YouTube, Twitter & Facebook to join forces in an effort to curb fake Covid19 news

[JZStudios]

On 11/20/2020 at 9:41 AM, Taf the Ghost said:

There's really no hidden, secretive groups that try to rule the world. They all have websites, lol.

I dunno, SeaOrg is pretty secretive. They own entire cities and counties.

That being said, "disinformation campaigns" are rarely anything but, and it's always good to have multiple opposing sources and find the truth between the biased bullshit.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 11:00 AM, Deus Voltage said:

One of the very rare times that I would actually side with a tech giants. I'm not convinced by the censorship argument simply because your freedom ends when it starts with another person. Put differently, take this analogy as an example:

 

+ Create rules to limit people's freedom when driving so that they aren't reckless on the roads and cause injury.

  = Your freedom is limited to ensure the survival of others and cohesiveness of society as a whole.

 

I understand people have good intentions when they approach the censorship topic, but sometimes they miss the trees from the forest. I also understand people's suspicion of the intentions of tech giants, I wrote a painfully long thesis on it for my masters. 

 

Still, you gotta make decisions at some point, and using freedom of speech as an argument against improving the general health and cohesiveness of society is not a hill you wanna die on.

Okay, but who construes what is "truth, not science?"

I mean sure, we could (mostly) all reasonably agree that the Earth isn't flat, yet at the same time, they're not a terrorist organization and aren't planning shady shit, so who really cares?

 

It's hard to know what the forum constitutes as "politics," but considering this is about Covid, which side do we take as objective fact?

The Covid "Hoaxers?"

1. Covid is a virus and can be contracted through your eyes, thus masks aren't super effective.
2. Can travel 30 feet and float in the air.
3. Masks have big gaping holes on either side of your schnoz and aren't designed to contain viruses.
4. Most people wear them improperly anyways, for too long, breading bacterial growth, and constantly touching/adjusting them.
5. The Great Barrington Declaration has over 70,000 signatures from doctors, virologists, citizens, etc. saying lockdowns are ineffective and will cause more long term health detriments.
6. Dr. Roger Hodkinson, a Cambridge graduate virologist calls the current reaction overblown and ridiculous, says masks don't work during City of Edmonton public services committee stream. 8:25:40 is the time stamp doesn't work.
7.  The Danish study showing masks have a negligible effect on contracting the virus. Full Fact (The "fact checking" for stopping misinformation) says it's only half true, they didn't test if the virus spread more without masks. Riddle me this, if there's no statistical difference between contracting the virus wearing a mask vs not wearing one, why would the spread matter if masks aren't effective in the first place?

Or do you believe the government organizations? Frankly I'm tired of this post already so I'll just post some things currently being suggested.

1. Starting lockdowns again, which were proven ineffective the first time, but whatever.
2. Put your mask on in between bites at a restaurant, must wear a mask if you are not sitting, can't dine outdoors, etc.
3. Before the Covid craze started the CDC said that wearing a mask wasn't recommended nor effective, and suggested only wearing one if you were sick. This changed a few weeks in.
4. "15 days to stop the spread."
5. Constant changes in decisions about how to do things, not just new things, but backpedaling.
6. Shut down grocery stores that have 4 sick employees.
7. Also last week, Gov. David Ige (Hawaii) issued the first statewide mask mandate, which requires everyone over age 5 to wear a face covering in public or risk penalties that include a $5,000 fine or up to a year in jail. (It's important to note that A. he has no jurisdiction to do this, B. Trying minors down to the age of 5 a fine and/or jail time, C. It's been shown/proven that children are not transmitters of the virus.)
8. Actual McCarthyism. Report your neighbors breaking Covid guidelines so they can be arrested and fined.
9. Completely isolate yourself and don't go anywhere for any reason.

[JZStudios]

On 11/20/2020 at 12:44 PM, PCGuy_5960 said:

That is true, for these specific things, but we don't know that much about covid and information is changing often. Like half a year ago, the health experts were saying that wearing masks in public was unnecessary, but as it turned out, wearing masks in public would have actually helped a ton.

