"Fake news is not our friend." FACEBOOK: In a Democracy which wishes to survive a Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon + George Orwell's 1984 + New York Times "The Truth is More Important Now than Ever." + Franz Kafka’s Trial rolled into one, “Fake news” is definitely our friend for how are we ever to determine what 'Fake' is if we are never to be allowed to have 'Truth' challenged by it to make sure 'Truth' is as it claims.
|"Fake news is not our friend." FACEBOOK|
Be very careful what you wish for, what may appear as first on the surface as a fantastic idea may be anything but.
"Occasionally, however, anomalies pop-up....." requires policy encouraging "Rational Discussion in a Polarized Context" not a rising invasive Technology driven Panopticon deviance paradigm.
"Global Fact-checkers" So very nice to be so protected but what does this mean in reality? Thought police and with it social engineering - without you even being consciously aware your being 'Fact-Truth' aligned. But of course the promoters of the relative good and the growing vested interest in the war on 'Facts-Truth' will in no way view themselves as the destroyers of Democracy, simply at the worst a necessary evil.
For humanity to advance rather than go in reverse it is the 'Not to be asked Question.' which must be allowed to exist in opposition to existing human fallible 'Fact-Truth' paradigms in whatever human arena as the 'Not Asked Question.' simply resides in and provides support for existing paradigms.
Where can the revolution exist to overthrow existing Truths, which are built on false assumptions, in some cases informing particularly dangerous outcomes for humanity?
Increasing Technology surveillance and the exclusion of select Truth = Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon + George Orwell's 1984 + New York Times "The Truth is More Important Now than Ever." + Franz Kafka’s Trial rolled into one.
When was Truth not important and more pertinently whose Truth?
I rather prefer, in fact for the very continuance of Democracy, if you Facebook allow me to make up my own mind as to what is fake news - what is Truth, for Facebook’s worldview may not be in fact Truth at all, just another subjective biased view as to what Facebook believes others worldview should be. Just 1984 developing and . Are we Grown-up adults or children? Or is it we need guidance from the 'good' the 'wise'-no thanks.
So what someone believes the earth is flat or that certain Culture Ideologies inform systemic terror-genocide, oppress women, etc. and must be held accountable should not these 'Truths' be subject to Discussion?
This whole charade with Facebook is simply to only allow debate on what the social/political elite determine as Truth to repress and oppress citizens determined by 'Truth' as so called populists.
Populism where the citizen becomes the enemy of the political elite’s dangerous sociological imagined abstractions
May I suggest instead of Facebook and their "Global Fact-checker" co-conspirators, inevitably as each new red line is crossed, becoming in time an increasingly oppressive divisive wise nanny defining deviance, you Facebook and your "Global Fact-checker" co-conspirators butt out and simply encourage "Rational Discussion in a Polarized Context" underwritten by an assumption world citizens all “have a right to say how things shall be handled; everybody that is worth their salt is going to exercise that right, and they are going to do it according to the kind of person they are – according to their temperament, their training, their self-control, their meanness, and their goodness. If we are going to put this thing through and prove that citizens can govern themselves, we must get from them what they can give, and we must let them give it in their own way.” (Source: The Life of Abraham Lincoln, Tarbell, 1917) and importantly, gosh, allow citizens to think for themselves, make mistakes and learn from them.
Rational Discussion in a Polarized Context
"Kuhn’s View of Scientific Theories
In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn notes that when we think of the archetype of the scientist, the people who come to mind are Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. But science as it is done on a daily basis by working scientists is not at all like what those towering figures did. Newton, Darwin, and Einstein are revolutionary scientists whose work is different in kind from what Kuhn calls “normal science.” Normal science is quite the opposite of revolutionary.
Normal scientists work within what Kuhn calls a paradigm. Paradigms are powerful they give us the definition of our scientific terms, that is they tell us what we need to believe are the basic elements of reality. Paradigms tell us what counts as a legitimate question, what tools we can use to answer those questions and what counts as a legitimate answer. Normal science occurs when someone takes a question deemed meaningful by the paradigm uses the tools prescribed by the paradigm to find an acceptable answer within the paradigm. The solution is then published in a journal whose editors and referees are senior members of the community dependent upon the paradigm, indeed whose most powerful members are senior people who helped establish the paradigm. That publication can get one recognised in the community, it can help you get tenure at your institution and help you keep your job, if you want to feed your children you need to play according to the rules dictated by the paradigm and enforced by the community.
Scientists do not question the paradigm. They teach their students how to act according to it, and challenging it is considered a challenge to rationality itself. Rationality, Kuhn argues, exists only within the paradigm. Because the paradigms tells us what is real and how it works, to question the paradigm is to question the structure of the world itself, according to those within the paradigm that leads to nonsense, to think about the paradigm rather than through the paradigm is not to engage in science but philosophy.
Occasionally, however, anomalies pop-up..."
Professor Steven Gimbel, Professor of Philosophy. Gettysburg College, 2015
I prefer Lincoln’s view of what a Democracy must be to actually be a real Democracy:
“It was one of Lincoln’s ways of working out his chief value to the country, and that value was his clear sense from the start it was our democratic scheme that was at stake, and that if it was to be saved, every citizen who could aid must help to give all that was in them.
Lincoln seems to have put it something like this to himself:“Everybody in the country has had a part in bringing this thing about; everybody feels they have a right to say how things shall be handled; everybody that is worth their salt is going to exercise that right, and they are going to do it according to the kind of person they are – according to their temperament, their training, their self-control, their meanness, and their goodness. If we are going to put this thing through and prove that citizens can govern themselves, we must get from them what they can give, and we must let them give it in their own way.”
Source: The Life of Abraham Lincoln, Tarbell, 1917