What's actually being censored: misinformation or the truth?

[Consept]

5 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

If that's true, I'm very sorry that happened to you. It is an offensive idea and the offence should be acknowledged. 

Having said that, it is obvious disinformation and it should be up for debate, just for the purposes of debunking it. It's kind of a chicken-move, to ban someone for stating their false opinion. It emboldens them more. You have to resolve this by debate. 

The issue with not doing this and banning people left, right and center, is that when the truth is not so clear, power gets abused. What I gave you is a very extreme example, where the truth is very clear. But, when it's up for debate, the platforms should allow that debate to happen. Otherwise, it comes across as a chicken-move, like they have something to hide. 

What if you have the debate and are proven right but the person youre debating rejects all logic or reasoning and evidence and throws previously debunked conspiracy theories at you with evidence the only from obscure, questionable websites that are provably false? Should they be allowed to keep peddling false information? 

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, John Paul said:

@mr_engineer how is “black people are less intelligent” even a debate worthy topic? If more people are publicly seen and accepted for having that view it could personally keep people from having jobs in their real life offline… can’t you just make a little sacrifice in your idealistic vision for the sake of people who have already been through enough in their last generations to get a fucking job and escape the past?

It's debate-worthy because people believe it and act on it. And, you're not going to change their mind by banning them in one place. They're going to go elsewhere and act in racist ways. And, they have insane rationalizations for believing that. This shit has to be debunked, right?! And, it has to be given air-time for the debunking to be given air-time. 

2 minutes ago, John Paul said:

you really don’t know what it’s like. You’re living in a world where racism doesn’t exist and we are just diacussing things rationally…. These guys are out here still getting victimized… think of the reality for others…. Poorer Black people etc.

I agree that racism is a problem. I disagree with the solution-technique, though. 

[Consept]

4 minutes ago, John Paul said:

@mr_engineer how is “black people are less intelligent” even a debate worthy topic? If more people are publicly seen and accepted for having that view it could personally keep people from having jobs in their real life offline… can’t you just make a little sacrifice in your idealistic vision for the sake of people who have already been through enough in their last generations to get a fucking job and escape the past?

you really don’t know what it’s like. You’re living in a world where racism doesn’t exist and we are just diacussing things rationally…. These guys are out here still getting victimized… think of the reality for others…. Poorer Black people etc.

You can have the discussion but the point is the people pushing for it are usually trying to put out an image that black people are less intelligent and therefore inferior. The real discussion is if they are statistically less intelligent what are the circumstances of this? Are they put in worse situations by nature of where theyre born and how theyre treated in childhood? If this is the case maybe we could look at equalising this through improving their education for example

[mr_engineer]

6 minutes ago, Consept said:

What if you have the debate and are proven right but the person youre debating rejects all logic or reasoning and evidence and throws previously debunked conspiracy theories at you with evidence the only from obscure, questionable websites that are provably false? Should they be allowed to keep peddling false information? 

Yes, they should. If it's that false, people will use their better judgement, decide for themselves whether it was debunked or not and take their call. 

If you're hinting at me, I'm not a pro at this. I'm not peddling anything, honestly. I don't gain a dime convincing you of anything. There are better people than me doing this work. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by mr_engineer

[zurew]

@mr_engineer You assume that people who are going with the alternative narrative are perfectly rational, logic based people who can be debated out their position if proven false. In 99.999% cases this is false, and these "debates" end up with personal attacks and posting a lot of garbage links that could be debunked with a 5 second google search.

Edited November 28, 2022 by zurew

[John Paul]

@mr_engineer yeah we could publicly debate it, I guess you’re right. But a space would need to be held for that where no false-information is allowed to exist. And a lot of racists are science deniers or not willing to accept flaws in their studies, so how are you gonna convince them that their facts aren’t true? You would need new and better studies and so forth, whose gonna pay for that?

[John Paul]

To allow it to be a public opinion that is even *considered*  is dangerous because children might take it seriously as an option. Children online need to know that judgment is wrong and not socially acceptable in the future that we are creating. It’s naive to think children can think deeper than right and wrong, could you? 

