on alternative news sites and media sources, and makes me worry that any attempt to shut down fake news will be used to shut down real news that paints authorities or the mainstream media in a bad light. It makes me think of the debates about encryption backdoors and police master keys for security systems. In the same way a backdoor for the police/authorities can quickly become one for criminals and foreign agents, limits on news sites, media sharing or freedom of speech can become weapons of government or corporate oppression/censorship. Fake news can certainly be an issue, but it feels like any solution will just be another tool for incumbents to secure their power and freedoms to be restricted.

Moodles 8y ago
I'm not sure if it's a "blatant attack on alternative news sites". I think probably people actually have good intentions here rather than some establishment conspiracy. I'm not convinced that regulating social media news is the best policy to focus on, though.
- vowelless 8y ago
  > I think probably people actually have good intentions here. Everyone thinks that their own intentions are good.
  - Moodles 8y ago
    What are you trying to tell me? I'm just saying that my opinion is that I doubt this is some establishment conspiracy to make voters vote for them. I think the MPs are probably just trying to get rid of fake news right now. I certainly don't know how anyone can see this as a "blatant" attack. It certainly doesn't look blatant to me. It is at least plausible that they're trying to genuinely help without malicious intent.
- lesss365 8y ago
  It's a term blatantly used for censorship and blanket discrediting of sources of information, whether credible or not. It's popularity began with the Clinton campaign and was quickly adopted by GOP candidates Edit: By "it" I mean "fake news"

bepotts 8y ago

I've noticed that the politicians who discuss regulating social media the most are often times the same politicians who've had their worldview challenged recently. In the US we have Democrats using Facebook and Twitter as a scapegoat for the rise of Trump. To Democrats, it's not that they're smug and look down on half the country, it isn't that they want to raise taxes to fund programs half the country doesn't want, or that they look down upon gun owners. No, it's the fact that Facebook's algorithms keep people bubbles, and Twitter gave Trump a megaphone that's the problem. To them, if those social media companies were heavily regulated then Trump wouldn't exist. First it was "fake news"; then it the Russians; then it was the affect social media has on society; then it was Cambridge Analytica; and now we're at Silicon Valley as a whole being a problem, with Google's search algorithms distorting democracy and social media companies not allowing "real news" to flourish over fake news. At no point do these people take a step back and say,"hey, maybe Trump got elected because people don't like us?" And I say this as someone who is socially liberal. I see this as clear day and I get annoyed by it; I can only imagine how I'd feel if I were a conservative. You see a similar process play it in the UK, except with Brexit. At first it was leave voters being too stupid to know what's good for them, then it was the dishonesty of Farage and Johnson (as if politicians lying were a new phenomena), and now they're on to blaming social media and some shady campaign financing from leave groups. The world order has been challenged in the West and instead of mounting a defense of the establishment, the establishment blames the methods that the dissenters used to organize and punch them in the face. That's what makes the who social media debate frustrating to me. Politicians are obfuscating their true intentions and motives. It's as clear as day. Social media needs to clean up its mess, but the fact that there's no gatekeepers and everyone can have a voice is a good thing. That ability has allowed people in the middle east to topple dictators and shine a light on human rights abuses. Politicans in the UK and the United States should just learn how to govern better.

CM30 8y ago
> At no point do these people take a step back and say,"hey, maybe Trump got elected because people don't like us?" This is arguably the key point. And I think the reason that's the case is because well, what were the mainstream politicians and parties offering? Not much. At least, not much that their bases wanted, and not much that'd improve people's standard of living. It was 'more of the same', with a helping of pro corporation laws and tax breaks. And their marketing was especially dire during the EU Referendum and 2016 election. Tons of comments about how wrong or stupid or 'deplorable' the other side was, lots of assumptions about how they'd automatically win. No promises about how the world/population would be better off under their system or how things would improve in general. Will either Trump or Brexit or what not make things better? No, likely not, but the solution isn't to try and lock down communication systems to stop it happening again, it's to take a long look at your party and political platform and start offering things people want rather than what gets you money or power.

pohl 8y ago

Unfortunately, the forces that fake news are currently being leveraged for happen to be the ones who do not want strong education policy (because tax cuts) and they currently have the upper hand. The boil-the-ocean strategy of just teaching everyone critical thinking isn’t really on the table at the moment.