5 ms·

It's hard to know what's right. It feels like letting the lies continue to spread is tearing out democracy apart.

by DangitBobby 6y ago

julienreszka 6y ago
Why do you think lies continue to spread?
- Chazprime 6y ago
  Because companies like Twitter and Facebook have monetized the spreading of lies and disinformation.
- egwor 6y ago
  Deep question. Sometimes people repeat ideas without sufficient critical thought. That critical thought may well be due to lack of understanding around the subject which limits the ability for the person to review whether it is correct before spreading the information wider. I think that some of this is because the news that we get from credible sources doesn't explain why they're credible (e.g. no sources). Consequently when we see news in the same form from other venues (which are less credible) they look and appear no different from the credible sources. My proposal here is that news sites should link and quote sources. Example: The Times (UK) quoting the UK Government on lockdown rules. The government web site is actually clearer in many cases, and people don't seem to know where to go to get the actual facts. (I've not covered bias here either, but that's important). Another issue that we have is that the experts that are used sometimes don't understand it either! I follow a Doctor (@curexcomplex on twitter) who is an expert immunologist and she often corrects those on news sites. I think that part of this is that when ideas are dumbed down so that a non expert can understand, some of the nuances or subtleties are lost. We can then have 'Chinese whispers' where non-experts then repeat information and the nuance or subtleties are further eroded. I think that also we have a 'fast' news culture, where there's a level of 'coolness' of spreading news first. I think that means that we don't necessarily check things because we want to share that 'cool' story as fast as possible. I've done this myself and been corrected by peers (who are actually experts in Chemistry (the video was on chemistry) which I'm definitely not!) Everyone thinks that they're above average. That means that they think that their view is valid. The opinion is equally valid but as a reliable source this is not directly related. For example, unless a Celebrity is a reliable source (a qualification in the subject would give credibility) on immunology we should call them out as such when they talk about vaccinations. For example we could say 'You don't have a high school qualification in Biology. Your credibility in areas relating to biology is therefore less than someone who has a degree in Biology. Your opinion will therefore get a lower weighting by default.'. That doesn't mean that their opinion is less important than anyone else's but their credibility on this subject is worse. I fear that most don't understand this concept. I think this is much like how in history we have primary sources and secondary sources. Maybe we ought to have a way to indicate if the person is a primary source or secondary source. Lastly, I think that the news sites need to sell ads, so there is and incentive to publish stories quickly and less incentive to take extra time to confirm stories are correct. This is made worse because people have moved on by the time a correction is provided, and it is not shown with the same visibility. That means that the correction is not seen by the same number of people. (One other thing; I think that folk need to be more humble about learning things when they don't know, and when people are factually wrong we should be happy to say that and to receive it. Obviously this needs adequate supporting evidence.) Edit: grammar
  - nanonan 6y ago
    Great answer. I did want to highlight the selling of ads as I believe this is the primary and largest reason behind influencing less informed masses to take unwarranted actions in a harmful 'us vs them' way. Engineered (human or otherwise) attention/action getting ads have given us clickbait, raigebait, and cross-sectional identity politics. I believe that without regulation on the beancounting ad algorithms that fight for attention this will continue and we will have even more extreme "us vs them" attitudes and fallouts in the future. How that is done, I have no idea, but cancel culture seems inherently wrong to me. Perhaps educational reform is the place to start and should focus on helping people be both open-minded and skeptical in their openminded-ness ie, switching from 'i'm right, they are wrong' to 'no one is right'. and from there, humbly rejecting objectively(scientifically) proven falsehoods and seeking to understand the fallacies we all fall victim to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  First, as always, we rely on authority to fill in our knowledge gaps for us. But the authority that we've come to trust has an estranged relationship with the truth. Second, with widespread instant communication, you can choose to listen to just about anyone to trust as an authority. And with so many voices saying so many things (without vetting their own knowledge), you have your pick of the "facts" that you enjoy most.
ArnoVW 6y ago
I think the confusion stems from the fact that it should be illegal for a private business to censor someone. But that does not preclude the democratically created law from censoring someone, as interpreted by the judiciary. The issue in the US has been that the executive and judiciary part of the state did nothing for four years. As per the first sentence of the article: "Polish government wants to protect posts that do not break nation’s laws"
- peteretep 6y ago
  > the fact that it should be illegal for a private business to censor someone Putting the words "the fact that" in front of your opinion on a nuanced and controversial topic does not -- in fact -- make it a fact.
  - ArnoVW 6y ago
    I see what you mean. I did not mean to say that censorship is not controversial. I was refering to the comment, that was commenting the article. What I tried to say was that the controversy about private entities censoring other private entities should be relatively small. That does indeed not diminish the fact that the state censoring someone is more complicated, I agree.
    - pelliphant 6y ago
      That is an american take on censorship. Here is one from the other side of the pond: Private entities setting up rules for their services and then enforcing those rules are not that controversial.
      - ArnoVW 6y ago
        Actually, I am Dutch, but have lived in the UK and am now living in France. I agree that "freedom of speech" is less of an issue for the average European, than for an average American. But Angela Merkel for example critisized strongly the actions of Facebook, Twitter et al. You may agree with private entities censoring now, because you disagree with the censored statements. What if the roles are reversed? What if Mark Zuckerberg runs for president and uses his platform to this end? What if whomever-you-disagree-with pays private entities to censor your newspaper / internet site? Democratically defined censorship, enforced by the state is one thing (and already complicated). Censorship without all those guarantees is, IMHO, quite another.
trhway 6y ago
>It feels like letting the lies continue to spread is tearing out democracy apart. and the solution of course is "censorship will be increased until free speech and democracy improves".
- markdown 6y ago
  Well if you remove the liars ability to broadcast their lies, democracy is improved, isn't it?
  - tremon 6y ago
    Only if you simultaneously make sure that the truth does get heard.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  Isn't this a relatively censorship-free time compared to, say, the 60s? If I wanted to spread some nonsense, I had to get approval from a publisher or editor or radio or TV station that would allow me to put it out there. Now, anyone can say anything for all to see, with the occasional purging of public forums. You can't argue that there's no censorship, but I certainly argue that there's much less. Have we always been proclaiming that free speech is being eroded, or is this merely a product of our time?
rich_sasha 6y ago
My broader view is that the society at large is woefully under-educated for dealing with the new complexities of life. Most educational systems I know of don't really teach critical thinking, evaluation of sources, dealing with biased accounts etc. Censorship of the worst lies is justified as something like "we know better that these are lies, so we'll hide the content from those who don't", and in some sense this does send shivers down your spine. The long-term solution must be that an average person can do the evaluation for themselves.

