3 ms·

Now we know that we can do two things. "Cancel" them, which i'm afraid is the more likely of the two. Or we can spread awareness about them and constructively c

Now we know that we can do two things. "Cancel" them, which i'm afraid is the more likely of the two. Or we can spread awareness about them and constructively counter their claims. Shutting them down isn't healthy IMHO, even if they are wrong. If it was a whole movement, that may require quarantining, but just a dozen, popular individuals should be engaged with. "Baloney" you say. "It should be just the opposite". Maybe that's true and i'm wrong. I don't know.

anigbrowl 6y ago
I disagree, but in I hope in constructive fashion. 1. it is a whole movement, and sadly there is some evidence that malicious state actors supports its growth: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ 2. There's some good evidence to suggest that aggressively driving trolls and their ilk is the most effective strategy against unwanted incursions: https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/ https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/ 3. The basic problem is that lies ('marshmallows are literally the spawn of Satan and if you eat one a devil will grow inside you') spread faster than truth and require more effort to debunk than to create: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 A serious problem is that trolling is really quite highly refined, and for people who enjoy it, great fun to participate in; your loss (of composure or time) is their (emotional) gain. Perhaps 30% of people are wired this way. Debunking (qua PR/information warfare strategy rather than scientific peer review) is not as well developed, and you thev the basic problem that making a logical argument often requires educating readers, which is time consuming in its own right, and may be counterintuitive. The 'truth sandwich' proposed by Lakoff and others is only effective to the extent that people trust the person making the argument. So Tony Fauci can pull it off because he has been doing public health epidemiology for 40 years, but if he died tomorrow it would take time for other public-facing medicos to establish the same level of credibility. It might be that there are better communication strategies than burying skeptical readers in facts and adversarial debate: https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/154289 https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/154289 ...but bear in mind that these are extremely labor intensive and only work when all parties approach the issue in good faith and a sincere desire for the best outcome. In my view, when you are dealing with malicious actors who originate or deliberately amplify bad-faith discourse, it's better to marshall a broad spectrum aggressive response.

anigbrowl 6y ago

I disagree, but in I hope in constructive fashion. 1. it is a whole movement, and sadly there is some evidence that malicious state actors supports its growth: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ 2. There's some good evidence to suggest that aggressively driving trolls and their ilk is the most effective strategy against unwanted incursions: https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/ https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/ 3. The basic problem is that lies ('marshmallows are literally the spawn of Satan and if you eat one a devil will grow inside you') spread faster than truth and require more effort to debunk than to create: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 A serious problem is that trolling is really quite highly refined, and for people who enjoy it, great fun to participate in; your loss (of composure or time) is their (emotional) gain. Perhaps 30% of people are wired this way. Debunking (qua PR/information warfare strategy rather than scientific peer review) is not as well developed, and you thev the basic problem that making a logical argument often requires educating readers, which is time consuming in its own right, and may be counterintuitive. The 'truth sandwich' proposed by Lakoff and others is only effective to the extent that people trust the person making the argument. So Tony Fauci can pull it off because he has been doing public health epidemiology for 40 years, but if he died tomorrow it would take time for other public-facing medicos to establish the same level of credibility. It might be that there are better communication strategies than burying skeptical readers in facts and adversarial debate: https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/154289 https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/154289 ...but bear in mind that these are extremely labor intensive and only work when all parties approach the issue in good faith and a sincere desire for the best outcome. In my view, when you are dealing with malicious actors who originate or deliberately amplify bad-faith discourse, it's better to marshall a broad spectrum aggressive response.