Hello @Songbird-1 Facebook bought WhatsApp so I'm assuming they have the same terms and conditions now. This is just an assumption but any affiliation with Zuckerberg is alarm bells for me. Sorry i can't be more informative 🙂
Fascinating though eh? Personally I like how discussions morph.
I'll make a sweeping generalisation - people don't research - they don't have the time. They take their news source as gospel (give or take) and assume that they (the source) have done the research and that what is being said is true. That was fine when there were fewer sources that had 'reputations' to uphold. And the problem gets compounded when, what should be a trustworthy source, openly spouts unsubstantiated 'nonsense'. Do we now have to check every word that is said? What is 'true' anymore? Should I drink bleach? Is it incumbent on our leaders to be honest? Isn't part of critical thinking to assess the source before assessing the comment - so what chance is there if what should be an impeccable source is compromised? And if that source is compromised, doesn't that lead to doubts about other trusted sources? - which in turns makes repeated nonsensical claims from untrusted sources seem reasonable in comparison.
People tend to think something is true if it confirms what they were already thinking ... and the way algorithms work leads to the wrong-headed folk getting their stupid ideas validated by other wrong-headed folk, rather than finding out they were wrong by empirical evidence and experience, the way real life used to work.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
@steveTu In short : I agree with you. What I was reflecting in my earlier post was how I try and resolve it for myself. I realise that even with these good intentions ( and I know the road to ruin/hell is paved with good intentions but frankly the shortcut is paved with bad intentions) - it is not fool-proof. To answer the specific ( rhetorical !) questions : please do not drink bleach , and yes - certainly to me - it is incumbent on our leaders to act with integrity.
In "long " ( feel free not to read , its repetitive and I don't think I can say any more on the subject)
Source assessment is key , but in addition to that , assessing the integrity of the specific piece of information is even more important. Put another way ( this came up in conversation with a friend last night who was extolling the many virtues of the site ) --just because wikipedia is brilliantly detailed and cross referenced on one subject does not mean we should therefore assume it can be relied upon on all other subjects at all times.< no offence intended to wikipedia >
In many cases- particularly as academics seek to advance the frontiers of human knowledge - there are conflicting initial theories and fair, open debate and discussion of those different theories is an integral part of narrowing those theories and leading to progress. This is why I try as much as I can to seek out a broad array of voices on emerging topics which sufficiently interest me. I wholly agree the effort required to actively seek out these viewpoints for any layperson is monumental -- hence the necessity of personal prioritisation.
'...I wholly agree the effort required to actively seek out these
viewpoints for any layperson is monumental -- hence the necessity of
personal prioritisation...'
...and largely not possible before the net. You had to trust the source and their research and hope their bias wasn't too blatant!
This is one of the best articles I’ve read for a long time, back in August now, but if you’ve got 5 minutes spare I think it’s very wise news. fB are now taking down anything to do with COVID vaccines, I reported two last night so if you see anything, give them a hand and point it out to them.
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
In short :
I agree with you. What I was reflecting in my earlier post was how I try and resolve it for myself. I realise that even with these good intentions ( and I know the road to ruin/hell is paved with good intentions but frankly the shortcut is paved with bad intentions) - it is not fool-proof.
To answer the specific ( rhetorical !) questions : please do not drink bleach , and yes - certainly to me - it is incumbent on our leaders to act with integrity.
In "long " ( feel free not to read , its repetitive and I don't think I can say any more on the subject)
Source assessment is key , but in addition to that , assessing the integrity of the specific piece of information is even more important.
Put another way ( this came up in conversation with a friend last night who was extolling the many virtues of the site ) --just because wikipedia is brilliantly detailed and cross referenced on one subject does not mean we should therefore assume it can be relied upon on all other subjects at all times.< no offence intended to wikipedia >
In many cases- particularly as academics seek to advance the frontiers of human knowledge - there are conflicting initial theories and fair, open debate and discussion of those different theories is an integral part of narrowing those theories and leading to progress.
This is why I try as much as I can to seek out a broad array of voices on emerging topics which sufficiently interest me.
I wholly agree the effort required to actively seek out these viewpoints for any layperson is monumental -- hence the necessity of personal prioritisation.
fB are now taking down anything to do with COVID vaccines, I reported two last night so if you see anything, give them a hand and point it out to them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/