It's hard to know what's right. It feels like letting the lies continue to spread is tearing out democracy apart.

julienreszka 6y ago

Why do you think lies continue to spread?

Chazprime 6y ago
Because companies like Twitter and Facebook have monetized the spreading of lies and disinformation.
egwor 6y ago
Deep question. Sometimes people repeat ideas without sufficient critical thought. That critical thought may well be due to lack of understanding around the subject which limits the ability for the person to review whether it is correct before spreading the information wider. I think that some of this is because the news that we get from credible sources doesn't explain why they're credible (e.g. no sources). Consequently when we see news in the same form from other venues (which are less credible) they look and appear no different from the credible sources. My proposal here is that news sites should link and quote sources. Example: The Times (UK) quoting the UK Government on lockdown rules. The government web site is actually clearer in many cases, and people don't seem to know where to go to get the actual facts. (I've not covered bias here either, but that's important). Another issue that we have is that the experts that are used sometimes don't understand it either! I follow a Doctor (@curexcomplex on twitter) who is an expert immunologist and she often corrects those on news sites. I think that part of this is that when ideas are dumbed down so that a non expert can understand, some of the nuances or subtleties are lost. We can then have 'Chinese whispers' where non-experts then repeat information and the nuance or subtleties are further eroded. I think that also we have a 'fast' news culture, where there's a level of 'coolness' of spreading news first. I think that means that we don't necessarily check things because we want to share that 'cool' story as fast as possible. I've done this myself and been corrected by peers (who are actually experts in Chemistry (the video was on chemistry) which I'm definitely not!) Everyone thinks that they're above average. That means that they think that their view is valid. The opinion is equally valid but as a reliable source this is not directly related. For example, unless a Celebrity is a reliable source (a qualification in the subject would give credibility) on immunology we should call them out as such when they talk about vaccinations. For example we could say 'You don't have a high school qualification in Biology. Your credibility in areas relating to biology is therefore less than someone who has a degree in Biology. Your opinion will therefore get a lower weighting by default.'. That doesn't mean that their opinion is less important than anyone else's but their credibility on this subject is worse. I fear that most don't understand this concept. I think this is much like how in history we have primary sources and secondary sources. Maybe we ought to have a way to indicate if the person is a primary source or secondary source. Lastly, I think that the news sites need to sell ads, so there is and incentive to publish stories quickly and less incentive to take extra time to confirm stories are correct. This is made worse because people have moved on by the time a correction is provided, and it is not shown with the same visibility. That means that the correction is not seen by the same number of people. (One other thing; I think that folk need to be more humble about learning things when they don't know, and when people are factually wrong we should be happy to say that and to receive it. Obviously this needs adequate supporting evidence.) Edit: grammar
- nanonan 6y ago
  Great answer. I did want to highlight the selling of ads as I believe this is the primary and largest reason behind influencing less informed masses to take unwarranted actions in a harmful 'us vs them' way. Engineered (human or otherwise) attention/action getting ads have given us clickbait, raigebait, and cross-sectional identity politics. I believe that without regulation on the beancounting ad algorithms that fight for attention this will continue and we will have even more extreme "us vs them" attitudes and fallouts in the future. How that is done, I have no idea, but cancel culture seems inherently wrong to me. Perhaps educational reform is the place to start and should focus on helping people be both open-minded and skeptical in their openminded-ness ie, switching from 'i'm right, they are wrong' to 'no one is right'. and from there, humbly rejecting objectively(scientifically) proven falsehoods and seeking to understand the fallacies we all fall victim to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
DangitBobby 6y ago
First, as always, we rely on authority to fill in our knowledge gaps for us. But the authority that we've come to trust has an estranged relationship with the truth. Second, with widespread instant communication, you can choose to listen to just about anyone to trust as an authority. And with so many voices saying so many things (without vetting their own knowledge), you have your pick of the "facts" that you enjoy most.

