5 ms·

How would you recommend handling false information then? I'm talking about false information that has real world impact, like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

How would you recommend handling false information then? I'm talking about false information that has real world impact, like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Telling people a polling location is closed when it's not is a practical example.

CodeGlitch 6y ago
It's a difficult problem to crack. My current line of thinking is that we need to improve critical-thinking amongst the population. People with critical thinking will question the things they hear and read, and with an unfiltered source of information (E.g. the Internet) will be able to determin fact from fiction. I used to think they we should censor bad information (E.g. 5G causes COVID), but that's just not going to work in the modern era.
- BrianOnHN 6y ago
  > I used to think they we should sensor bad information (E.g. 5G causes COVID) Can you describe these sensors?
  - CodeGlitch 6y ago
    I obviously meant "censors". Now go away troll :)
- greesil 6y ago
  How would you improve critical thinking at scale?
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    > improve critical thinking at scale What's the timeline to measure this? Decades? A lifetime?
    - greesil 6y ago
      You're asking the wrong question. What measurement would you use to measure success?
  - CodeGlitch 6y ago
    Yeah - not an easy task. Teach it in school along with the usual 3 R's.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      Not to get overtly political, but one of the two major parties will do literally anything to prevent that. Their ideology interprets critical thought as a direct assault, and they respond accordingly.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        As far as I know, critical thinking is an explicit part of the school curriculum everywhere in the US. Do you know of an area where it's not taught?
        CamperBob2 6y ago
        See my other reply. Edit: for the benefit of the downvoters, here's a concrete example of what I'm talking about: https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2012/06/texas_gop_no_more_critical_thinking.html https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2012/06/texas... From the bottom of the page: A spokesman for the Republican Party of Texas said that the "critical thinking skills" language should not have been included in the document after the words "values clarification," reports Talking Points Memo. The members of the subcommittee "regret" the mistake, he told TPM—however, since the platform was approved, "it cannot be corrected until the next state convention in 2014." They regret the mistake, it sounds like, so I guess it's all good. Nothing to see here.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I see it, but even deeply conservative states do teach the principles of critical thinking. Picking Alabama as a random example (https://www.alsde.edu/sec/sct/COS/2016%20Revised%20Alabama%20English%20Language%20Arts%20Course%20of%20Study.pdf https://www.alsde.edu/sec/sct/COS/2016%20Revised%20Alabama%2...): * their curriculum explicitly aims to develop "lifelong, critical thinkers" * they feel "reading, writing, and critical thinking continue to play central roles in the development of literate individuals" * students learn to "Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning" I understand that you're saying beliefs such as creationism don't stand up to any real critical thought, and I agree. But I feel the same way about many beliefs that left-leaning people tend to hold.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    You wont, human nature is more or less fixed, cognitive skills are normal distributed, we are not blank slates. You first recognize that the problem is difficult, recognize you cannot social-engineer humans without infringing their rights and you try to come up with some basic rules with the implicit understanding that A) They are not perfect B) They are not immutable, and you start working from there. This is the total opposite to what it is happening now in the way the powerful groups are managing this new global, social landscape.
- watwut 6y ago
  I don't think it is just lack of critical thinking on the part of general public. I think that there are also some cultural contributors - it is often deemed uncivil or rude to call lie a lie. And if you want to appear impartial, you will need to make things sound middle - softening some stances and making others stronger. You cant actually distinguish fact from fiction by logic alone. You need specialized knowledge for that, the rest of us you need to decide who to trust. People who gravitate toward conspiracy theories tend to be intelligent and tend to question things they read. They then proceed to build wild theories, beyond possibilities of dumb people.
adolph 6y ago
Are you saying Justice Holmes was right to view opposition to the draft as unprotected by the Constitution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- greesil 6y ago
  We are talking about media companies exercising discretion and control over content, not about what is constitutionally protected. I think a more relevant legal discussion would be on the tension over safe harbor provisions vs exercising editorial control.
  - adolph 6y ago
    You claimed to write about “false information that has real world impact, like yelling fire in a crowded theater.” That example is from the real world when the government acted against private parties that engaged in what the government characterized as sedition. Do you withdraw your example?
    - greesil 6y ago
      That's a rather tenuous link. Because a famous person said the same quote in a different context doesn't mean it actually has bearing and what we are discussing. If you don't like the first hypothetical, maybe focus on the second hypothetical, as it is extremely relevant for today.
      - adolph 6y ago
        0k, if an entity starts grading the claims of others for truth or falsehood, would it be held responsible for those claims it does not grade or for incorrect grades? Or is the grading “caveat emptor” and the recipient of information has no guarantee of truth or falsehood anyway? Is a lack of a label on the below an endorsement of Theranos’ technology? https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/654714209360437249 https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/654714209360437249
nosequel 6y ago
It's not just handling false information. That is just a very small part of how the far left are trying to stop freedom of speech. How many in-person talks at universities have been shut down in the past 4 years? When people disagree, they call whoever it is a Nazi and get it cancelled. Today if you post something that is pro-gun, or god-forbid, you support one of Trump's foreign policies publicly, your account on Twitter or IG will get attacked and shut down. Most informational gun accounts on youtube won't show up in searches anymore. I'm not even talking about the tacticool losers posting dangerous videos. These are the people trying to educate others on usage and safety. Because a small part of the country abhor guns, but they also happen to control Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, they shadow-ban and move along with their day. If flagging false information was the primary usage of censorship, there wouldn't be so much uproar around it.
- cfmcdonald 6y ago
  On the gun thing, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I just tried searching for "gun safety" on YouTube and got tons of results.
- ezzzzz 6y ago
  To be fair, the actual 'far left' is Pro-gun. You're confusing leftism with Neoliberalism (you're not alone in this thread). The anti-gun people in this category are firmly rooted in the Auth-Right quadrant of the political compass (just a few hairs to the 'left' of Modern Republicanism). That being said, it's understandable why these platforms don't want to be involved with promoting 'gun-safety' information, and it's not about censorship, it's about liability. You can't talk about gun-safety without talking about proper operation. This information has implications regardless of a users intentions (good or bad). Imagine the headline: 'Mass Shooter planned attack with help from YouTube videos'... The following uproar would only lead to greater censorship and restriction. Restricting content is not about censorship, but preventing scenarios like this. It's impossible to separate 'safety' from 'tactical training', and I for one, would prefer such information was not readily available to any would-be rogue actors. If you want to have a gun, that's fine. Take a class. Want tactical training, take a class. Better yet, join the military. I'm not particularly convinced that owning a gun offers any net-benefit as far as safety is concerned. I'd reckon you're statistically more likely to injure yourself (or a family member) than you are to prevent an attack from an assailant. It's also a really hard argument to make that there is 0 correlation between the high level of gun-ownership in the US and the extremely high homicide rate. Especially when looking at hand-guns (Canada for example has similar levels of 'ownership' and a lower homicide rate, but less hand-gun ownership compared to US). TLDR; restricting 'gun-safety' info is not about censorship, it's about liability and owning a gun probably doesn't make you 'safer'. (these are, of course, my opinions)

