My life doesn't need social media and, because I believe most require users' 'profiles' etc., I'm convinced they increase the risk of being snooped upon by those with evil intent. As one who was 21 before I lived in a house with TV, and was 5 when the NHS was created, I'm saddened by what I see today.
You don't have to put anything in your profile beyond a name. You can, on FB anyway, stay private and restrict who sees your posts or visits your page and thus has access to personal messages etc. It's great for long, free chats with distant rellies and friends.
On this forum you can hide behind a nickname but it helps us give better answers if people add a line about where they live because climate and soil and exposure have such an influence on what will and won't grow well.
If you have a credit card or a mobile phone or a loyalty card systems will be tracking you spending habits and movements in order to target you for marketing and publicity for products and services to which you are deemed to be more susceptible.
The German equivalent of the NHS was started in 1863....
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
Those who choose to snoop on me will quickly take up painting - that’s walls, not canvases. Watching the paint dry will be an entertaining diversion for them.
@steveTu@Desi_in_London on first reflection I agreed with you both, but then on second reflection I wasn't sure again!
Do we say the medium is the problem (barrier to entry, reinforced bias as you both say), or the person is the problem? If I get bombarded with the same false message in a convincing format, I may start to believe it. So is the bombardment the issue, or is it my willingness/ability to determine wether the messages are true? If I have enough money that printing a million leaflets is trivial, does that mean a barrier to entry only exists for some people. And if so, does that mean it's a barrier at all, because it's simply a question of scale? This is exactly how US elections work!
I don't know what the answer is to all that, I suspect there isn't one. Personally I take the "personal responsibility" view - I believe I should determine facts for myself, and if I get fooled it's my own fault. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, I deserve it even more!
But then we should ask, what's the state's responsibility to fight false information....
The things we think about when it's too wet and cold to get in the garden, eh!
@Obelixx the amount of information people willingly give away through loyalty cards is quite scary, indeed.
What should I be scared of by using my Tesco Clubcard? Will they snitch on me to my dentist for buying too much chocolate? Will the cats suffer harassment from the Whiskas Crew because they favour Felix?
I am occasionally sent discount vouchers based on my buying habits but I would far rather have discounts for things I do buy rather than things I don’t. At present I have about £170 worth of unspent Clubcard vouchers due to a year of inactivity. In normal times I greatly enjoy visiting attractions in London for nothing and having a one third discount on my train fares.
Not sure. I think it's part of all human nature. If we look at the vaccine and the stories that abound on the net, then you may not believe each individual story BUT after repeatedly seeing different negative stories, you start to have doubts in general - especially as the stories come from different sources. Each story is a nonsense, but the cumulative effect is marked.
You could take your doubt as a case in point - you state something, so presumably have an idea clear in your head, but then get two different views from two different sources and end up doubting your own idea. Either that or you were just being polite and you really wanted to call us idiots!
@strelitzia32 -- i think you nailed it in your last post in that there is no single cause for it. That's what I meant in my original post -- its a combination of factors ( not only critical thinking decline // not only the lack of quality control of what info is published today ) . In my view the algorithmic reinforcing bias is a big part of it ( as it defines what you see in search engines etc -steve's bombardment point above )
Individual research is the only way around it (ie basically what you do ) but not everyone has the mental capacity or indeed time to do that for everything-- I just try and avoid adding to the problem by inadvertently dissemination info which I haven't authenticated.
But by virtue of doing the research aren't you doubting your position? If I doubt the vaccine, even though I know there is no truth in the rumours, and then 'research' (read Google it) it, doesn't that imply that my critical thinking is wrong as I have given credence to the rumours?
Everything comes down to personal thresholds and lines doesn't it? We all behave differently and have different levels of acceptance. If that wasn't the case, Trump could never have been elected could he? You wouldn't need a jury of twelve good men and true - as any one's opinion on 'true' would be the same as any one else's.
If I ask someone the time, I don't doubt the reply unless I know it's blatantly wrong. We all do that. We take a source and grade it as being reliable or not based on the importance of the information it provides. Is a vicar more trustworthy than a plumber? Is a policemen and more honest than a clerk? We take an attribute and use it as an umbrella that covers everything in its shadow.