Which is theory. Now a Danish study shows that masks have a negligible impact, being debated by All Facts as not showing transmission, which logically makes no sense.

Lockdowns forcing people to stay home wasn't effective, so why would wearing a mask work when no ones in contact anyway?

 

And then in New Mexico they're shutting down grocery stores because some of the employees had it, so people can't buy food and are forced into a single store. Stop the spread by congregating people in a small area.

[Jito463]

On 11/20/2020 at 11:42 AM, poochyena said:

no, the science community will be. the social media companies will simply be directing people towards the science and away from fake news.

Yes, because scientists are never wrong or biased.  We can always trust them. 

 

I grew up hearing "bologna causes cancer" and "red M&M's cause cancer", amongst other nonsense.  I learned early on to take what "science" says with a massive grain of salt, especially when promoted by the media.

On 11/20/2020 at 12:29 PM, DeScruff said:

I swear when it comes to "fake news" I see the dumbest in people.

People arguing there is no such thing as correct or incorrect, People saying "sunlight bleaches all lies" when its pretty clear it doesn't always - some lies refuse to die.
I don't claim to have the right answer. But man people can get blindly fanatical to the point they can't accept flaws in their position, or the ramifications of that position.

If you want an example of a lie that seemingly won't die: The conspiracy that Hitler is still live. - Not that he didn't kill himself back in 1945 but the fact that in 2020 hes still somehow alive at the youthful age of 131 years old. - Yes I know someone at my workplace who actually believes that, and no you cannot convince them otherwise.

Do you really believe shoving those views out of sight will make them go away?  If people believe it, then they're going to believe it no matter what you do to stop them from talking about it.  In fact, it's more likely that stopping people from talking about a subject will just encourage them to believe there's something to it after all.

On 11/20/2020 at 12:35 PM, PCGuy_5960 said:

So what's your solution? Give some big corporation/government the power to control everyone's thoughts and punish wrongthink, don't you think this is super dangerous?

I'll just ask you this, do you think that censoring the people you are describing would honestly stop the misinformation? It would only reinforce the conspiracy theories and push them "underground" where they won't be challenged which will even further reinforce the stupidity, if instead of censoring them, you provide them with the correct information, there is at least a chance that they would stop believing in that nonsense.

Exactly.

 

Back on topic, so far as the OP goes, I don't trust a single one of those companies to determine what is or isn't true.

[poochyena]

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Yes, because scientists are never wrong or biased.  We can always trust them. 

No one is claiming thats. The point is you shouldn't trust non-experts.

 

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I grew up hearing "bologna causes cancer" and "red M&M's cause cancer"

hearing from who?

 

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I learned early on to take what "science" says with a massive grain of salt, especially when promoted by the media.

Then who do you trust?

[Commodus]

10 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Yes, because scientists are never wrong or biased.  We can always trust them. 

 

I grew up hearing "bologna causes cancer" and "red M&M's cause cancer", amongst other nonsense.  I learned early on to take what "science" says with a massive grain of salt, especially when promoted by the media.

That's not the healthiest attitude to take toward science.

 

It's good to have at least a little skepticism, particularly when the media tends to get things wrong (the classic example is the tendency to confuse correlation with causation, such as "wine reduces cancer risk" stories). But automatically casting doubt on stories isn't right, either, as that's also rejecting the strength of the scientific method. When a claim has a broad scientific consensus or has been thoroughly reviewed, lean toward it being true.

 

To apply this to the current circumstances: the scientific, demonstrable consensus is that COVID-19 is much worse than the flu, masks help (but aren't bulletproof), social distancing keeps hospitals from being overwhelmed, and there are no surefire treatments or cures. Anyone challenging those understandings has to provide a tremendous amount of evidence if they're going to succeed... and frankly, they haven't so far.

