Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by danstanford

... teaching people to discern the truth by avoiding confirmation bias and single perspectives will be much more effective in the long run than filtering news.

If, as you say, the primary rift is between the educated and the uneducated, I foresee a problem. From what I've seen, the uneducated are proud of that, and work very hard to remain that way. Teaching them anything beyond how to blindly follow their favorite talking heads will be a challenge.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I wish I could agree with you Dan, but I see little evidence that this is true. Or rather, the evidence I see is that despite decades of talk about educating readers/viewers/listeners about media training, people en masse seem no better equipped to process the messages today than they did in the past.

In fact, I think things are worse today than they've ever been since Marshall McLuhan first offered his analysis.

Point taken Mike, but it that painting an impossibility or a lack of efficacy in the teaching?
Competing in the free market for customers and orders has been a school of hard knocks for this boy. Failing to listen to people I disagree with is a surefire way to fail in business and those lessons have led me to set my beliefs aside to hear the other side. I taught my kids to challenge the accepted beliefs around them to understand the spectrum and thrive within it. You can have a great respectful argument with any of them but for sure they are not without strong views themselves.
For what it is worth, censoring their inputs was restricted to putting the computer in clear view in our house and then joining them often. The true danger in all of this is the fact that the arbiters of the "truth" are largely self appointed and without much oversight.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

If, as you say, the primary rift is between the educated and the uneducated, I foresee a problem. From what I've seen, the uneducated are proud of that, and work very hard to remain that way. Teaching them anything beyond how to blindly follow their favorite talking heads will be a challenge.

First, I did not say that, I said the journalists were monolithic and different than many in that respect. For the record, that can only be so in my view.

In my experience, many many of the educated are no better at seeing the other side. See the woke perspectives anywhere, they uniformly position themselves as correct and on the side of the angels and accept no other views.
Shortly after the Democrats were unbelievably beaten by Trump, I heard someone in the Democratic Leadership really embrace the truth. He said they wanted their candidates to be the smartest people in the room but to quite telling people that they were.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Point taken Mike, but it that painting an impossibility or a lack of efficacy in the teaching?

You're right, of course. It is possible, but I also know we've been talking, and teaching, people to be media savvy for decades now. I see little evidence that it has made any difference. As I say, I think it's easy to argue things are worse now.

So while I think you're right in theory, I'm mostly persuaded by how things actually are. And sadly, I see things getting worse, not better. But maybe I'm too pessimistic, after all, I'm one of those monolithic journalists (semi-retired now).

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I wish I could agree with you Dan, but I see little evidence that this is true. Or rather, the evidence I see is that despite decades of talk about educating readers/viewers/listeners about media training, people en masse seem no better equipped to process the messages today than they did in the past.

In fact, I think things are worse today than they've ever been since Marshall McLuhan first offered his analysis.

Education, political ideology, and climate change beliefs around the world

Conventional wisdom holds that higher levels of education are related to better science comprehension, and those who are educated hold beliefs that are in line with the scientific consensus. My colleagues, Małgorzata Kossowska, Paulina Szwed, and I had expectations of how education should work when it comes to climate change beliefs: the more educated you are, the more likely it is that you accept the fact that climate change is occurring, is caused by humans, and requires decisive action. However, when we started working in the Knowledge Resistance project, it quickly turned out that the relationship between education and science-related beliefs is far more complex....

...when we examine political groups separately, it turns out that for people on the political left the conventional wisdom is correct: the more educated they are, the more likely they are to believe that climate change is occurring and is caused by humans. In contrast, for the political right, education has modest effects on climate change beliefs and some findings even suggest that the educated are less likely to think that climate change is occurring, is caused by humans, or that we should do something about it....

We found that education is related to more pro-climate change beliefs and attitudes in the vast majority of countries, but especially in those at the lower or mid-level of development. Even if climate change beliefs were related to political ideology, education very rarely worked in a paradoxical way. Instead, for highly developed countries, education is related to more pro-climate change beliefs among both the political left and right, but its effects are weaker among the political right than the political left.

Our analysis showed that education is associated with climate change beliefs in the majority of the countries analyzed and that it very rarely has paradoxical effects.....

[DMF Sailing]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You're right, of course. It is possible, but I also know we've been talking, and teaching, people to be media savvy for decades now. I see little evidence that it has made any difference. As I say, I think it's easy to argue things are worse now.

So while I think you're right in theory, I'm mostly persuaded by how things actually are. And sadly, I see things getting worse, not better. But maybe I'm too pessimistic, after all, I'm one of those monolithic journalists (semi-retired now).

