|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 15:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
idk how common those 40 hr/wk jobs are anymore outside of government. virtually everyone i know works more than that on salary (though the salary is quite good, though if you do the hourly calculation it's less great).
If it's your priority you can get companies that swear by 40 hour weeks. For a lot of people it is, which makes government and/or government contracting a rather good option under the proper circumstances.
And besides, if sold well, even those peasant jobs like making apps for the HUD dept is more meaningful than making websites for just some random company that makes flash games or something. And peasant divisions of the government (as opposed to NASA and the intelligence wings) are where the real shortages are because people still want to work in some of those more popular ones because of reasons.
But yes, when you pay $35k/yr for software people you're mostly going to get the people who were working for the $11/hour terrible software jobs.
|
job security would only be an issue if it were hard to find another job. a good programmer can bounce from google to apple to tesla and back.
one of the areas the government is actually pretty competitive is research. unlike academia it's not publish or perish, and scrounging around for grant money hasn't been an issue either. the pay is decent relatively speaking too, though that's partially because research pays peanuts. i think the type of projects you can work on is a bit more limited, but that's the only real downside and it might not even apply.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 15:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
job security would only be an issue if it were hard to find another job. a good programmer can bounce from google to apple to tesla and back.
That kind of life simply isn't for a lot of people. It's the norm on the West Coast but most people wouldn't mind steady advancement over the course of 10-20 years within one company either. Plus the older and more specialized you are, the more you'll have a hard time staying in one place to find a job. The government can offer good things in that regard.
Again, it has its advantages, they are just simply poorly sold by a government leadership that simply doesn't know how to properly deal with a technical workforce. The only reason they have better luck in other technical fields (e.g. chemistry) is that those industries have a worse market than software right now and what the government offers starts to look rather competitive.
On December 09 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
You're left with reformed criminals (this is mostly just CIA/NSA/etc...)
Where else do you get experienced hackers? Ex-KGB agents?
|
well if you wanted to modernize the government workforce you can start with the idiotic notion that you can evaluate work in hourly increments. it's impossible to measure intellectual work in hours and yet title 5 requires a 40 hour workweek that most agencies are more willing to enforce than quality.
|
For software developers, remote work is also becoming a pretty valid option. Live somewhere with a cheap cost of living, and work for a non-local company willing to pay the same salary as if you were co-located.
On the 40+ hour work week, at least for the company I work for, they aren't that picky about the hours, so long as you get things done. I live in Canada, so maybe it's a little different, but a third of our team are in the Boston area, and it doesn't seem too different for them.
|
|
|
Norway28563 Posts
With the admission of the american people that the country is no longer exceptional, I think that's a fair statement. I don't know whether life span is really an indicator though - in terms of economic prosperity or whatnot I don't see how an increasingly aging population would really be positive? 
|
On December 09 2016 12:45 zlefin wrote:
the populace does not truly wish for social security to be fixed. If it truly did, it would've been done by now. they know intellectually it should be; but their feelings are otherwise. One of the great problems of democracy; which is why we need better forms of government.
Here the problem, we haven't found a better one. But we have found a myriad of infinitely worse. So before bashing democracy (that you enjoy only because countless people gave their life for it), I would pay attention of what it is to live in a country that isn't one. I'll spoil that one: it's not fun.
The problem is not democracy. The problem are human beings. People don't behave rationally, and that's why white working class people vote for republicans whose agenda is to increase exponentially the very inequalities they suffer from and fuck them in the ass even a bit harder. That's why it pays more to excite hatred and biggotry against mexicans and "SJW" than to come with concrete proposals that will really improve people's lives. And that's why people are willing to completely disregard what the overwhelming of scientists say if it doesn't really match with their ideology.
But, that's the sad thing, a bad democracy is still several orders of magnitude better than a good dictatorship. And there is simply no third alternative.
I am quite pessimistic. Not even because of the far right wave of resentment, xenophobia, anger and irrational fear that is engulfing the world, but because it seems to me that people who are not part of it are simply not very interested in defending liberal democracy. Maybe people have simply forgotten what it is when justice is not independent, when information is owned by the power, when free speech is not allowed. I think we are heading back there, and when we've reached destination it will be too late.