 

And that's why I enthusiastically support internet companies cracking down on misinformation. There is such a thing as a healthy scientific debate; that doesn't mean known junk gets to sit on the same level as strongly supported medical data. (Isaac Asimov did warn about anti-intellectuals who argue "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.") And no, sunshine doesn't help take down falsehoods — in the modern era where sharing is easy, it amplifies those claims. I already have too many relatives who buy into misinformation about COVID-19, 5G, and homeopathy... I don't need it made worse by YouTube letting someone peddle conspiracies. Ban that stuff everywhere, forever.

[Taf the Ghost]

15 minutes ago, Commodus said:

That's not the healthiest attitude to take toward science.

 

It's good to have at least a little skepticism, particularly when the media tends to get things wrong (the classic example is the tendency to confuse correlation with causation, such as "wine reduces cancer risk" stories). But automatically casting doubt on stories isn't right, either, as that's also rejecting the strength of the scientific method. When a claim has a broad scientific consensus or has been thoroughly reviewed, lean toward it being true.

 

To apply this to the current circumstances: the scientific, demonstrable consensus is that COVID-19 is much worse than the flu, masks help (but aren't bulletproof), social distancing keeps hospitals from being overwhelmed, and there are no surefire treatments or cures. Anyone challenging those understandings has to provide a tremendous amount of evidence if they're going to succeed... and frankly, they haven't so far.

 

And that's why I enthusiastically support internet companies cracking down on misinformation. There is such a thing as a healthy scientific debate; that doesn't mean known junk gets to sit on the same level as strongly supported medical data. (Isaac Asimov did warn about anti-intellectuals who argue "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.") And no, sunshine doesn't help take down falsehoods — in the modern era where sharing is easy, it amplifies those claims. I already have too many relatives who buy into misinformation about COVID-19, 5G, and homeopathy... I don't need it made worse by YouTube letting someone peddle conspiracies. Ban that stuff everywhere, forever.

I was going to do the classic bit of pointing out that eventually the Sword will come for you as well, but your handle is literally Commodus. A Roman Emperor that got assassinated by his own inner circle because he wrote down a list of people he was going to execute and they found out. I got a pretty dang good chuckle over that one. The point still stands that all power granted to an group will eventually be turned against the one granting it, but as the Media reinforces constantly, consequences are always for someone else to deal with.

 

One thing Twitter has done is shown, quite effectively, that it matters little the actual realities of the understood information, all experts will be subject to their own personal politics & emotional objectives. Information is always a tool to other objectives, thus "Trust" is at an absolute low in the Media and people talking in front of a camera. Why would someone believe Today what was considered "wrong" Yesterday? If Yesterday's information was "wrong", why should someone trust Tomorrow's information? There's a reason the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is so important. 

 

As one of my statistics professors, in the way any good stats prof does, round-about explained, it's unlikely you'll ever encounter any "Statistically Relevant" information in the Media. The numbers might be internally relevant ("Statistically Significant"), but exterior relevancy is rare because basically no one working in something you'll see in the Media will put in the work. This is why modern Statistics is pretty obsessed with Game Theory and tournament structures, no one wants their neck in a noose by pointing out none of the numbers matter because the data set is poisoned.

 

For Covid-19 specifically, it would behoove everyone complaining about potentially false information to go back and review what the narratives were from January through April. Remember when the lockdowns were "temporary"? 

[Jito463]

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

No one is claiming thats. The point is you shouldn't trust non-experts.

And my point is that you can't always trust "experts", either.  Go back and read what I wrote again.

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

hearing from who?

Odd stories here and there.  Ultimately, it doesn't matter.  My point stands alone, those were simply references to some of the reasons I came to conclusion I did.

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

Then who do you trust?

Jesus.  There's no one else I trust implicitly.  You can write me off as a "religious kook" if you want, but I'll always have skepticism towards any story I hear, especially when the media are promoting it.  If the media tell me the sky is blue, I'll go look for myself.  And even if it is blue, I'll question their motives in telling me that.

6 hours ago, Commodus said:

That's not the healthiest attitude to take toward science.

