 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Technology is outpacing our ability to keep up with it, to understand what is real and what is not"
Every day new stories appear on our phones. But there are agencies employed full time in generating false news. Even fact checking sites can now be fake...
So how do we know what is real and what is not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
I learned some years ago to believe only what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.
Everything else is hearsay.
"Fake news" is nothing new - it's only the technology that's changed.
I think what is new is the echo chamber of social media - people see and hear only that which validates their own bias. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I learned some years ago to believe only what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.
Everything else is hearsay.
"Fake news" is nothing new - it's only the technology that's changed.
I think what is new is the echo chamber of social media - people see and hear only that which validates their own bias."
I would like to be able to verify everything with my own eyes and ears but that's not possible.
We are pretty reliant on news stories but now that most of the news corporations are owned by just a handful of people.
The "truth" is now determined by the people who have the most money to sell it through media and social media.
We have people like Koch brothers paying scientists to argue climate change. Scientists were paid by big tobacco to advertise the 'benefits' of smoking.
It's becoming more and more difficult to know which is which. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Truth is subjective and it takes an interested, objective and perhaps cynical mind to filter the vast quantities of “information” we are subjected to. The trouble is as we become overloaded and incapable of rationalising it all so we fall back on emotional choices and these are set within us from an early age by our parents and peers. The internet allows us to live in our preferred echo chamber which is probably why I spend so much time in the politics forum getting angry about the sheer stupidity and arrogance of some of the posters on here. Sounds like I need to go unlos again!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We'll only ever have our own perception of reality, which will be influenced by our experiences, limitations, biases etc.
Whilst technological change is inevitable, our own ability to limit the sources of the data that we get is of our own control. Likewise our interpretation of the source and data.
There's more stuff produced than we can consume and that will include BS fake stuff. We have our liberty intact, so have control over what we focus on. We define our reality |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There was an abortion debate happening in Ireland, and the pro abortion people made lists of any pro life people on twitter/facebook, shared the list among themselves, and all automatically blocked anyone on the list.
People are creating echo chambers on purpose, like not by accident but actively seeking them out, its bizzare.
All that is changed really is, fake news is injected into echo chambers and people like me never see it, but the people who its aimed at, have it bounce around their heads as if its fact.
Also, BBC did a test a while ago and found out less than 1% of people believe what they read on social media.
Them and other news sites only changed their tune when Brexit passed, and Trump got elected. Suddenly it was mass social media manipulation. Even though that had been investigated and ruled out multiple times.
Social media just let them target their own followers better, thats all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There was an abortion debate happening in Ireland, and the pro abortion people made lists of any pro life people on twitter/facebook, shared the list among themselves, and all automatically blocked anyone on the list.
People are creating echo chambers on purpose, like not by accident but actively seeking them out, its bizzare.
All that is changed really is, fake news is injected into echo chambers and people like me never see it, but the people who its aimed at, have it bounce around their heads as if its fact.
Also, BBC did a test a while ago and found out less than 1% of people believe what they read on social media.
Them and other news sites only changed their tune when Brexit passed, and Trump got elected. Suddenly it was mass social media manipulation. Even though that had been investigated and ruled out multiple times.
Social media just let them target their own followers better, thats all."
I would love to know more about that social media test. Are people not believing what people say or are people not believing the supposed news articles that publish doctored photographs, false information, things taken out of context.
The question that occurs to me is why would people spend so much money on things that aren't effective? Why did Facebook and Cambridge Analyica get paid so much money?
I'm not arguing your point. I love hearing opposite views. I would love to learn more. Do you have a link? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"We'll only ever have our own perception of reality, which will be influenced by our experiences, limitations, biases etc.
Whilst technological change is inevitable, our own ability to limit the sources of the data that we get is of our own control. Likewise our interpretation of the source and data.
There's more stuff produced than we can consume and that will include BS fake stuff. We have our liberty intact, so have control over what we focus on. We define our reality"
That's what I try to do. I look at what makes sense and try to decipher what is true and what is false.
What interesting is seeing a parliamentary debate where both sides are using statistics to argue their point.
If you got a load of scientists whose very expensive grant but it all depended on them comimg up with an argument that earth was really a cube..... you'd see an article on it one day. Can scientists be trusted, the people who told us for 50 years that smoking was good for us and that breakfast is the most important meal of the day!? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the echo chamber was always there - just think about good old newspapers - you'd generally buy one you broadly agreed with - not one which had the opposite political stance - although that would be the logical choice if you actually wanted your views challenging. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I think the echo chamber was always there - just think about good old newspapers - you'd generally buy one you broadly agreed with - not one which had the opposite political stance - although that would be the logical choice if you actually wanted your views challenging."
