Substack does seem like an echo chamber construction kit, and bad.

It’s some standard psychological observations which are then spun into both-sides bollocks when, particularly in the States, there’s a clear source of pernicious and damaging misinformation coming from one side in particular.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/27/tennessee-school-board-bans-pulitzer-prize-winning-holocaust-novel-maus

In other news......

hunk wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/27/tennessee-school-board-bans-pulitzer-prize-winning-holocaust-novel-maus In other news......

Even if we take that on face value, the language in question is 'god damn'.

Americans are fucking insane.

Yeah …

In recent years the American right managed to weaponise misinformation, across traditional and social media. They used methods tried and tested by the pro-Brexit campaign in the UK. If you haven’t seen that for yourself, and need a single cited source to verify it, I’m amazed.

A nude mouse, to be clear. And cursing at the severity level of ‘God-damn’.

Yossarian wrote:

GurtTractor wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

It’s some standard psychological observations which are then spun into both-sides bollocks when, particularly in the States, there’s a clear source of pernicious and damaging misinformation coming from one side in particular.

Do you have a source for that claim? Not saying I believe/disbelieve that either way, but no 'side' is immune from stupidity, the use of intellectual dishonesty to advance a political aim, or just outright lying.


https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/bounded-distrust

Do you really need sources for this? You haven’t noticed the Big Lie happening in America? The antivax sentiment among Republicans? All of the critical race theory nonsense that’s being thrown around out there? Or have you seen it but do you believe that there’s something equivalent on the other side? If so, what?

I'm not asking for evidence of misdoings by Republicans or whatever, I'm quite aware. I'm asking if 'The Right' is the sole source of damaging misinformation, like if there's been an actual large scale survey of documented cases of misinformation and where they originated from. There's no subtext here, my point in asking is that if harmful misinformation isn't exclusive to one group then it gives weight to the quote on the previous page as something to think about in regards to discussions. And anyway regardless of the ground truth just using a Them and Us way of talking only leads to further polarization and distrust, which is the point of that quote.

Let's assume that you have discovered a method for accurately determining what is true and good, and what is false and harmful. Do you think an authoritarian control of content will actually make the world a better place? Because I very much doubt that it would, every time you remove a viewpoint from a common platform those speakers will just go somewhere where they are tolerated, and the people that wan't to hear those views go too, thus contributing to futher polarisation and radicalisation. This kind of information control also damages the people's trust, it's quite easy to see how young people especially would react badly to such top-down control of information.

I do think we need some basic standards, I guess it's where the line is drawn that we disagree on. I'm not against some kind of tool that people can use to check a source to see if it's considered reputable, and if it's not what the reasoning is so they can make up their own mind. That would actually be very useful.

I don't know what the endgame would be for authoritarian information control, but I really don't think it's going to be good. Ultimately the only good solution is to increase the numbers of discerning citizenry.

Yossarian wrote:

I’m not convinced that they were all truly objecting to the swearing or nudity.

Holy shit, really?

This both sides shit has been debunked numerous times when it comes to misinformation, which frankly isn’t that surprising seeing as being left wing tends to correlate with higher levels of education.

“We really shouldn't be wanting to empower further top-down control of information, because how do you define who is part of this deleterious outgroup? Whatever the definition currently is will creep and will be used by bad actors to further their agenda or maintain their power.”

We effectively had this for centuries before social media without this slide that you’re concerned about. Why would it suddenly be an issue now?

There’s always been ways for other voices and counter-narratives to be heard, it’s just been a slightly higher barrier to entry which itself discouraged (but didn’t completely stop) disinformation.

GurtTractor wrote:

If the powers-that-be own the media, are you really happy for them to have the tools to control the narrative? This is very much not fine.

As Yoss just said …

Yossarian wrote:

We effectively had this for centuries before social media without this slide that you’re concerned about. Why would it suddenly be an issue now?

Previously we had publishers and editors who made those calls, and that mostly seemed to work.

Not based on current technology, no.

Yes your first paragraph is exactly part of what I've been saying, and it directly relates to all the factors you mention in the second. I'd appreciate it if someone would actually engage with the premise as it's just a wee bit important and interesting to think about..