Science is just a process.  It's not God, it's not even "a god" (though some certainly treat it as such).  It can be wrong as much as it can be right.  The point is that we should use our own brains to decide, not let others decide for us.  I don't care if the "experts" claim something, unless they can prove to me that it's true.

 

That's why I despise the idea of media companies deciding for me, what is or isn't true.  I don't trust them to get past their own biases.

[Commodus]

4 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I was going to do the classic bit of pointing out that eventually the Sword will come for you as well, but your handle is literally Commodus. A Roman Emperor that got assassinated by his own inner circle because he wrote down a list of people he was going to execute and they found out. I got a pretty dang good chuckle over that one. The point still stands that all power granted to an group will eventually be turned against the one granting it, but as the Media reinforces constantly, consequences are always for someone else to deal with.

 

One thing Twitter has done is shown, quite effectively, that it matters little the actual realities of the understood information, all experts will be subject to their own personal politics & emotional objectives. Information is always a tool to other objectives, thus "Trust" is at an absolute low in the Media and people talking in front of a camera. Why would someone believe Today what was considered "wrong" Yesterday? If Yesterday's information was "wrong", why should someone trust Tomorrow's information? There's a reason the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is so important. 

 

As one of my statistics professors, in the way any good stats prof does, round-about explained, it's unlikely you'll ever encounter any "Statistically Relevant" information in the Media. The numbers might be internally relevant ("Statistically Significant"), but exterior relevancy is rare because basically no one working in something you'll see in the Media will put in the work. This is why modern Statistics is pretty obsessed with Game Theory and tournament structures, no one wants their neck in a noose by pointing out none of the numbers matter because the data set is poisoned.

 

For Covid-19 specifically, it would behoove everyone complaining about potentially false information to go back and review what the narratives were from January through April. Remember when the lockdowns were "temporary"? 

If "the sword" comes for people who value the scientific process, and those want to fight easily countered misinformation that leads people to hurt themselves and others... well, humanity is doomed. Until then, I will cheer on enthusiastically when private sites crack down on junk science and harmful conspiracies.

 

(And yes, I'm well aware of the real Commodus' sordid history)

 

As for COVID-19: there's a big difference between known false claims and an entire society trying to understand a rapidly evolving situation. What's frustrating is that many people saw scientists' initial forays into examining the virus and mistook the necessity of acting on limited data with a fundamental flaw in science, if not dishonesty. Researchers normally have the luxury of taking their time to collect info and present relatively polished findings; here, they've had to work with and share incomplete info because waiting to take action could literally cost lives. They've been telling the truth as a general rule — it's just that their knowledge has been rapidly expanding.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

The problem I have with being too open minded with science is that at some point it runs into the same faith problems of religion.  But, if you address the level of the information that is fine.

We're a couple of years from settling into what to call the "Hiding a religion as SCIENCE!" properly, but it isn't new. It's just people have finally started noticing. (Very technically, early Darwinism was preached as a new "scientific religion", but the SCIENCE! crowd really, really, really doesn't ever want to talk about the late 1800s and early 1900s period.)  What people are starting to notice, by proxy, is we're deep into the Validity Crisis Period. The science journals are flooded with "peer-reviewed" papers, but very little is ever subjected to confirmation testing. In other words, only the first part of the process has been done.

 

Another big issue in science is one that stems back millennia. "Old Ideas" get stuck until big, important figures die off, as they end up suppressing development because they are viewed as the authority on the topic. The Engineering Revolution from the mid-1800s to now has tamped down the effect some due to the need to actually run R&D out into production at a steady rate, but the effect of the Baby Boomers holding onto power in a lot of sub-fields is definitely starting to show itself. As a profession, the sciences run very much on the vanity of very smart, socially awkward individuals. It's caused issues as long as there's been records of scientific study. It occasionally even produces revolutionary math cults. 