The problem NOW is the old sources that were trusted are no longer that popular. New sources, that are largely unknown are coming through. So without a track record, which source (even if you research something) do you trust? Do you then need to research the source before you trust the sources information? And is the source always true? If I wanted to disseminate falsehoods, I'd wrap them in truths or omit vital facts. A bit like a man saying he'd been to the pub when asked by his wife - and true - but he omitted he'd been there with his lover.
In your example Steve ( ie re covid 19 albeit less about the vaccine specifically ) yes to some degree I googled , but I then followed that rabbit hole down to look at the source peer -reviewed papers ( including initially ones from singapore / hk and some on the older coronaviruses) . I have some science training ( albeit not medical ) but was able to follow them sufficiently, and I subscribed to some journals for the purpose. I felt this was time well spent for me because I wanted to try to 'understand' as best I could. Not everyone would be sufficiently interested ( and certainly there were some conflicting papers I read to start with in terms of the efficacies of various protocols so some ( unqualified) judgement was required on my part as I sifted through the material).
I agree with you that "only" googling carries the risk of self-perpetuating bias. It may be semantics , but I took the view that this was me trying to understand the behaviour of sars-cov2 rather than doubting my position ( ie i was trying to do extensive reading to establish my position as best I could by looking at experts' original work ).
Obviously , I don't have the mental bandwidth to do that for everything. So I am happy to rely on the collective forum advice on eg "what pot size can i grow a rose bush in"
Does this make sense?
edit to add --I do feel a bit guilty that the original poster's thread , whatever one's views on the merits of the proposition , has now been turned into a general media ( online and otherwise / fake news discussion)
Posts
On this forum you can hide behind a nickname but it helps us give better answers if people add a line about where they live because climate and soil and exposure have such an influence on what will and won't grow well.
If you have a credit card or a mobile phone or a loyalty card systems will be tracking you spending habits and movements in order to target you for marketing and publicity for products and services to which you are deemed to be more susceptible.
The German equivalent of the NHS was started in 1863....
Do we say the medium is the problem (barrier to entry, reinforced bias as you both say), or the person is the problem? If I get bombarded with the same false message in a convincing format, I may start to believe it. So is the bombardment the issue, or is it my willingness/ability to determine wether the messages are true? If I have enough money that printing a million leaflets is trivial, does that mean a barrier to entry only exists for some people. And if so, does that mean it's a barrier at all, because it's simply a question of scale? This is exactly how US elections work!
I don't know what the answer is to all that, I suspect there isn't one. Personally I take the "personal responsibility" view - I believe I should determine facts for myself, and if I get fooled it's my own fault. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, I deserve it even more!
But then we should ask, what's the state's responsibility to fight false information....
The things we think about when it's too wet and cold to get in the garden, eh!
@Obelixx the amount of information people willingly give away through loyalty cards is quite scary, indeed.
I am occasionally sent discount vouchers based on my buying habits but I would far rather have discounts for things I do buy rather than things I don’t. At present I have about £170 worth of unspent Clubcard vouchers due to a year of inactivity. In normal times I greatly enjoy visiting attractions in London for nothing and having a one third discount on my train fares.
Individual research is the only way around it (ie basically what you do ) but not everyone has the mental capacity or indeed time to do that for everything-- I just try and avoid adding to the problem by inadvertently dissemination info which I haven't authenticated.
I agree with you that "only" googling carries the risk of self-perpetuating bias. It may be semantics , but I took the view that this was me trying to understand the behaviour of sars-cov2 rather than doubting my position ( ie i was trying to do extensive reading to establish my position as best I could by looking at experts' original work ).
Obviously , I don't have the mental bandwidth to do that for everything. So I am happy to rely on the collective forum advice on eg "what pot size can i grow a rose bush in"
Does this make sense?
edit to add --I do feel a bit guilty that the original poster's thread , whatever one's views on the merits of the proposition , has now been turned into a general media ( online and otherwise / fake news discussion)