CodeGlitch 6y ago

It's a difficult problem to crack. My current line of thinking is that we need to improve critical-thinking amongst the population. People with critical thinking will question the things they hear and read, and with an unfiltered source of information (E.g. the Internet) will be able to determin fact from fiction. I used to think they we should censor bad information (E.g. 5G causes COVID), but that's just not going to work in the modern era.

BrianOnHN 6y ago
> I used to think they we should sensor bad information (E.g. 5G causes COVID) Can you describe these sensors?
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  I obviously meant "censors". Now go away troll :)
greesil 6y ago
How would you improve critical thinking at scale?
- BrianOnHN 6y ago
  > improve critical thinking at scale What's the timeline to measure this? Decades? A lifetime?
  - greesil 6y ago
    You're asking the wrong question. What measurement would you use to measure success?
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  Yeah - not an easy task. Teach it in school along with the usual 3 R's.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Not to get overtly political, but one of the two major parties will do literally anything to prevent that. Their ideology interprets critical thought as a direct assault, and they respond accordingly.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      As far as I know, critical thinking is an explicit part of the school curriculum everywhere in the US. Do you know of an area where it's not taught?
      - CamperBob2 6y ago
        See my other reply. Edit: for the benefit of the downvoters, here's a concrete example of what I'm talking about: https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2012/06/texas_gop_no_more_critical_thinking.html https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2012/06/texas... From the bottom of the page: A spokesman for the Republican Party of Texas said that the "critical thinking skills" language should not have been included in the document after the words "values clarification," reports Talking Points Memo. The members of the subcommittee "regret" the mistake, he told TPM—however, since the platform was approved, "it cannot be corrected until the next state convention in 2014." They regret the mistake, it sounds like, so I guess it's all good. Nothing to see here.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I see it, but even deeply conservative states do teach the principles of critical thinking. Picking Alabama as a random example (https://www.alsde.edu/sec/sct/COS/2016%20Revised%20Alabama%20English%20Language%20Arts%20Course%20of%20Study.pdf https://www.alsde.edu/sec/sct/COS/2016%20Revised%20Alabama%2...): * their curriculum explicitly aims to develop "lifelong, critical thinkers" * they feel "reading, writing, and critical thinking continue to play central roles in the development of literate individuals" * students learn to "Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning" I understand that you're saying beliefs such as creationism don't stand up to any real critical thought, and I agree. But I feel the same way about many beliefs that left-leaning people tend to hold.
- cambalache 6y ago
  You wont, human nature is more or less fixed, cognitive skills are normal distributed, we are not blank slates. You first recognize that the problem is difficult, recognize you cannot social-engineer humans without infringing their rights and you try to come up with some basic rules with the implicit understanding that A) They are not perfect B) They are not immutable, and you start working from there. This is the total opposite to what it is happening now in the way the powerful groups are managing this new global, social landscape.
watwut 6y ago
I don't think it is just lack of critical thinking on the part of general public. I think that there are also some cultural contributors - it is often deemed uncivil or rude to call lie a lie. And if you want to appear impartial, you will need to make things sound middle - softening some stances and making others stronger. You cant actually distinguish fact from fiction by logic alone. You need specialized knowledge for that, the rest of us you need to decide who to trust. People who gravitate toward conspiracy theories tend to be intelligent and tend to question things they read. They then proceed to build wild theories, beyond possibilities of dumb people.