In France we call the generation that lived the 1930's the sleep walkers. Maybe we are sleep walkers. Let see how Marine Le Pen, a true, real, authentic fascist, does in the French election. That's gonna be a test about where we are in.
|
On December 09 2016 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 12:45 zlefin wrote:
the populace does not truly wish for social security to be fixed. If it truly did, it would've been done by now. they know intellectually it should be; but their feelings are otherwise. One of the great problems of democracy; which is why we need better forms of government. Here the problem, we haven't found a better one. But we have found a myriad of infinitely worse. So before bashing democracy (that you enjoy only because countless people gave their life for it), I would pay attention of what it is to live in a country that isn't one. I'll spoil that one: it's not fun. The problem is not democracy. The problem are human beings. People don't behave rationally, and that's why white working class people vote for republicans whose agenda is to increase exponentially the very inequalities they suffer from and fuck them in the ass even a bit harder. That's why it pays more to excite hatred and biggotry against mexicans and "SJW" than to come with concrete proposals that will really improve people's lives. And that's why people are willing to completely disregard what the overwhelming of scientists say if it doesn't really match with their ideology. But, that's the sad thing, a bad democracy is still several orders of magnitude better than a good dictatorship. And there is simply no third alternative. I am quite pessimistic. Not even because of the far right wave of resentment, xenophobia, anger and irrational fear that is engulfing the world, but because it seems to me that people who are not part of it are simply not very interested in defending liberal democracy. Maybe people have simply forgotten what it is when justice is not independent, when information is owned by the power, when free speech is not allowed. I think we are heading back there, and when we've reached destination it will be too late. In France we call the generation that lived the 1930's the sleep walkers. Maybe we are sleep walkers. Let see how Marine Le Pen, a true, real, authentic fascist, does in the French election. That's gonna be a test about where we are in.
I'm quite aware of all that.
The thing is, we've learned an awful lot about systems design since then; and with modern knowledge, and some more testing/experimentation, it's quite possible we could create a better system, and a better form of government.
There's just not enough research on improved government designs (let alone the will to implement them).
|
On December 09 2016 23:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2016 12:45 zlefin wrote:
the populace does not truly wish for social security to be fixed. If it truly did, it would've been done by now. they know intellectually it should be; but their feelings are otherwise. One of the great problems of democracy; which is why we need better forms of government. Here the problem, we haven't found a better one. But we have found a myriad of infinitely worse. So before bashing democracy (that you enjoy only because countless people gave their life for it), I would pay attention of what it is to live in a country that isn't one. I'll spoil that one: it's not fun. The problem is not democracy. The problem are human beings. People don't behave rationally, and that's why white working class people vote for republicans whose agenda is to increase exponentially the very inequalities they suffer from and fuck them in the ass even a bit harder. That's why it pays more to excite hatred and biggotry against mexicans and "SJW" than to come with concrete proposals that will really improve people's lives. And that's why people are willing to completely disregard what the overwhelming of scientists say if it doesn't really match with their ideology. But, that's the sad thing, a bad democracy is still several orders of magnitude better than a good dictatorship. And there is simply no third alternative. I am quite pessimistic. Not even because of the far right wave of resentment, xenophobia, anger and irrational fear that is engulfing the world, but because it seems to me that people who are not part of it are simply not very interested in defending liberal democracy. Maybe people have simply forgotten what it is when justice is not independent, when information is owned by the power, when free speech is not allowed. I think we are heading back there, and when we've reached destination it will be too late. In France we call the generation that lived the 1930's the sleep walkers. Maybe we are sleep walkers. Let see how Marine Le Pen, a true, real, authentic fascist, does in the French election. That's gonna be a test about where we are in. I'm quite aware of all that. The thing is, we've learned an awful lot about systems design since then; and with modern knowledge, and some more testing/experimentation, it's quite possible we could create a better system, and a better form of government. There's just not enough research on improved government designs (let alone the will to implement them).
I doubt the problem is Research, "will for Major change" seems to be the way bigger issue.
|
On December 09 2016 23:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2016 12:45 zlefin wrote:
the populace does not truly wish for social security to be fixed. If it truly did, it would've been done by now. they know intellectually it should be; but their feelings are otherwise. One of the great problems of democracy; which is why we need better forms of government. Here the problem, we haven't found a better one. But we have found a myriad of infinitely worse. So before bashing democracy (that you enjoy only because countless people gave their life for it), I would pay attention of what it is to live in a country that isn't one. I'll spoil that one: it's not fun. The problem is not democracy. The problem are human beings. People don't behave rationally, and that's why white working class people vote for republicans whose agenda is to increase exponentially the very inequalities they suffer from and fuck them in the ass even a bit harder. That's why it pays more to excite hatred and biggotry against mexicans and "SJW" than to come with concrete proposals that will really improve people's lives. And that's why people are willing to completely disregard what the overwhelming of scientists say if it doesn't really match with their ideology. But, that's the sad thing, a bad democracy is still several orders of magnitude better than a good dictatorship. And there is simply no third alternative. I am quite pessimistic. Not even because of the far right wave of resentment, xenophobia, anger and irrational fear that is engulfing the world, but because it seems to me that people who are not part of it are simply not very interested in defending liberal democracy. Maybe people have simply forgotten what it is when justice is not independent, when information is owned by the power, when free speech is not allowed. I think we are heading back there, and when we've reached destination it will be too late. In France we call the generation that lived the 1930's the sleep walkers. Maybe we are sleep walkers. Let see how Marine Le Pen, a true, real, authentic fascist, does in the French election. That's gonna be a test about where we are in. I'm quite aware of all that. The thing is, we've learned an awful lot about systems design since then; and with modern knowledge, and some more testing/experimentation, it's quite possible we could create a better system, and a better form of government. There's just not enough research on improved government designs (let alone the will to implement them).
