I think there is a difficulty. Nowadays, if you happen to be young, people are practically forced to use
these social media - because all the parties and appointments are managed there.
And then you will pick your viewpoints on current events also from there; that is natural, we are more likely to follow in on that what pops up in our peer group, than to do strictly rational evaluations.
So one might get to the point that there is indeed a problem with the fake informations circling there. In earlier times non-mainstream viewpoints were circled as well, but they circled much slower, they were put to test in practical life by many people, and then, if there appeared to be of some value, they might become a living subculture with their own viewpoints, their own media, their own gatherings - hippies, punks, etc.
The test was not if all the informations are logically correct, the test was if they are viable, that means, if they can be practically put to life. A kind of evolutionary test.
Critical thinking, logic, mathematical thinking can be applied...
Yes, that is probably the only thing one can do with the input that comes out of a computer. With the input from real living people we could also use intuition, psychological knowledge, know thyself, and experience.
Fact checkers --> Snopes, Politifact and investigative journalism
Does that lead to anywhere? Politics is ugly, nobody is neutral there. They are all factions pursuing their own agenda. I think if anybody in politics declares themselves a "fact checker", that is already reason enough to
not trust them. Because they have a reason why they want people to trust them, and that reason is their agenda.
Critical thinking can be used in relation to that. As a theme, they're supposedly there to help sort out facts, as it is realized this is needed
But why should they? For what benefit? For which party's agenda is it needed?
while propaganda also claims the same.
And each side points at the respective other and says "
they do propaganda". Its like schoolboys in a struggle, each stating the other had begun.
So this leads to nothing. And the facts are actually mostly irrelevant. You can have a fact checking, and then you can say, this is a proven fact - but that is useless, because the fact is
selected. Out of thousands of existing facts this fact was selected because it is useful (for some agenda). And then it is elaborately proven, to be correct or wrong, whatever. And the other thousand facts, which might shed a different light on the matter, are silently ignored.
That is how "fact checkers" work. They are not much different from propagandists.
Investigative journalism has found use in social media for truths. What is posted there can be verified a number of times, to root out disinformation, or to verify facts, including news.
I think it is mostly a waste of time. There is no single truth. And if you want to generally trust anybody there, you're gullible. Politics is all about power, and the only thing those people want is power.
For all of us, it's better to understand to not know something, than to make up an answer to be satisfied. What other people do and believe falsities affects everything as a society.
I think the only thing that really affects a society is a lack of 'panem et circenses": If there is no proper entertainment for the masses, then society will have a problem. Besides that, any kind of nonsense can be told to a society, and it will continue to function just fine.
Look at the various religious belief systems. They all appear like nonsense to the critical watcher, nevertheless these groups get along fine.
But seeing that, reminded me, that few people (even a teacher) in college even promoted bs to be hateful. A siren in my brain goes off saying, get out of here, (not from physical danger) and my rational thought says, yes get out of here, but do so without making a scene. I sit through that shit, because I spot the door and know if I walk out, my path will get blocked
That's well done.
Listen to the intuition, compare it with ratio, and remember the message. But don't fight a fight (or risk an affront) when there isn't the option to win.
