12 ms·

I have the same inclinations as you. I see there are various kinds of bias from different sources, and that you have to be able to think critically in order to

I have the same inclinations as you. I see there are various kinds of bias from different sources, and that you have to be able to think critically in order to maintain some sort of perspective. I also think that we need a bunch of different perspectives, so in that way it's good there's a lot of people talking. But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school can't figure out why they should believe in the moon landings, or dinosaurs. How often you do come across a posting from a friend who thinks the virus isn't real? You sat in a room with people like this for over 10 years. Did you think they would someday be able to think for themselves? I had hoped for that. I'm starting to think that education as the answer might just be a naive point of view, but I'm also not desirous of a world where we tell adults what they're supposed to think. Rock and a hard place.

geertj 6y ago
How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education per se that we need, but education in critical thinking, and also history.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I'd love to see logic taught in schools. Like philosophy of argument style courses. Of course this won't fix all the problems, since it depends on the acceptance and practice of the knowledge presented (US grades and high school graduation rates aren't great). But maybe it would give us a chance at being a little better. I think citizenship tests should be extended to all via school curriculum. If we require people who immigrate to know our laws and how the system is supposed to work, then I don't see why the people already here shouldn't also be required to know this basic info.
  - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc. It's a ritual, but rituals have meaning and power. It would be nice to see more native-born Americans with a strong grounding in democracy and electoral politics. When we had a mandatory military draft, at that time most able bodied young men were required to put on a uniform, salute the U.S. flag, march to patriotic music, etc. Today this sounds trite and even anti-democracy -- weren't we indoctrinating generations of gullible young people to just blindly follow the leader? Yet, today, many young people including college graduates are hardly patriotic at all, and are mind-numbingly ignorant of even the most basic facts, as illustrated by man-in-the-street interviews posted on Youtube by wags like Ami Horowitz and Mark Dice, getting college students to admit that the triceratops (an extinct dinosaur) is endangered and trophy hunting of this poor beast should be banned, and similar ridiculous notions. Even during the Vietnam War, one survey in about 1970 found that 25% of Americans thought Vietnam was in South America. Education is the key, and by that I believe you and I both agree that indoctrination in particular directions is not the same thing. My kid in high school... well, I could tell you stories, but I'd better stop :)
    - viridian 6y ago
      I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.
      - wry_discontent 6y ago
        I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested? It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't. In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.
        giantg2 6y ago
        We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure. The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles) Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections). So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.
- darepublic 6y ago
  What critical thinking is involved in believing the virus is real? Apart from those who made some independent study I would say there is little critical thinking at all... Just faith in the institution of government and press.
  - boston_clone 6y ago
    It's not an appeal to authority to tell you to trust in doctors that have been studying and fighting infectious diseases their whole life; for me, however, the fact that so many countries have independently developed their own testing methodologies; that certain quantitative elements of the virus - e.g. transmissibility, CFR - are relatively consistent, with outliers and anomalies having additional evidence to justify their uniqueness; and the unfortunate human toll of this is undeniable.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    That you've made this point is part of the problem. I'm judging that the virus is real and a problem based on having had it, knowing people who died from it, knowing other people who had severe symptoms, from knowing (via other acquaintances) what the hospitals in my area were like, and from seeing freezer trucks full of dead bodies in the streets. OTOH, I'm from an area that got crushed by the virus early. I can't say for sure that if I were in an area that hadn't had much contact with the virus my "Critical thinking" hat wouldn't be saying, "wait, what if they're just telling us there's a virus outside to keep us locked up".
  - seankimdesign 6y ago
    Believing that the virus is real means considering the possibility that the virus might be fake (manufacfured, overblown, non-existent, etc) and then discarding them based on critical thinking. I don't have to believe the US government to see how North Korea was one of the first countries to completely block Chinese people from entering the border. We could all see how quick New Zealand was to implement travel and tourist restrictions. One has to stop and think about why all these nations are doing things that are actively harmful to their bottom line. To actively look away from these facts is what gets you away from critical thinking. Listening to the government does not equal sheeplike blind acceptance despite what the conspiracy theorists might have you believe.
- esja 6y ago
  It would be wonderful if epistemology was taught in schools and universities. But it would need to be embedded into every subject and focused on practical exercises. Whenever I've seen this sort of thing taught, the students learn about good reasoning methods, but they don't really internalise them.
- matz1 6y ago
  The problem is not everyone are the same. For example, regarding covid, for some people they think the risk is low, for some people they think the risk are high. Some think the lockdown are worth it, some think the lockdown are not worth it. Both are correct，it highly depends on your personal preference. This will always cause conflict. This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner. Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner. > Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage. The problem is, for the most part, there's harm to democracy if no compromise is ever reached, and the "fight" on every issue becomes constant and intractable. For instance, the fight around the response to COVID has pretty thoroughly undermined the response to it. You have people refusing to wear masks for the most part to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. This kind of over-the-top fractiousness is a clear propaganda win for authoritarianism. China, for instance, is pretty effectively using it (and their corresponding success) to reduce the appeal of democracy among its people.
