3 ms·

>I've always assumed that you go to reddit, twitter or facebook with your mind made up Well, that definitely happens, and maybe I'm thinking more of independen

>I've always assumed that you go to reddit, twitter or facebook with your mind made up Well, that definitely happens, and maybe I'm thinking more of independent fact-checking sites like Snopes, where people visit explicitly to verify the veracity of something. >The removal of (dis-)information is what I'm least comfortable with I understand, but, unfortunately, we have an absolute explosion of explicit disinformation. The funny thing is that the notion of being uncomfortable with removing disinformation is itself partly the product of the idea that there are no objective facts. And, that is a function of how successful the firehose of disinfo has been at attacking the value of truth and the existence of objectivity. So, we kind of conflate removing disinfo with undertaking a subjective political act. But, not long ago, it wasn't so easy to argue base reality.

luckylion 5y ago
I don't believe that there are no objective facts, but I do believe that we're generally pretty bad at observing objective reality and once we get above some level of complexity, "facts" isn't a good term. I don't think you need an attack on the value of truth and the existence of objectivity to have issues with "truths" about complex systems. We've had plenty of truths about the economy, and we've corrected them lots of times as well. If anyone asked you to fact-check some claim about the effects of raising the minimum wage to $25/hr, what objective truth do you look to? Do you ask 20 economists what their gut feeling is and say "that's it then"? Do you just reject the question?
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Largely true, but I think it's a matter of degree. That is, the set of facts that society generally agreed upon was once much larger and less tribally-driven. I think your example about the economy is perhaps not well-fitted to the argument I'm making. We've always allowed for the interpretation of facts in certain fields or areas of society. So, areas of subjectivity are well circumscribed and expected. Thus, for instance, it is well-known and accepted that people will offer different opinions on the impact of raising the minimum wage. And it is known that the answer depends on a complex set of variables that can earnestly be interpreted differently. I think this is qualitatively different from, say, suggesting that a person did or did not say something or that an event did or did not occur, or even offering up something like Qanon with no evidence. This latter paragraph is what I would describe as comprising objective facts/reality. And, that's what's changed most dramatically.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    If I understand you correctly, you'd apply the fact-checking to very obvious issues ("The president is a reptile", "X has said Y", though I guess that gets fuzzy quickly unless you're limiting yourself to quote-checking), but not "mostly opinion based" things? Would the case of this article fall in the "needs fact-checking" basket or the "mostly opinion based"? I agree about society being less split at some point. My pet theory is 1) lack of leisure time to find out, b) needing more cooperation to make things work, enforcing more homogeneity c) no social media/forums to question the official view at scale.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >you'd apply the fact-checking to very obvious issues Well, more simply, I would apply fact-checking to facts (versus opinions). >Would the case of this article I believe the article in question falls into the needs fact-checking basket as the issue at hand can be tracked back to verifiable facts. That is, this study was flawed by accepted scientific standards. I think where they dropped the ball is on the context side. That is injecting this kind of article into the current climate (that is filled with disinformation and conspiracy theories around the topic) can be itself misleading. I'm sure this is why Facebook was so eager. So, Facebook should have been more specific in its warning, versus stating the claim was false. >My pet theory My take is less generous. I think it comes down to cynical politicians and adversarial nation states poisoning the well for the explicit purpose of driving this social divide.

luckylion 5y ago

I don't believe that there are no objective facts, but I do believe that we're generally pretty bad at observing objective reality and once we get above some level of complexity, "facts" isn't a good term. I don't think you need an attack on the value of truth and the existence of objectivity to have issues with "truths" about complex systems. We've had plenty of truths about the economy, and we've corrected them lots of times as well. If anyone asked you to fact-check some claim about the effects of raising the minimum wage to $25/hr, what objective truth do you look to? Do you ask 20 economists what their gut feeling is and say "that's it then"? Do you just reject the question?

unclebucknasty 5y ago
Largely true, but I think it's a matter of degree. That is, the set of facts that society generally agreed upon was once much larger and less tribally-driven. I think your example about the economy is perhaps not well-fitted to the argument I'm making. We've always allowed for the interpretation of facts in certain fields or areas of society. So, areas of subjectivity are well circumscribed and expected. Thus, for instance, it is well-known and accepted that people will offer different opinions on the impact of raising the minimum wage. And it is known that the answer depends on a complex set of variables that can earnestly be interpreted differently. I think this is qualitatively different from, say, suggesting that a person did or did not say something or that an event did or did not occur, or even offering up something like Qanon with no evidence. This latter paragraph is what I would describe as comprising objective facts/reality. And, that's what's changed most dramatically.
- luckylion 5y ago
  If I understand you correctly, you'd apply the fact-checking to very obvious issues ("The president is a reptile", "X has said Y", though I guess that gets fuzzy quickly unless you're limiting yourself to quote-checking), but not "mostly opinion based" things? Would the case of this article fall in the "needs fact-checking" basket or the "mostly opinion based"? I agree about society being less split at some point. My pet theory is 1) lack of leisure time to find out, b) needing more cooperation to make things work, enforcing more homogeneity c) no social media/forums to question the official view at scale.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >you'd apply the fact-checking to very obvious issues Well, more simply, I would apply fact-checking to facts (versus opinions). >Would the case of this article I believe the article in question falls into the needs fact-checking basket as the issue at hand can be tracked back to verifiable facts. That is, this study was flawed by accepted scientific standards. I think where they dropped the ball is on the context side. That is injecting this kind of article into the current climate (that is filled with disinformation and conspiracy theories around the topic) can be itself misleading. I'm sure this is why Facebook was so eager. So, Facebook should have been more specific in its warning, versus stating the claim was false. >My pet theory My take is less generous. I think it comes down to cynical politicians and adversarial nation states poisoning the well for the explicit purpose of driving this social divide.