[mr_engineer]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

@mr_engineer You assume that people who are going with the alternative narrative are perfectly rational, logic based people who can be debated out their position if proven false. In 99.999% cases this is false, and these "debates" end up with personal attacks and posting a lot of garbage links that could be debunked with a 5 second google search.

 

3 minutes ago, John Paul said:

@mr_engineer yeah we could publicly debate it, I guess you’re right. But a space would need to be held for that where no false-information is allowed to exist. And a lot of racists are science deniers or not willing to accept flaws in their studies, so how are you gonna convince them that their facts aren’t true? You would need new and better studies and so forth, whose gonna pay for that?

Every individual is free to make up their mind about the conclusion of the debate. That's the beauty of my solution! 

[Consept]

1 minute ago, mr_engineer said:

Yes, they should. If it's that false, people will use their better judgement, decide for themselves whether it was debunked or not and take their call. 

So lets say flat earth for example, I dont think youre a flat earther, but they have been debated out of their position numerous times. There was a documentary where they spent money, 20k i think, on equipment to test the curvature and they proved themselves wrong, yet they still hold their beliefs. This isnt a one off there are many groups with outlandish beliefs that were proven wrong but they still keep their beliefs and even increase in numbers. So in reality people dont use their 'better judgement' for the most part if they have a strong belief, they tend to stick to it 

[mr_engineer]

Just now, Consept said:

So lets say flat earth for example, I dont think youre a flat earther, but they have been debated out of their position numerous times. There was a documentary where they spent money, 20k i think, on equipment to test the curvature and they proved themselves wrong, yet they still hold their beliefs. This isnt a one off there are many groups with outlandish beliefs that were proven wrong but they still keep their beliefs and even increase in numbers. So in reality people dont use their 'better judgement' for the most part if they have a strong belief, they tend to stick to it 

If they want bullshit, they'll seek it out. Either it'll happen on your watch, or not. 

The solution, really, is to understand why they're holding onto what they're holding onto, and come up with an intellectual position/information that'll better help them achieve their goals. Public intellectuals fill this need. That's why they have an audience. It's not because they're peddling 'truth'! When Leo says that the point of all media is to be 'factually accurate', I don't fully agree with that. Because people seek out BS even when the truth is readily accessible! 

And, if you want people to 'be in reality', (which really means, be in your reality), that will never fully happen. Not mentally. But, if you meet the right conscious people, you can have them be in your reality, emotionally! This is a deeper reason for ideological crusades. That people are trying to fill the void for emotional connection with mental agreement, because they identify with their minds. 

[John Paul]

To allow it to be a public opinion that is even *considered*  is dangerous because children might take it seriously as an option. Children online need to know that judgment is wrong and not socially acceptable in the future that we are creating. It’s naive to think children can think deeper than right and wrong, could you? 

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Every individual is free to make up their mind about the conclusion of the debate. That's the beauty of my solution! 

My point is that debates can't work with most people, because they don't want to debate in good faith, so this is not a good solution for the problem you want to solve.  You also have to consider, that most people are not well equipped enough nowadays to debate about complex topics.  The problem you want to solve (to reduce echo chambers), you need to have a better plan that requires serious planning and a complex solution (giving people better education, educate them how to debate in good faith, making algorithms that motivates seeking facts rather than stimuli [this is a really complex one to solve for many reasons], and many other factors as well) one of the biggest from these is the stimuli problem, because people seek whats emotionally stimulating and things that reinforce their beliefs and things that are salient (such salience that have nothing to do with any facts or truth or reality)

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The solution, really, is to understand why they're holding onto what they're holding onto, and come up with an intellectual position/information that'll better help them achieve their goals.

The point is youre saying people can disseminate information for themselves, this is true for some but not most people. People can definitely be manipulated into believing things by bad actors, I dont think you can deny this. The current freedom of speech and platform that we all currently enjoy has been manipulated by these bad actors, your solution is being played out in real time and the result is there has been record numbers believing and sharing fake information. So having the information pushed to you constantly will of course skew your idea of reality, especially with algorithms, you can get into a situation where youre only given a certain viewpoint. These things can have real world implications, for example if you fall down a racist, right wing rabbit hole, I am quite sure you may be more inclined to dislike black people. 