    - matz1 6y ago
      I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight. Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary. >You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say fuck you), although there is of course people like that. Similarly, You have to acknowledge there also people who want to force other to wear mask to just to say "fuck you" to the otherside.
      - Shared404 6y ago
- thegrim33 6y ago
  Yes there ARE people that believe the virus isn't real, the same way there's people that believe the world is flat, but ironically I find your viewpoint about all the "stupid" virus doubters to be what's actually the real problem. You'll say that Trump called the virus a hoax, or push narratives that imply there's actually any significant percentage of people that think the virus doesn't actually exist. You treat it in black and white, and ignore all the shades of gray and all of the extra dimensions to the issue. It's either "you're with me and everything I believe about every aspect of the issue" or "you're an evil stupid virus denier". There's so much more to the issue than that, and 99% of the people you think believe the virus isn't real DO believe it's real, they just don't agree with you on how severe it is and how it should be responded to.
jcfrei 6y ago
You need more than just education. If people feel their standard of living is deteriorating due to no fault of their own then they become much more susceptible to disinformation. If they have to work 12 hours a day just to keep their home and feed their family then there's no room for critical thinking - you just believe whatever makes you feel better. Democracies have always struggled when the standard of living of the population has decreased - either in absolute terms or relative to their peers. And this is one of the main reasons in the US: The growing divergence in economic outlook for people living in the rich coastal cities versus the people in the "flyover states".
visarga 6y ago
You think the problem is a lack of education or understanding? I don't think so, it's something else - being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute, incapable of changing the situation no matter how you vote. Then people start breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations, and why would they have solidarity with the mainstream society when it betrayed them? Better to vote in an antagonistic way and muddle the waters because this system is corrupt in their eyes.
- laurent92 6y ago
  Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication and makes its way on TV channels and then into law to « curb this unprecedented situation that disenfranchises [place this politician’s favorite group here] ». Politicians have very well understood that modern civilization is governed by scientific beliefs rather than religious beliefs, and masquerading science for political gain will give you power for a very efficient cost. The problem is not Facebook, but that our science is as vulnerable to 51% attacks as Bitcoin.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    And if Facebook reduces the friction to those attacks? Isn't it then back to being the problem? I think the friction was part of the design/major benefits of older forms of media
    - laurent92 6y ago
      The friction of those media prevents people from criticizing blatantly false scientific studies which have made their way to television and into laws. For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables. Having entire sewers of points of views pouring in Facebook is a then great scientific education that there is no one truth, which _some_ people believe a bit too much. And sewers are immensely better than downright falsehoods taught on TV at wide scale with a confident voice and a suit. What’s next, do people believe Biden is president?
OliverGilan 6y ago
Do not conflate schooling with education
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school can't figure out why they should believe in the moon landings, or dinosaurs. The problem is that "education" doesn't necessarily train people to think critically. Indeed, the current educational system often does the exact opposite. This becomes more apparent the farther you advance through the system. Success in most post-grad programs is primarily about a student's willingness and ability to absorb established dogma and conform to orthodoxy. Those who are not willing or able to conform (culturally, socially, politically and educationally) will find their academic progress severely inhibited at every turn and eventually find themselves on the outside looking in. The paradox is that those in power do not (and have never) want a necessarily skeptical, inquisitive and free-thinking population. They want a docile population that is easy to control. A population that uncritically absorbs and believes whatever messages are disseminated by those in power. This system works well when you have a virtual monopoly on information, and all of the people get their information from ABC, CBS or NBC. It stops working so well when a decentralized system of spreading information comes along, whether its referred to as "the internet" or "social media", and suddenly you have a population that has been conditioned for generations to lack skepticism that is blasted with conflicting messages, ads and propaganda from all angles. Those in power are now left with a problem that has two possible solutions. Either start a massive campaign where every man, woman and child is taught to be necessarily skeptical, to think critically in all things and reject all established orthodoxies, or to try to put the information genie back in the bottle. The former strategy (if successful) would lead to a population that is very difficult to control and govern. A society filled with critical thinkers and those who question and scrutinize every policy and every assertion by those in power (and everyone else). The latter strategy (the one that has been chosen) is to attempt to close down those decentralized systems of spreading information. Regain control over the information narrative through a massive censorship campaign where those who are not actively working to push the establishment narrative are silenced. Unfortunately, its clear which path our benevolent overlords have embarked on. Whether the excuse is, "hate speech" or "disinformation" or "foreign influence", the desired result is the same. Silence dissenting voices, regain the information monopoly, and feed the gullible dullards you have cultivated the diet of information that you wish them to consume. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), its always very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle - which is why we are seeing the battles over free speech, censorship and information control play out before our very eyes.