Interesting to look at the Baltic countries, 30 years independent of the Soviet Union but still the target of what they consider elaborate disinformation campaigns from their large neighbor to the east.

They have set up a center that aims to defend their societies and educate their populace about how to identify disinformation.

https://www.stratcomcoe.org

Disclaimers:

1) Yes, this is a NATO-financed operation. And yes, there are those who believe the other side is engaging in the disinformation. Just turn on any news channel in Russia! I will not offer my opinion.

2) Though I have been at this center and talked to some of the principles, I am not and have never been affiliated with it. My effort here is to merely point out how these countries are trying to muster a national education effort to combat the perceived threat of disinformation.

[RaymondR]

Beg to disagree on the "far worse" hypothesis.

Democracy is slowly taking over in the world and this is because of higher mobility of the population and better informed people, primarily because of TV. You will notice that pretty well all these nasty left wing dictatorships get "democratic" in the national titles.

You cannot have a fully informed public whilst any form of censorship is being imposed and without a fully informed public you will not have a securely based democracy and that's why freedom of expression and the press is so important.

What we really need is to let her rip on the expressing of opinions and for the pansies to toughen up. The insidious and dishonest repression of public opinion by the PC movement is far more damaging to the maintenance of democracy than the odd expression of ratbag opinions by the extremes of the body politic.

And a word of advice to the new rulers of The Great Republic. Making a big deal on TV of undoing all the last incumbents policies because you hate the person is going to make a lot of enemies of the almost 50% of the voting public who voted for your opponent and doing so just after you've also made a big deal out of "healing, understanding and coming together" just makes one look like a hypocrite.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SailOar

... Our analysis showed that education is associated with climate change beliefs in the majority of the countries analyzed and that it very rarely has paradoxical effects.....

I've seen some of this genre of research. It's fascinating, but the effect can be measured on both the political right as well as the left. It seems to be dependent on issues which have become core clan issues.

As I recall, research has measured the effect on the right for issues like climate change. But on the left you can see the same effect emerge around issues like nuclear power and even vaccinations.

The takeaway seems to be that once an issue becomes sacralized (core to your clan's beliefs), then better educated people just become better at rationalizing their beliefs and biases.

Scary stuff... and should make all of us question our own views on contentious issues.

[DMF Sailing]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The takeaway seems to be that once an issue becomes sacralized (core to your clan's beliefs), then better educated people just become better at rationalizing their beliefs and biases.

Scary stuff... and should make all of us question our own views on contentious issues.

^This.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

...........
The takeaway seems to be that once an issue becomes sacralized (core to your clan's beliefs), then better educated people just become better at rationalizing their beliefs and biases.

Scary stuff... and should make all of us question our own views on contentious issues.

Originally Posted by DMF Sailing

^This.

Mike, you have hit the nail firmly on the head.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you put a grainy picture of a young royal's chest area on the cover and place your paper near the checkout, of course you will attract customers.

That too is common sense.

If it bleeds it leads.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

What we really need is to let her rip on the expressing of opinions and for the pansies to toughen up. The insidious and dishonest repression of public opinion by the PC movement is far more damaging to the maintenance of democracy than the odd expression of ratbag opinions by the extremes of the body politic.

What repression? In case you haven't noticed, the expression of opinions has never been easier, or more free, than now. This includes those who deliberately traffic in known false information, and also those (whom you refer to as PC) who are outspoken in their objections to what they consider to be backwards, hateful, racist.

It's most amusing that those you refer to as pansies are the usually ones out there standing up to and taking on the wanna-be nazis, white supremicists, fascists and racists, while the older guys sit back, check their bank balances, play with their boats, and grouse about those PC pansies...

And a word of advice to the new rulers of The Great Republic. Making a big deal on TV of undoing all the last incumbents policies because you hate the person is going to make a lot of enemies of the almost 50% of the voting public who voted for your opponent and doing so just after you've also made a big deal out of "healing, understanding and coming together" just makes one look like a hypocrite.

Many of the Great Republic's last incumbent's policies were flat out wrong, unhelpful, retrograde, divisive, useless. The real hypocrites are the fellow party-members who knew so, but kept quiet and just smiled and applauded whenever the camera was on them.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Democracy is slowly taking over in the world and this is because of higher mobility of the population and better informed people, primarily because of TV. You will notice that pretty well all these nasty left wing dictatorships get "democratic" in the national titles.

This is not supported by facts. Democracy as a form of government has indeed been growing since WWII, but in the last 20 years or so has been under serious threat. Mostly these threats come from within as formerly strong democracies take on autocratic tendencies.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (The EIU) is the research and analysis division of The Economist magazine. They've been analyzing and charting the state of global democracies since 2006.