Humanity is basically just aggressively using the things we learned about systems (societal systems, biological systems, many others) to more effectively market products to people. I think our friend at the Five Flagons Inn may be right when he says we are moving to a situation where censorship is going to be commonplace. Look at everything that is being said regarding "fake news", "Russian propaganda" and so forth and how we are going to deal with those perceived problems. Politicians in power today are not waking up and seeing what the people are thinking, instead there will be censorship. At the same time, the people may be letting the system as a whole get away with this sort of thing by simply voting for "the opposition" instead of looking at the fundamental problems that exist within democracy in its current form.
But, you know, keep arguing how it's not going to be better in a "different system". That's always going to be a justifiably solid and credible argument until we reach that point of no return. The way I'm looking at it, the current liberal governments are going to hand over a system with increased censorship and reduced freedoms (all under the guise of anti-terrorism) to a new far right government that got into power through xenophobia and so forth. That is going to turn out just swell, I'm sure of it (this last sentence should be read with just a teensy bit of sarcasm).
|
On December 09 2016 23:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2016 12:45 zlefin wrote:
the populace does not truly wish for social security to be fixed. If it truly did, it would've been done by now. they know intellectually it should be; but their feelings are otherwise. One of the great problems of democracy; which is why we need better forms of government. Here the problem, we haven't found a better one. But we have found a myriad of infinitely worse. So before bashing democracy (that you enjoy only because countless people gave their life for it), I would pay attention of what it is to live in a country that isn't one. I'll spoil that one: it's not fun. The problem is not democracy. The problem are human beings. People don't behave rationally, and that's why white working class people vote for republicans whose agenda is to increase exponentially the very inequalities they suffer from and fuck them in the ass even a bit harder. That's why it pays more to excite hatred and biggotry against mexicans and "SJW" than to come with concrete proposals that will really improve people's lives. And that's why people are willing to completely disregard what the overwhelming of scientists say if it doesn't really match with their ideology. But, that's the sad thing, a bad democracy is still several orders of magnitude better than a good dictatorship. And there is simply no third alternative. I am quite pessimistic. Not even because of the far right wave of resentment, xenophobia, anger and irrational fear that is engulfing the world, but because it seems to me that people who are not part of it are simply not very interested in defending liberal democracy. Maybe people have simply forgotten what it is when justice is not independent, when information is owned by the power, when free speech is not allowed. I think we are heading back there, and when we've reached destination it will be too late. In France we call the generation that lived the 1930's the sleep walkers. Maybe we are sleep walkers. Let see how Marine Le Pen, a true, real, authentic fascist, does in the French election. That's gonna be a test about where we are in. I'm quite aware of all that. The thing is, we've learned an awful lot about systems design since then; and with modern knowledge, and some more testing/experimentation, it's quite possible we could create a better system, and a better form of government. There's just not enough research on improved government designs (let alone the will to implement them).
I can say that the system that exists in Nordic countries these days is really, really, really good. They are very democratic, very equalitarian, the press does a good job, there is a great and free education and healthcare system, and so forth and so on.
You don't need to reinvent a new system from scratch (that doesn't exist anyway). Just need to really fix the one you have. And it's fixable, at least in theory. The problem is that the whole Republican party wants to systematically aggravate every problem it has.