geertj 6y ago

How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education per se that we need, but education in critical thinking, and also history.

giantg2 6y ago
I'd love to see logic taught in schools. Like philosophy of argument style courses. Of course this won't fix all the problems, since it depends on the acceptance and practice of the knowledge presented (US grades and high school graduation rates aren't great). But maybe it would give us a chance at being a little better. I think citizenship tests should be extended to all via school curriculum. If we require people who immigrate to know our laws and how the system is supposed to work, then I don't see why the people already here shouldn't also be required to know this basic info.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc. It's a ritual, but rituals have meaning and power. It would be nice to see more native-born Americans with a strong grounding in democracy and electoral politics. When we had a mandatory military draft, at that time most able bodied young men were required to put on a uniform, salute the U.S. flag, march to patriotic music, etc. Today this sounds trite and even anti-democracy -- weren't we indoctrinating generations of gullible young people to just blindly follow the leader? Yet, today, many young people including college graduates are hardly patriotic at all, and are mind-numbingly ignorant of even the most basic facts, as illustrated by man-in-the-street interviews posted on Youtube by wags like Ami Horowitz and Mark Dice, getting college students to admit that the triceratops (an extinct dinosaur) is endangered and trophy hunting of this poor beast should be banned, and similar ridiculous notions. Even during the Vietnam War, one survey in about 1970 found that 25% of Americans thought Vietnam was in South America. Education is the key, and by that I believe you and I both agree that indoctrination in particular directions is not the same thing. My kid in high school... well, I could tell you stories, but I'd better stop :)
  - viridian 6y ago
    I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.
    - wry_discontent 6y ago
      I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested? It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't. In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure. The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles) Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections). So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.
darepublic 6y ago
What critical thinking is involved in believing the virus is real? Apart from those who made some independent study I would say there is little critical thinking at all... Just faith in the institution of government and press.
- boston_clone 6y ago
  It's not an appeal to authority to tell you to trust in doctors that have been studying and fighting infectious diseases their whole life; for me, however, the fact that so many countries have independently developed their own testing methodologies; that certain quantitative elements of the virus - e.g. transmissibility, CFR - are relatively consistent, with outliers and anomalies having additional evidence to justify their uniqueness; and the unfortunate human toll of this is undeniable.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  That you've made this point is part of the problem. I'm judging that the virus is real and a problem based on having had it, knowing people who died from it, knowing other people who had severe symptoms, from knowing (via other acquaintances) what the hospitals in my area were like, and from seeing freezer trucks full of dead bodies in the streets. OTOH, I'm from an area that got crushed by the virus early. I can't say for sure that if I were in an area that hadn't had much contact with the virus my "Critical thinking" hat wouldn't be saying, "wait, what if they're just telling us there's a virus outside to keep us locked up".
- seankimdesign 6y ago
  Believing that the virus is real means considering the possibility that the virus might be fake (manufacfured, overblown, non-existent, etc) and then discarding them based on critical thinking. I don't have to believe the US government to see how North Korea was one of the first countries to completely block Chinese people from entering the border. We could all see how quick New Zealand was to implement travel and tourist restrictions. One has to stop and think about why all these nations are doing things that are actively harmful to their bottom line. To actively look away from these facts is what gets you away from critical thinking. Listening to the government does not equal sheeplike blind acceptance despite what the conspiracy theorists might have you believe.
esja 6y ago
It would be wonderful if epistemology was taught in schools and universities. But it would need to be embedded into every subject and focused on practical exercises. Whenever I've seen this sort of thing taught, the students learn about good reasoning methods, but they don't really internalise them.
matz1 6y ago
The problem is not everyone are the same. For example, regarding covid, for some people they think the risk is low, for some people they think the risk are high. Some think the lockdown are worth it, some think the lockdown are not worth it. Both are correct，it highly depends on your personal preference. This will always cause conflict. This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner. Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner. > Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage. The problem is, for the most part, there's harm to democracy if no compromise is ever reached, and the "fight" on every issue becomes constant and intractable. For instance, the fight around the response to COVID has pretty thoroughly undermined the response to it. You have people refusing to wear masks for the most part to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. This kind of over-the-top fractiousness is a clear propaganda win for authoritarianism. China, for instance, is pretty effectively using it (and their corresponding success) to reduce the appeal of democracy among its people.
  - matz1 6y ago
    I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight. Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary. >You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say fuck you), although there is of course people like that. Similarly, You have to acknowledge there also people who want to force other to wear mask to just to say "fuck you" to the otherside.
    - Shared404 6y ago
thegrim33 6y ago
Yes there ARE people that believe the virus isn't real, the same way there's people that believe the world is flat, but ironically I find your viewpoint about all the "stupid" virus doubters to be what's actually the real problem. You'll say that Trump called the virus a hoax, or push narratives that imply there's actually any significant percentage of people that think the virus doesn't actually exist. You treat it in black and white, and ignore all the shades of gray and all of the extra dimensions to the issue. It's either "you're with me and everything I believe about every aspect of the issue" or "you're an evil stupid virus denier". There's so much more to the issue than that, and 99% of the people you think believe the virus isn't real DO believe it's real, they just don't agree with you on how severe it is and how it should be responded to.