From their most recent analysis:

The global average score hit an all-time lowAs recorded in the Democracy Index in recent years, democracy has not been in robust health for some time. In 2020 its strength was further tested by the outbreak of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. The average global score in the 2020 Democracy Index fell from 5.44 in 2019 to 5.37. This is by far the worst global score since the index was first produced in 2006. The 2020 result represents a significant deterioration and came about largely—but not solely—because of government-imposed restrictions on individual freedoms and civil liberties that occurred across the globe in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Originally Posted by RaymondR

You cannot have a fully informed public whilst any form of censorship is being imposed and without a fully informed public you will not have a securely based democracy and that's why freedom of expression and the press is so important.

Absolutely agree, which is the whole point of this discussion. The dramatic rise of misinformation and disinformation is leading to a public that is seriously uninformed, or misinformed.

Originally Posted by RaymondR

What we really need is to let her rip on the expressing of opinions and for the pansies to toughen up. The insidious and dishonest repression of public opinion by the PC movement is far more damaging to the maintenance of democracy than the odd expression of ratbag opinions by the extremes of the body politic.

Sure. I would say another thing we must demand is that leaders and those in positions of responsibility not outright lie to the public. The USA has just kicked out a leader which, according to numerous studies, has been a huge source of mis/disinformation.

Originally Posted by RaymondR

And a word of advice to the new rulers of The Great Republic. Making a big deal on TV of undoing all the last incumbents policies because you hate the person is going to make a lot of enemies of the almost 50% of the voting public who voted for your opponent and doing so just after you've also made a big deal out of "healing, understanding and coming together" just makes one look like a hypocrite.

Since the previous ruler spent much of his time in office undoing the policies of the previous incumbents (plural), it only seems fair the new guy wants to reverse many of them.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Shortly after the Democrats were unbelievably beaten by Trump, I heard someone in the Democratic Leadership really embrace the truth. He said they wanted their candidates to be the smartest people in the room but to quite telling people that they were.

I actually like that approach. I'm so naive that I actually feel like, in a democracy, the smartest people should automatically be elected. Sometimes it seems like we go in the exact opposite direction.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You're right, of course. It is possible, but I also know we've been talking, and teaching, people to be media savvy for decades now. I see little evidence that it has made any difference. As I say, I think it's easy to argue things are worse now.

So while I think you're right in theory, I'm mostly persuaded by how things actually are. And sadly, I see things getting worse, not better. But maybe I'm too pessimistic, after all, I'm one of those monolithic journalists (semi-retired now).

I have to agree. I'd go farther and say that we're actually going in the wrong direction. People today seem more willing to blindly accept authority. They're very susceptible to marketing and branding. I'm a cynic from way back. If you want my loyalty, you'll have to earn it. If you want me to believe something, you'll have to prove it. And if you try to push your marketing or your political spin at me, it'll only turn me off.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The takeaway seems to be that once an issue becomes sacralized (core to your clan's beliefs), then better educated people just become better at rationalizing their beliefs and biases.

Scary stuff... and should make all of us question our own views on contentious issues.

^^ This about sums it up.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by danstanford

...In relation to the topic at hand, teaching people to discern the truth by avoiding confirmation bias and single perspectives will be much more effective in the long run than filtering news...

Teaching people to discern the truth... Yes. That would be the best.

But taking no action except to recommend that we teach people is really saying, take no action.

We can institute an education initiative. Getting it accepted and implemented will be hard. We've seen how government recommendations on curriculums were accepted previously (they weren’t). And the very people needing that education are the ones which will oppose it. But yes, a move in that direction however painful is a good idea.

On the other hand some proactive moves can be taken, almost immediately. One of the most damaging trends has been the establishment of partisan echo chambers. Each side hears only their own views. One of the most unfortunate results of the proliferation of Internet channels is that everyone can simply find one which says what they already believe and that is all they look at. I recall that in the old days broadcasters were required to air opposing views with equal time. Why not re-impose that rule? Yes, some details to be worked out. Who is a broadcaster/publisher? Whose views do you have to put on next to your own?

Another way of retaining free speech is to allow it, anything (within limits) but block the widespread publication. Say what you want but limit shares, forwards and big mailing lists. Those things put you into the broadcaster category and you have to offer opposing views.

Well, I am sure smarter people than I can think of ways to limit the confirmation bias and echo chambers. But I'd like to see people on the left and right arguing about ideas and opposing views instead of simply nodding their heads in the confirmation bias we see as we see now.