Youre perspective seems to be quite idealistic where if you let everyone say anything everyone will see the BS, but this has not played out at all in reality. Its actually caused unprecedented conflict and division between people, as well as razy beliefs such qanon . 

[Consept]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

My point is that debates can't work with most people, because they don't want to debate in good faith, so this is not a good solution for the problem you want to solve.  You also have to consider, that most people are not well equipped enough nowadays to debate about complex topics.  The problem you want to solve (to reduce echo chambers), you need to have a better plan that requires serious planning and a complex solution (giving people better education, educate them how to debate in good faith, making algorithms that motivates seeking facts rather than stimuli [this is a really complex one to solve for many reasons], and many other factors as well) one of the biggest from these is the stimuli problem, because people seek whats emotionally stimulating and things that reinforce their beliefs and things that are salient (such salience that have nothing to do with any facts or truth or reality)

In reality most of this work would have to be done from childhood, but the funny thing is most parents wouldnt actually want this to happen as the kids may question the beliefs the parents are trying to indoctrinate them with. 

[mr_engineer]

5 minutes ago, John Paul said:

To allow it to be a public opinion that is even *considered*  is dangerous because children might take it seriously as an option. Children online need to know that judgment is wrong and not socially acceptable in the future that we are creating. It’s naive to think children can think deeper than right and wrong, could you? 

So, is it now the government's responsibility to teach children good manners?! Do that in the schools, if you must. 

All kinds of people exist in the real world. Why not the online world? Parents can feel free to teach their children about right vs wrong. 

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

My point is that debates can't work with most people, because they don't want to debate in good faith, so this is not a good solution for the problem you want to solve.  You also have to consider, that most people are not well equipped enough nowadays to debate about complex topics.

I think the free-market can solve this problem. The ones who are the best-equipped will pop off in the public intellectual space. And, the best-quality content will be from people debating in good faith. They have a very stable and steadily improving place on the internet, even if they're not as popular as the bad-faith debaters. 

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

The problem you want to solve (to reduce echo chambers), you need to have a better plan that requires serious planning and a complex solution (giving people better education, educate them how to debate in good faith, making algorithms that motivates seeking facts rather than stimuli [this is a really complex one to solve for many reasons], and many other factors as well) one of the biggest from these is the stimuli problem, because people seek whats emotionally stimulating and things that reinforce their beliefs and things that are salient (such salience that have nothing to do with any facts or truth or reality)

Fair enough. 

[mr_engineer]

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

The point is youre saying people can disseminate information for themselves, this is true for some but not most people. People can definitely be manipulated into believing things by bad actors, I dont think you can deny this. The current freedom of speech and platform that we all currently enjoy has been manipulated by these bad actors, your solution is being played out in real time and the result is there has been record numbers believing and sharing fake information. So having the information pushed to you constantly will of course skew your idea of reality, especially with algorithms, you can get into a situation where youre only given a certain viewpoint. These things can have real world implications, for example if you fall down a racist, right wing rabbit hole, I am quite sure you may be more inclined to dislike black people. 

Youre perspective seems to be quite idealistic where if you let everyone say anything everyone will see the BS, but this has not played out at all in reality. Its actually caused unprecedented conflict and division between people, as well as razy beliefs such qanon . 

You do have a point, that people get indoctrinated with content that they don't think about, that they don't actively listen to. The issue of passive listening vs active listening. 

The root-cause of this issue is the epistemology of our education-system, or our definition of 'knowledge'. We define 'knowledge' as words. The map is the territory. So, if you're drinking in words, you're 'getting educated' or 'getting knowledge'. Passive listening is given undeserved credence. 

The solution is to change the epistemic-structure of the education-system. Or, create a new education-system where the definition of 'knowledge' is not 'words', but 'awareness'. And, students will be expected to actively listen, or else they will miss out on what they need to pass exams. The bar of listening must be raised and the teaching must be made interesting and applicable to reality. 

I've worked on this new design of an education-system. I'm in the process of implementing it right now. I will be sure to get back to you once it's up and running, when I'm supporting myself off of it! 