jcfrei 6y ago

You need more than just education. If people feel their standard of living is deteriorating due to no fault of their own then they become much more susceptible to disinformation. If they have to work 12 hours a day just to keep their home and feed their family then there's no room for critical thinking - you just believe whatever makes you feel better. Democracies have always struggled when the standard of living of the population has decreased - either in absolute terms or relative to their peers. And this is one of the main reasons in the US: The growing divergence in economic outlook for people living in the rich coastal cities versus the people in the "flyover states".

visarga 6y ago

You think the problem is a lack of education or understanding? I don't think so, it's something else - being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute, incapable of changing the situation no matter how you vote. Then people start breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations, and why would they have solidarity with the mainstream society when it betrayed them? Better to vote in an antagonistic way and muddle the waters because this system is corrupt in their eyes.

laurent92 6y ago
Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication and makes its way on TV channels and then into law to « curb this unprecedented situation that disenfranchises [place this politician’s favorite group here] ». Politicians have very well understood that modern civilization is governed by scientific beliefs rather than religious beliefs, and masquerading science for political gain will give you power for a very efficient cost. The problem is not Facebook, but that our science is as vulnerable to 51% attacks as Bitcoin.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  And if Facebook reduces the friction to those attacks? Isn't it then back to being the problem? I think the friction was part of the design/major benefits of older forms of media
  - laurent92 6y ago
    The friction of those media prevents people from criticizing blatantly false scientific studies which have made their way to television and into laws. For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables. Having entire sewers of points of views pouring in Facebook is a then great scientific education that there is no one truth, which _some_ people believe a bit too much. And sewers are immensely better than downright falsehoods taught on TV at wide scale with a confident voice and a suit. What’s next, do people believe Biden is president?

OliverGilan 6y ago

Do not conflate schooling with education

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

>But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school can't figure out why they should believe in the moon landings, or dinosaurs. The problem is that "education" doesn't necessarily train people to think critically. Indeed, the current educational system often does the exact opposite. This becomes more apparent the farther you advance through the system. Success in most post-grad programs is primarily about a student's willingness and ability to absorb established dogma and conform to orthodoxy. Those who are not willing or able to conform (culturally, socially, politically and educationally) will find their academic progress severely inhibited at every turn and eventually find themselves on the outside looking in. The paradox is that those in power do not (and have never) want a necessarily skeptical, inquisitive and free-thinking population. They want a docile population that is easy to control. A population that uncritically absorbs and believes whatever messages are disseminated by those in power. This system works well when you have a virtual monopoly on information, and all of the people get their information from ABC, CBS or NBC. It stops working so well when a decentralized system of spreading information comes along, whether its referred to as "the internet" or "social media", and suddenly you have a population that has been conditioned for generations to lack skepticism that is blasted with conflicting messages, ads and propaganda from all angles. Those in power are now left with a problem that has two possible solutions. Either start a massive campaign where every man, woman and child is taught to be necessarily skeptical, to think critically in all things and reject all established orthodoxies, or to try to put the information genie back in the bottle. The former strategy (if successful) would lead to a population that is very difficult to control and govern. A society filled with critical thinkers and those who question and scrutinize every policy and every assertion by those in power (and everyone else). The latter strategy (the one that has been chosen) is to attempt to close down those decentralized systems of spreading information. Regain control over the information narrative through a massive censorship campaign where those who are not actively working to push the establishment narrative are silenced. Unfortunately, its clear which path our benevolent overlords have embarked on. Whether the excuse is, "hate speech" or "disinformation" or "foreign influence", the desired result is the same. Silence dissenting voices, regain the information monopoly, and feed the gullible dullards you have cultivated the diet of information that you wish them to consume. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), its always very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle - which is why we are seeing the battles over free speech, censorship and information control play out before our very eyes.