So the good news is that there is a battle in perspective and something to fight for. The bad news is that we are losing it.
|
On December 09 2016 23:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2016 12:45 zlefin wrote:
the populace does not truly wish for social security to be fixed. If it truly did, it would've been done by now. they know intellectually it should be; but their feelings are otherwise. One of the great problems of democracy; which is why we need better forms of government. Here the problem, we haven't found a better one. But we have found a myriad of infinitely worse. So before bashing democracy (that you enjoy only because countless people gave their life for it), I would pay attention of what it is to live in a country that isn't one. I'll spoil that one: it's not fun. The problem is not democracy. The problem are human beings. People don't behave rationally, and that's why white working class people vote for republicans whose agenda is to increase exponentially the very inequalities they suffer from and fuck them in the ass even a bit harder. That's why it pays more to excite hatred and biggotry against mexicans and "SJW" than to come with concrete proposals that will really improve people's lives. And that's why people are willing to completely disregard what the overwhelming of scientists say if it doesn't really match with their ideology. But, that's the sad thing, a bad democracy is still several orders of magnitude better than a good dictatorship. And there is simply no third alternative. I am quite pessimistic. Not even because of the far right wave of resentment, xenophobia, anger and irrational fear that is engulfing the world, but because it seems to me that people who are not part of it are simply not very interested in defending liberal democracy. Maybe people have simply forgotten what it is when justice is not independent, when information is owned by the power, when free speech is not allowed. I think we are heading back there, and when we've reached destination it will be too late. In France we call the generation that lived the 1930's the sleep walkers. Maybe we are sleep walkers. Let see how Marine Le Pen, a true, real, authentic fascist, does in the French election. That's gonna be a test about where we are in. I'm quite aware of all that. The thing is, we've learned an awful lot about systems design since then; and with modern knowledge, and some more testing/experimentation, it's quite possible we could create a better system, and a better form of government. There's just not enough research on improved government designs (let alone the will to implement them).
Or maybe people who voted Trump were voting for "not being governed that way, like that, by them." Maybe they object to your entire project of "better" more rationally designed government that was "researched" in some ivory tower and "modeled" in some computer lab to maximize some set of variables.
|
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many.
|
On December 10 2016 00:06 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 23:25 zlefin wrote:On December 09 2016 23:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2016 12:45 zlefin wrote:
the populace does not truly wish for social security to be fixed. If it truly did, it would've been done by now. they know intellectually it should be; but their feelings are otherwise. One of the great problems of democracy; which is why we need better forms of government. Here the problem, we haven't found a better one. But we have found a myriad of infinitely worse. So before bashing democracy (that you enjoy only because countless people gave their life for it), I would pay attention of what it is to live in a country that isn't one. I'll spoil that one: it's not fun. The problem is not democracy. The problem are human beings. People don't behave rationally, and that's why white working class people vote for republicans whose agenda is to increase exponentially the very inequalities they suffer from and fuck them in the ass even a bit harder. That's why it pays more to excite hatred and biggotry against mexicans and "SJW" than to come with concrete proposals that will really improve people's lives. And that's why people are willing to completely disregard what the overwhelming of scientists say if it doesn't really match with their ideology. But, that's the sad thing, a bad democracy is still several orders of magnitude better than a good dictatorship. And there is simply no third alternative. I am quite pessimistic. Not even because of the far right wave of resentment, xenophobia, anger and irrational fear that is engulfing the world, but because it seems to me that people who are not part of it are simply not very interested in defending liberal democracy. Maybe people have simply forgotten what it is when justice is not independent, when information is owned by the power, when free speech is not allowed. I think we are heading back there, and when we've reached destination it will be too late. In France we call the generation that lived the 1930's the sleep walkers. Maybe we are sleep walkers. Let see how Marine Le Pen, a true, real, authentic fascist, does in the French election. That's gonna be a test about where we are in. I'm quite aware of all that. The thing is, we've learned an awful lot about systems design since then; and with modern knowledge, and some more testing/experimentation, it's quite possible we could create a better system, and a better form of government. There's just not enough research on improved government designs (let alone the will to implement them). Humanity is basically just aggressively using the things we learned about systems (societal systems, biological systems, many others) to more effectively market products to people. I think our friend at the Five Flagons Inn may be right when he says we are moving to a situation where censorship is going to be commonplace. Look at everything that is being said regarding "fake news", "Russian propaganda" and so forth and how we are going to deal with those perceived problems. Politicians in power today are not waking up and seeing what the people are thinking, instead there will be censorship. At the same time, the people may be letting the system as a whole get away with this sort of thing by simply voting for "the opposition" instead of looking at the fundamental problems that exist within democracy in its current form. But, you know, keep arguing how it's not going to be better in a "different system". That's always going to be a justifiably solid and credible argument until we reach that point of no return. The way I'm looking at it, the current liberal governments are going to hand over a system with increased censorship and reduced freedoms (all under the guise of anti-terrorism) to a new far right government that got into power through xenophobia and so forth. That is going to turn out just swell, I'm sure of it (this last sentence should be read with just a teensy bit of sarcasm).
What is being said about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news"?
