A clear example of #inciting stealthy online harms – a theme perpetuated by this group. Plus ad hominem trolling vs debate 👇🏼
❓How do you feel about groups inciting these behaviours, considering themselves as online arbiters of “truth” and self-elected FB community police? assuming Vigilante status?
Let’s be clear, there is a lot of nonsense on the internet. Whether it be from the uninformed, the press, the govt, business, or the outright malicious.
I appreciate the “passionate cognitively challenged” can be some of the worse offenders, as they perpetuate ideas with energy and conviction without fully validating or even understanding the content.
❌ I’m not denying that it’s a messy place and ripe for lots of confusion and misinformation – either intentional or though naivety.
👎🏼 BUT, and this is critical, Fact Checkers, organised Groups like below, and Individuals that wish to get rid of online content that conflicts with their limited understanding (no one knows everything), beliefs, and ideologies is a net negative for TRUTH, DISCOURSE, DEBATE, and ultimately SOCIETY.
Sure, if you stumble upon a piece of content that is inciting aggressive behaviours, is intentionally and unequivocally offensive, or is intentionally creating fake facts, then report it.
😱 But committing daily energy to a deliberate seek and destroy “cleansing” of the public social media to fit your narrative and limited understanding, to me, is wrong and disturbing.
🔥 It’s modern day book burning.
Opinions as ‘Irrefutable Facts’
And let’s be clear, I read content constantly where people are making factual claims they cannot back up. E.g. “COVID vaccines save lives”.
❌ To say the above, you would need proof. There is no empirical evidence of this statement – either within the limited clinical trials or based on the UK’s experience since mid December.
😬 If anything, the current UK experience is showcasing the opposite effect. If you were looking for life-saving signals of vaccines, you would be hard pushed to make that claim currently.
🤷🏻♂️ Will the current COVID-19 vaccines save lives? Let’s see. Maybe. But to claim that they do as fact demonstrates a belief vs knowing.
And therefore, it should be stated as opinion.
Reflect on our certainty, myself included
We all need to reflect on our language, irrespective of our level of knowledge. Myself included.
👁 The closer and more intimate you are to the empirical evidence and scientific method, the more credence your statements hold, but accepting your knowledge is imperfect and incomplete is the humility we all need to demonstrate more of.
Again, myself included.
Let’s not #incite online harms, further tribalism and the destruction of respectful discourse.
No good will come of these behaviours.
❤️🧡💛💚💙💜
____
SOURCE:
A post from the above mentioned 10K follower public page earlier today – 15th Jan 2021
Enjoyed the read?Comment below, and check out our longer-form Articles, our shorter Micro Blog sections, grab Healthy Meal Ideas from AdapNation Food Diary, and Free Gym Workout Plans at #HyperWorkouts. |
Hi Steve Katasi, I do appreciate the effort you go to to publish this channel, and this is an important topic, one that I have seen fit to consider for many years!, I too think that suppression of free speech is not a good idea!, I do however also think that some regulation of commercial publication is desirable! when people are allowed to publish false opinions as fact and profit from it I think a line is being crossed!, I think that what we need international agreement on legislation that would allow the confiscation of all the income from any commercial publication that the publishers cannot substantiate!, this would mean that they would still be free to publish if they wanted to take the risk but if challenged and unable to defend they would fave the penalty!. This way all the rest of us would still be free to say whatever we like whenever and where-ever!, this would inhibit some of the U-tube channels content creators!, but not the commentators!. Cheers, Richard.