ArnoVW 6y ago

I think the confusion stems from the fact that it should be illegal for a private business to censor someone. But that does not preclude the democratically created law from censoring someone, as interpreted by the judiciary. The issue in the US has been that the executive and judiciary part of the state did nothing for four years. As per the first sentence of the article: "Polish government wants to protect posts that do not break nation’s laws"

peteretep 6y ago
> the fact that it should be illegal for a private business to censor someone Putting the words "the fact that" in front of your opinion on a nuanced and controversial topic does not -- in fact -- make it a fact.
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  I see what you mean. I did not mean to say that censorship is not controversial. I was refering to the comment, that was commenting the article. What I tried to say was that the controversy about private entities censoring other private entities should be relatively small. That does indeed not diminish the fact that the state censoring someone is more complicated, I agree.
  - pelliphant 6y ago
    That is an american take on censorship. Here is one from the other side of the pond: Private entities setting up rules for their services and then enforcing those rules are not that controversial.
    - ArnoVW 6y ago
      Actually, I am Dutch, but have lived in the UK and am now living in France. I agree that "freedom of speech" is less of an issue for the average European, than for an average American. But Angela Merkel for example critisized strongly the actions of Facebook, Twitter et al. You may agree with private entities censoring now, because you disagree with the censored statements. What if the roles are reversed? What if Mark Zuckerberg runs for president and uses his platform to this end? What if whomever-you-disagree-with pays private entities to censor your newspaper / internet site? Democratically defined censorship, enforced by the state is one thing (and already complicated). Censorship without all those guarantees is, IMHO, quite another.

trhway 6y ago

>It feels like letting the lies continue to spread is tearing out democracy apart. and the solution of course is "censorship will be increased until free speech and democracy improves".

markdown 6y ago
Well if you remove the liars ability to broadcast their lies, democracy is improved, isn't it?
- tremon 6y ago
  Only if you simultaneously make sure that the truth does get heard.
DangitBobby 6y ago
Isn't this a relatively censorship-free time compared to, say, the 60s? If I wanted to spread some nonsense, I had to get approval from a publisher or editor or radio or TV station that would allow me to put it out there. Now, anyone can say anything for all to see, with the occasional purging of public forums. You can't argue that there's no censorship, but I certainly argue that there's much less. Have we always been proclaiming that free speech is being eroded, or is this merely a product of our time?

rich_sasha 6y ago

My broader view is that the society at large is woefully under-educated for dealing with the new complexities of life. Most educational systems I know of don't really teach critical thinking, evaluation of sources, dealing with biased accounts etc. Censorship of the worst lies is justified as something like "we know better that these are lies, so we'll hide the content from those who don't", and in some sense this does send shivers down your spine. The long-term solution must be that an average person can do the evaluation for themselves.