It's a fact that the population is being fed conspiracy theories by malignant media who are systematically spreading lies, and that are a genuine threat to the whole democratic system. And it's common sense democratic society has to fight against those, because if your citizens live in a fantasy world, you can't have a national debate anymore and your system collapses. It's not censorship to say that media who make up stuff about Clinton raping babies and that people believe is not a good thing.
It's also a fact that Putin is building up an fascist internationale, and undermining western democracies. The Russians have hacked a party to change the election outcome, they are supporting financially far right parties in Europe (that they want to collapse), they are paying armies of online trolls to push their agenda and spread their propaganda (that's documented) and their state media obeys the power and is just a lie factory. I fail to see how this wouldn't be a problem. Putin is extremely aggressive and has no kind intention to anyone but himself.
Those are real, serious threats.
My general point is very simple: we are a generation of cynics who think it's cool to say everything in our countries is shit, that democracy sucks, that Washington is so corrupt and establishment is lying. That's very cool indeed, but what's less cool is what we heading towards, and the alternative. And don't fool yourself: the alternative is not some utopian direct democracy that works great, but, most probably authoritarianism. That's what happened in Russia, and it's not cool.
At one point, you guys have to wake up, and realize that the fact that if you get convicted, you face an independent judge and not a goon of the executive government that will obey orders is not a given.
You have to realize that the fact that journalists are safe and can do their job, investigate and criticize the power is not a given.
You have to realize the fact that being able to express yourself without fearing to be beaten up or jailed because your opinion doesn't match with the official position is not a given.
And so forth, and so on. I can carry on like that. Those are the rights that are in line in the long terms. It's great to want to live in utopia, I'm just saying, defend and fight for what we have because you live in the fairest and best system ever designed by mankind. Virtually every human that has lived until the rise of western liberal democracy has been spent their life under arbitrary, despotic rule. And it sucks, so much that people gave their life for changing it for what you have (and shit on).
|
On December 10 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many.
Even worse the fight against 'fake news' can be even more damaging than letting fake news run rampant by allowing people to censor news by calling it fake news or give undue credit to experts in some situations which they already may have (look at the unsubstantiated claims around Russia/Wikileaks & the election).
It's a tough problem.
|
Hard to argue that fake news doesn't matter. Just take a look around the Facebook profiles of your Trump supporting friends. They believe it.
|
On December 10 2016 00:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many. Even worse the fight against 'fake news' can be even more damaging than letting fake news run rampant by allowing people to censor news by calling it fake news or give undue credit to experts in some situations which they already may have (look at the unsubstantiated claims around Russia/Wikileaks & the election).
Are you serious?
The problem is that people say that Wikileakes is being fed information by Russia (which many experts believe), not that people genuinely believe that a former candidate rapes and kills babies in a pizzeria?
I mean, I don't know, I find the later a bit more problematic.
Also nobody is censoring anything. You don't know what censoring is. Calling Breitbart bs "fake news" is criticizing, not censoring. It's extremely worrying that you mix up the two. If you want censorship, go to Russia, they are doing great at closing quality newspapers hostile to the power, or simply jailing and assassinating journalists because why bother?
|
Kellyanne Conway on Friday defended President-elect Donald Trump's decision to remain an executive producer on NBC's "Celebrity Apprentice" even as he takes office, arguing that "presidents have a right to do things in their spare time."
"He's a very transparent guy. Everyone can see what he's doing, and the fact is that he is conferring with all types of experts who tell him what he can do and not do as president of the United States," Conway, a top Trump adviser and his former campaign manager, said on CNN's "New Day." "If this is one of the approved activities, then perhaps he will consider staying on."
Trump's agreement with the show, first reported by Variety and confirmed by sources at NBC and the Trump campaign, means the president will have an interest in a show aired by a media company that also reports on his presidency -- a major conflict of interest for the network.
CNN
|
On December 10 2016 01:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 00:55 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many. Even worse the fight against 'fake news' can be even more damaging than letting fake news run rampant by allowing people to censor news by calling it fake news or give undue credit to experts in some situations which they already may have (look at the unsubstantiated claims around Russia/Wikileaks & the election). Are you serious? The problem is that people say that Wikileakes is being fed information by Russia (which many experts believe), not that people genuinely believe that a former candidate rapes and kills babies in a pizzeria? I mean, I don't know, I find the later a bit more problematic.
The problem is you can't just 'go hard' against fake news because it causes some serious problems.
And things like this...
were totally unsubstantiated and offered without proof.
Also yes experts claim a link, but have they shown any actual data or information to back up that claim? It's important to trust experts, but only when they actually give you a chance to verify their claims. Not that I'm saying the link is false, just that it's unsubstantiated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