[Commodus]

21 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Science is just a process.  It's not God, it's not even "a god" (though some certainly treat it as such).  It can be wrong as much as it can be right.  The point is that we should use our own brains to decide, not let others decide for us.  I don't care if the "experts" claim something, unless they can prove to me that it's true.

 

That's why I despise the idea of media companies deciding for me, what is or isn't true.  I don't trust them to get past their own biases.

But when science operates on known good principles, and when theories are rigorously tested by the scientific community, we should respect its findings. Critical thinking is good; however, you don't get to choose your facts. If there's no COVID-19 cure, there's no cure... and believing there is can actively hurt people.

 

Media companies should be careful before dropping the ban hammer, but they shouldn't pretend that certain claims are up for debate, or that letting them perpetuate doesn't cause real harm. Think about it: the road to a recovery from COVID-19 is a mess in part because some people genuinely believe "it's just a flu" and that vaccines are dangerous, and you know they got those claims online.

[thechinchinsong]

6 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

One thing Twitter has done is shown, quite effectively, that it matters little the actual realities of the understood information, all experts will be subject to their own personal politics & emotional objectives.

If you're taking Twitter as a source of scientifically relevance, I'm gonna have a problem with that. Scientists and experts in their fields are people in that they get to express their own personal politics & emotional objectives on Twitter, but that gets shut down in any scientifically rigorous article or journal. 

 

27 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The science journals are flooded with "peer-reviewed" papers, but very little is ever subjected to confirmation testing. In other words, only the first part of the process has been done.

 

Another big issue in science is one that stems back millennia. "Old Ideas" get stuck until big, important figures die off, as they end up suppressing development because they are viewed as the authority on the topic

Can you give some examples? I'm having trouble thinking of any specific cases.

[PlayStation 2]

I usually don't care to comment on anything about science, but I do feel that it should be noted that I've always considered science as something that's elastic, something that could always change without notice. Hailing science as a religion is to hail narcissism as a God. It means nothing. It leads to nothing. Science is not a prophecy, it is never set in stone, as it needs to be. If it is, that science becomes a rule, or a dogma, unless exceptions are found or made. Science needs to be looked at as something that could always change, but, in the same vein, something that should be noted seriously. 

Hailing science as a prophecy when it comes to a virus that most of the world knows relatively little about is not just insane, it's extremely dangerous. Treating things we've learned from the coronavirus (or are learning about it) as considerations to potential policy is the way to go, at least in my feeble, fucked-up mind.

[Jito463]

25 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Critical thinking is good; however, you don't get to choose your facts.

What are you talking about?  Where did I say anything about "choosing my own facts"?  What I've said repeatedly is that I don't want the media companies choosing for me.  I prefer to think for myself.

26 minutes ago, Commodus said:

If there's no COVID-19 cure, there's no cure... and believing there is can actively hurt people.

Again I say, what the heck are you talking about?  Where did I say anything about a cure?

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

And my point is that you can't always trust "experts", either.

Why is that? You absolutely can, thats what being an expert is about. Someone you trust to be knowledgeable in the field.

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Odd stories here and there.

so... not experts..

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Jesus.  There's no one else I trust implicitly.  You can write me off as a "religious kook" if you want, but I'll always have skepticism towards any story I hear, especially when the media are promoting it.  If the media tell me the sky is blue, I'll go look for myself.  And even if it is blue, I'll question their motives in telling me that.

you aren't being skeptical, you are refusing to trust anything anyone says and putting everyone's states on an equal level.

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It can be wrong as much as it can be right. 

No, it can't. Science isn't just people flipping coins to decide how things work in the world.

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

we should use our own brains to decide, not let others decide for us.

except your brain is much less than that of experts in their field.

[Trik'Stari]

On 11/20/2020 at 1:00 PM, PCGuy_5960 said:

...read that again, but slowly. Do you like modern day China or soviet Russia? Because that does sound an awful lot like these 2.

Because that is essentially the mindset that drives those kinds of organizations.

 

Censorship is wrong. All this does is make them look more guilty and pathetic, in my eyes.

