i’ll only say a couple of things here:
@bender@twtxt.net That’s what I call it “Information Warfare”. There are entire (scurrilous) business who pay money to others to promote “misinformation” or “propaganda”.
@prologic@twtxt.net I agree with you, we should be discussing ideas openly and transparently. Because it’s though discussion that we can get the reality. As @bender@twtxt.net says “people spreading things they believe to be right”, maybe we are ourselves spreading false claims, without knowing, we can only know by exchanging ideas, and being open. The biggest question is what is “misinformation”, I believe the answer change according your beliefs. Many times we have seen what was categorize as “official” misinformation, being actually real.
waiting for we define what is misinformation, I will continue dressing like :
Just to be sure (of course it’s an attempt to do a joke)
I still believe that debating is the most peaceful way to deal with disagreement because
@abucci@anthony.buc.ci, the point on debating in social network, is not stopping people from spreading bad ideas. Is to make everybody else that look at the debate think, and not fall on those bad ideas, by hiding the bad ideas, and not debating them, we may push others people to believe in them, and we may push people that already believe in them to stay in an echo chamber and become worse.
@bender@twtxt.net the problem with that sentence is that if one day two people may disagree, and they may convince themself that the other is spreading hate speech,/disinformation or worse than the other is a nazi, and ask for physical harm.
the point on debating in social network, is not stopping people from spreading bad ideas. Is to make everybody else that look at the debate think, and not fall on those bad ideas, by hiding the bad ideas, and not debating them, we may push others people to believe in them, and we may push people that already believe in them to stay in an echo chamber
No. This is a naive point of view, and it does not jibe with current research. Really. I urge you to read up on disinformation research especially after Facebook was called out for the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Other people do not look at a debate, see the bad information exposed as bad by good arguments, and change their minds. It doesn’t work that way. Misinformation purposely targets people’s emotions, and when the emotional appeal works, they tend to view the people debating against the view as enemies. They reject the good ideas even more forcefully.
Sure, there are hypothetical people who will see a debate, recognize that bad information has been exposed, and react by rejecting that bad information. Probably most of the people here fall into that group. But people like that were never the problem. The problem is the vast number of people who will react by believing the bad information even more stubbornly. Read the research–this is a real, documented effect I am describing.
Also, the dangers of the “echo chamber” that you evoked are very much overblown, almost surely by purveyors of disinformation because that fear helps them do their work (I’ll note you raised this as a danger–an emotional appeal–instead of citing data). The echo chamber effect, to the extent it exists, is bad for people who are already suffering from information poisoning. People who’ve already bought into some piece of misinformation fall into or stay in an echo chamber. Once again, misinformation purveyors have very detailed strategies–Google, you can find them–for how to draw unsupecting people into an echo chamber and keep them there.
@bender@twtxt.net most of the people are not extreme, so taking an extreme example to validate a today’s behavior it has no much point. But I will try to answer your question. First if I was in Germany during those times, I hope that I would have been in the good side of history (I hope so because I grew up around jews family), then if it had been the case I think I will have been arrested, and it is when I would have stopped talking (but at least I’m sure I won’t have stopped).
@abucci@anthony.buc.ci I mostly agree with you in many points, I will read the points you are talking about. For the echo chamber, I tend to disagree a bit, becasue you may be in an echo chamber without knowing it, thus not being able to go out, if you don’t see people debating in those echo chamber. One of the biggest echo chambers are the social network recommendation system, you may be recommended a lot of view like yours, and without knowing stay in that echo chamber (youtube is great for that, I mean for letting you around what you are comfortable with).
And each time I talk with people, I assume I am maybe wrong. How could I know that in some subject I may be wrong, if people doesn’t debate with me, but just call for my canceling.
I can do research but :
thanks I love data.
For the echo chamber I’m doing a study on it. And for now see the opposite.
Example : Someone that is into flat earth “theory” (for example), thanks to the recommendation algorithm will find more content about it, and liking it, the recommendation loop will show him more and more till the point he is surrounded by that content (that part is already validated), then he will begin to see others “theory” near the “flat earth” cluster. I think that at the end (not yet there) that person will be looking (believing?) that the pope is an alien and he is the one ruling the earth. (at least he will know the truth about aliens :D joking of course)