[John Paul]

2 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

So, is it now the government's responsibility to teach children good manners?! Do that in the schools, if you must. 

All kinds of people exist in the real world. Why not the online world? Parents can feel free to teach their children about right vs wrong. 

1. You’re calling not being racist good manners…….? 
 

2. Not all parents have a healthy attachment style. Parents with an unhealthy attachment style are often going to have some sort of emotional or intellectual problem with their child at some point. This child will often rebel against their parent, sometimes by choosing a belief opposin their parents which they will likely find at school or on the internet. If “black people aren’t as smart as us” is allowed to be a legitimate popular opinion, we will have more racist children in todays internet world.

[mr_engineer]

6 minutes ago, John Paul said:

1. You’re calling not being racist good manners…….? 

Yeah, I mean, that's what today's good manners are, right?! Be PC, don't judge people off the color of their skin, etc. 

6 minutes ago, John Paul said:

2. Not all parents have a healthy attachment style. Parents with an unhealthy attachment style are often going to have some sort of emotional or intellectual problem with their child at some point. This child will often rebel against their parent, sometimes by choosing a belief opposin their parents which they will likely find at school or on the internet. If “black people aren’t as smart as us” is allowed to be a legitimate popular opinion, we will have more racist children in todays internet world.

Yeah, fine, you can be a rebellious teen and become racist in that process. Because, say, their high-school friends were racist. But, as they grow older, become more mature and understand their PC parents more, I think they can stop being racist! Racism as a reaction to PC values is definitely a step backwards, not forwards. 

The real racist people inherit that stuff from their parents. Their parents were racist. As a parent, your morality can make a huge difference. This is a much harder problem to solve. I really don't know the solution to this one. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by mr_engineer

[John Paul]

2 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Yeah, I mean, that's what today's good manners are, right?! Be PC, don't judge people off the color of their skin, etc. 

Yeah, fine, you can be a rebellious teen and become racist in that process. Because, say, their high-school friends were racist. But, as they grow older, become more mature and understand their PC parents more, I think they can stop being racist! Racism as a reaction to PC values is definitely a step backwards, not forwards. 

The real racist people inherit that stuff from their parents. Their parents were racist. As a parent, your morality can make a huge difference. This is a much harder problem to solve. I really don't know the solution to this one. 

This man really saying more people becoming racists isn’t a dangerous situation for American Citizens because sometimes being racist isn’t permanent. LOL gtfo man I’m done.

 

[zurew]

32 minutes ago, Consept said:

In reality most of this work would have to be done from childhood, but the funny thing is most parents wouldnt actually want this to happen as the kids may question the beliefs the parents are trying to indoctrinate them with. 

Yeah, I would say the solution will be in the combination of culture, parenting, and better school education, in the restriction of certain external stimuli (things that hijacks your brain and because of them you can't think clearly and in a rational way).

30 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I think the free-market can solve this problem. The ones who are the best-equipped will pop off in the public intellectual space. And, the best-quality content will be from people debating in good faith. They have a very stable and steadily improving place on the internet, even if they're not as popular as the bad-faith debaters. 

This again assumes that people value facts, truth and are open minded to be corrected and to be educated. This is not the case at all. People value echo chambers, people value shitting on the other side without making any good arguments, people value holding their current beliefs to the end, people are drawn to entertainment. and rationality is being overwritten by external stimuli. So in this case the 'best quality content' would mean posts that are the most stimulating , entertaining  - so for example hate posts, memes, circle jerk posts . (not posts that are about truth or facts or education)

 

You also have to consider that words and not just words.  If certain ideas are being spread it can lead to actual violence and genocide down the road. Look up the pyramid of violence: 

You start from the bottom with jokes and just the discussion of certain ideas, and slowly with talking about these stuff you desensitize people, and you can end up at the top given enough time.

So knowing that people are not perfectly rational and people are highly effected by external factors (upbringing, culture, and nowadays yes the internet has probably more effect on kids thinking and valuesystem than parents who don't have time for anything), we need to be very carefuly what ideas we want to spread without any restrictions.

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by zurew