 

6 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Why is that? You absolutely can, thats what being an expert is about. Someone you trust to be knowledgeable in the field.

so... not experts..

you aren't being skeptical, you are refusing to trust anything anyone says and putting everyone's states on an equal level.

No, it can't. Science isn't just people flipping coins to decide how things work in the world.

except your brain is much less than that of experts in their field.

Science and scientists are not a monolith, and do not always agree with one another on a given subject.

[Commodus]

59 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

What are you talking about?  Where did I say anything about "choosing my own facts"?  What I've said repeatedly is that I don't want the media companies choosing for me.  I prefer to think for myself.

But they're not choosing. I was using the COVID-19 cure bit as an example. If YouTube bans someone for falsely claiming there's a cure, it's not deciding what facts are real — it's acknowledging an unquestionable reality. You can think for yourself all you want, but it doesn't change the truth in a case like that.

 

There are areas where matters are open to debate, or where believing the wrong thing is relatively harmless. But we can't keep pretending that misinformation isn't sometimes dangerous; there are plenty of people who've died from it during the pandemic alone.

[Trik'Stari]

16 minutes ago, Commodus said:

But we can't keep pretending that misinformation isn't sometimes dangerous; there are plenty of people who've died from it during the pandemic alone.

I could make the same argument about the lockdowns and the deaths that have and will continue to occur from the mass economic ruination that is happening as a direct result of said lockdowns. I could also point out that the MSM has moved the goal post so many times now that one could reasonably make the argument that they cannot be trusted to report accurately or in good faith. First it was a "nothing burger", then "we just need to lock down a few weeks to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed" and then it's moved into this vague "Stop the spread!" phase that seems to have the goal of preventing the spread entirely, which is in and of itself entirely unrealistic and misleading in the first place.

 

And this is not even mentioning the completely ridiculous hypocrisy the MSM has displayed when covering certain mass gatherings. Some are apparently harmless, whereas others are "superspreader" events. I'm not going to go in depth here because it is an inherently political spin to the larger subject. The overall point is, censorship powers must always be as heavily curtailed as possible because they will almost always end being used in a political matter.

 

So tell me, who is trustworthy enough to decide what is, and is not, "misinformation"? Because I can't think of a single group or organization on this entire planet that I might trust to do so. Algorithms even less.

[Arika]

11 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

So tell me, who is trust worthy enough to decide what is, and is not, "misinformation"? Because I can't think of a single group or organization on this entire planet that I might trust to do so. Algorithms even less.

Organisation are biased towards their audience, and algorithms are biased towards their creators.

 

Social media has created a community of division which is kind of ironic in of itself

There is no middle ground any more.

Don't agree with someone? Label them as something distasteful so you can ignore their opinion. Don't want to believe something on the news? "Fake news"

 

Everyone wants an echo chamber. So even if a truely non biased Organisation somehow pops up and is the arbiter of what is misinformation, there will still be people calling them fake news, or trying to get them shut down because they aren't removing things that certain people believe should be 

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

Organisation are biased towards their audience, and algorithms are biased towards their creators.

 

Social media has created a community of division which is kind of ironic in of itself

There is no middle ground any more.

Don't agree with someone? Label them as something distasteful so you can ignore their opinion. Don't want to believe something on the news? "Fake news"

 

Everyone wants an echo chamber. So even if a truely non biased Organisation somehow pops up and is the arbiter of what is misinformation, there will still be people calling them fake news, or trying to get them shut down because they aren't removing things that certain people believe should be 

The only true solution (in the US) is to amend the first amendment to include all generic social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, Tik Tok, etc.

 

These companies should not be allowed to be the arbiters of truth.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, thechinchinsong said:

If you're taking Twitter as a source of scientifically relevance, I'm gonna have a problem with that. Scientists and experts in their fields are people in that they get to express their own personal politics & emotional objectives on Twitter, but that gets shut down in any scientifically rigorous article or journal. 