adolph 6y ago

Are you saying Justice Holmes was right to view opposition to the draft as unprotected by the Constitution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

greesil 6y ago
We are talking about media companies exercising discretion and control over content, not about what is constitutionally protected. I think a more relevant legal discussion would be on the tension over safe harbor provisions vs exercising editorial control.
- adolph 6y ago
  You claimed to write about “false information that has real world impact, like yelling fire in a crowded theater.” That example is from the real world when the government acted against private parties that engaged in what the government characterized as sedition. Do you withdraw your example?
  - greesil 6y ago
    That's a rather tenuous link. Because a famous person said the same quote in a different context doesn't mean it actually has bearing and what we are discussing. If you don't like the first hypothetical, maybe focus on the second hypothetical, as it is extremely relevant for today.
    - adolph 6y ago
      0k, if an entity starts grading the claims of others for truth or falsehood, would it be held responsible for those claims it does not grade or for incorrect grades? Or is the grading “caveat emptor” and the recipient of information has no guarantee of truth or falsehood anyway? Is a lack of a label on the below an endorsement of Theranos’ technology? https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/654714209360437249 https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/654714209360437249

nosequel 6y ago

It's not just handling false information. That is just a very small part of how the far left are trying to stop freedom of speech. How many in-person talks at universities have been shut down in the past 4 years? When people disagree, they call whoever it is a Nazi and get it cancelled. Today if you post something that is pro-gun, or god-forbid, you support one of Trump's foreign policies publicly, your account on Twitter or IG will get attacked and shut down. Most informational gun accounts on youtube won't show up in searches anymore. I'm not even talking about the tacticool losers posting dangerous videos. These are the people trying to educate others on usage and safety. Because a small part of the country abhor guns, but they also happen to control Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, they shadow-ban and move along with their day. If flagging false information was the primary usage of censorship, there wouldn't be so much uproar around it.

cfmcdonald 6y ago
On the gun thing, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I just tried searching for "gun safety" on YouTube and got tons of results.
ezzzzz 6y ago
To be fair, the actual 'far left' is Pro-gun. You're confusing leftism with Neoliberalism (you're not alone in this thread). The anti-gun people in this category are firmly rooted in the Auth-Right quadrant of the political compass (just a few hairs to the 'left' of Modern Republicanism). That being said, it's understandable why these platforms don't want to be involved with promoting 'gun-safety' information, and it's not about censorship, it's about liability. You can't talk about gun-safety without talking about proper operation. This information has implications regardless of a users intentions (good or bad). Imagine the headline: 'Mass Shooter planned attack with help from YouTube videos'... The following uproar would only lead to greater censorship and restriction. Restricting content is not about censorship, but preventing scenarios like this. It's impossible to separate 'safety' from 'tactical training', and I for one, would prefer such information was not readily available to any would-be rogue actors. If you want to have a gun, that's fine. Take a class. Want tactical training, take a class. Better yet, join the military. I'm not particularly convinced that owning a gun offers any net-benefit as far as safety is concerned. I'd reckon you're statistically more likely to injure yourself (or a family member) than you are to prevent an attack from an assailant. It's also a really hard argument to make that there is 0 correlation between the high level of gun-ownership in the US and the extremely high homicide rate. Especially when looking at hand-guns (Canada for example has similar levels of 'ownership' and a lower homicide rate, but less hand-gun ownership compared to US). TLDR; restricting 'gun-safety' info is not about censorship, it's about liability and owning a gun probably doesn't make you 'safer'. (these are, of course, my opinions)