I have to admit that I'm not really used to having newspapers that report with a bias. I grew up thinking that reporting was just stating facts as they were. It seems that you can't get information these days without a slant, be it left vs right, climate change vs non climate change, vegan or meat eater, sexually conservative vs liberal, pro life....
It's like every single stance has become polarised. And you can't get these facts without an agenda.
I've just watched two documentaries on Netflix. One about Keto diets and how we need fats and don't need carbs and now one one veganism saying we don't need fats but need carbs. Just when I thought science was science... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"I learned some years ago to believe only what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.
Everything else is hearsay.
"Fake news" is nothing new - it's only the technology that's changed.
I think what is new is the echo chamber of social media - people see and hear only that which validates their own bias."
 Great post Sara |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I learned some years ago to believe only what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.
Everything else is hearsay.
"Fake news" is nothing new - it's only the technology that's changed.
I think what is new is the echo chamber of social media - people see and hear only that which validates their own bias. Great post Sara"
Here's a good example. Eggs. For a long time they were really good for you. Then we got told they were bad for you, high in cholesterol. Then we got told they were good for you, the right kind of lipoproteins.... I don't have a laboratory to decide which data is correct. I'd also need to investigate butter which almost went extinct when it got replaced by margarine (remember margarine?), then butter when it came back... same for red meat, dairy, fish..... an endless list of information I need to make daily decisions that I couldn't possibly see with my own eyes or hear with my own ears. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I learned some years ago to believe only what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.
Everything else is hearsay.
"Fake news" is nothing new - it's only the technology that's changed.
I think what is new is the echo chamber of social media - people see and hear only that which validates their own bias. Great post Sara
Here's a good example. Eggs. For a long time they were really good for you. Then we got told they were bad for you, high in cholesterol. Then we got told they were good for you, the right kind of lipoproteins.... I don't have a laboratory to decide which data is correct. I'd also need to investigate butter which almost went extinct when it got replaced by margarine (remember margarine?), then butter when it came back... same for red meat, dairy, fish..... an endless list of information I need to make daily decisions that I couldn't possibly see with my own eyes or hear with my own ears."
I think, especially when it comes to food, you need to take it all with a pinch of salt.
Eggs are, on balance, good for you but they are also pretty high in cholesterol which, for many, is bad for you. The answer is to eat eggs if you like them but don't eat too many. Similarly with salt, which is essential if you want to actually stay alive, but too much salt will slowly kill you. In the end you just have to use your own common sense, and it's the same with all information.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Technology is outpacing our ability to keep up with it, to understand what is real and what is not"
Every day new stories appear on our phones. But there are agencies employed full time in generating false news. Even fact checking sites can now be fake...
So how do we know what is real and what is not?"
.
Only the other day I was reading about yet another Whistler blower and another suspended report over the Douma gas bombing, while everybody went crazy saying it had to be so because this is a UN governing body and why would they lie, how would they lie???.
Of course to any reasoning person the whole thing smelt funny and didn't seem to make sense and as it turns out, it didn't make sense because the whole thing was manufactured to look like a gas bombing by Assad, blind eyes were turned to any evidence that pointed otherwise, reports were quashed, dissenting voices were silenced and years later no front page headlines, a sceptical person might just think the whole system was rigged , of course you'd need an unbiased mind set to come to that conclusion and that's really tricky with the pervasive nature of modern news.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
""Technology is outpacing our ability to keep up with it, to understand what is real and what is not"
Every day new stories appear on our phones. But there are agencies employed full time in generating false news. Even fact checking sites can now be fake...
So how do we know what is real and what is not?.
Only the other day I was reading about yet another Whistler blower and another suspended report over the Douma gas bombing, while everybody went crazy saying it had to be so because this is a UN governing body and why would they lie, how would they lie???.
Of course to any reasoning person the whole thing smelt funny and didn't seem to make sense and as it turns out, it didn't make sense because the whole thing was manufactured to look like a gas bombing by Assad, blind eyes were turned to any evidence that pointed otherwise, reports were quashed, dissenting voices were silenced and years later no front page headlines, a sceptical person might just think the whole system was rigged , of course you'd need an unbiased mind set to come to that conclusion and that's really tricky with the pervasive nature of modern news. "
The 911 findings were not subject to peer review or comment. They were handed out as dogmatic statements given by and authority based on really shitty science. But enough to suffice....
Rather coincidentally the FBI office that was destroyed (despite never being hit by a plane) was carrying out an investigation how a trillion US dollars disappeared from the Pentagon... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