The Twitter point is that even people that should have enough training to not let their emotions get the better of themselves have little qualms about twisting information to suit either a current narrative or their own emotional release.  These aren't Anime_Avatar_7385, they're checkmarked, "big named" people under their public name & profile. What social media does is lay bare the reality that's always there when it comes to "science" as an industry.

 

Also, rigor isn't rewarded in science these days, so you see very little of it. The Academy is a contracting field, so it's acting like any feudal system under resource pressure. Their priorities are different now. But at least their Stats Packages run faster these days, so they can churn out numbers. 

1 hour ago, thechinchinsong said:

Can you give some examples? I'm having trouble thinking of any specific cases.

The classic example that comes to mind is from Chemistry, but I can't remember the Chemist's work that it took years to update because no one wanted to shift things too much. But, the easiest is always the Bacteria Model for Ulcers, since it has a funny story to it. Classically, also, Einstein didn't believe much in Quantum Mechanics. 

 

I went looking for the opposition to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, as that was a decades long fight leading up to it being called the "Standard Model", but a funny thing about trying to search for anything with "Standard Model" in the title. Kinda hard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_subatomic_physics Is probably a good place to at least explain what happens. Every advance in Physics or Chemist causes a paradigm shift. Causing the shift takes a great intellect and lot of work, but it also means that someone young coming up in the field doesn't have the old ways of thinking and can investigate new avenues. Those new avenues won't be accepted, easily, by the ones that created them. It's this weird process by "New Hotness" becomes the "Old Guard" that holds scientific progress back by various natural human social dynamics.

 

Oh, I was going to use the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment as one of those paradigm shifting events that was actually the end point of serious resistance to the subatomic model. But, it was actually the exact measurement of Millikan's experiment I was thinking about as the "classic example".  See the quote at the link. Most of the issues around an Old Guard in science are like the Millikan example, anytime something is "close enough", you see very long term adjustments to the results. What we're seeing, at least these days, is a bit more about sub-fields basically have "political" factions around ideas or concepts. If you're in a faction on the "out", your career prospects can easily be toast. And these are among groups with functionally identical normal political views. Yeah, science fields have tribalism issues, lol.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Science and scientists are not a monolith, and do not always agree with one another on a given subject.

why did you quote me to tell me that?

[poochyena]

12 minutes ago, Arika S said:

There is no middle ground any more.

Joe biden was just elected president, the most middle ground a person could possibly be. Idk what propaganda you've fallen for, but you definitely have fallen for some.

[Taf the Ghost]

24 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Organisation are biased towards their audience, and algorithms are biased towards their creators.

 

Social media has created a community of division which is kind of ironic in of itself

There is no middle ground any more.

Don't agree with someone? Label them as something distasteful so you can ignore their opinion. Don't want to believe something on the news? "Fake news"

 

Everyone wants an echo chamber. So even if a truely non biased Organisation somehow pops up and is the arbiter of what is misinformation, there will still be people calling them fake news, or trying to get them shut down because they aren't removing things that certain people believe should be 

Silicon Valley loves to hide behind their "algos", but algos are incredibly easy to bias to the objectives of the creators. They're programs the return the results that the designers want to get. They can memory hole information in real-time now.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

except your brain is much less than that of experts in their field.

Well, you convinced me.  Calling me dumb definitely proves your point.  Great work.

17 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Joe biden was just elected president

Not until December 14th.  The Electoral College decides that, not the AP, no matter how much Google and the media may proclaim it to be true.  I'm not going further than that, nor making any statements on the validity of the elections, just declaring the fact that the election isn't over until the EC votes.

[Arika]

20 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Joe biden was just elected president, the most middle ground a person could possibly be. Idk what propaganda you've fallen for, but you definitely have fallen for some.

??? I'm not talking about US politics. i'm talking in general, and just because a single person may be "middle ground" doesn't mean they are not biased.

 

And just because he was elected president, doesn't mean what i said is wrong. you think the division that social media has harboured in society in the recent years is just going to disappear because there's a new president?