Philosophy Discussion Forums

The question about what to do with misinformation is not easy to answer. Even if someone is saying something that you think is blatantly wrong, is it best to let them speak and publicly them rebut them or to censor them (which leads to ghettoization of the internet and fuels notions of a conspiracy)? That you might think what someone is saying is dangerous or hateful doesn't make it a less difficult decision.

Personally, I would like to see children educated at school in critical thinking. Help them understand fallacious arguments, not to trust a single source for all their information, etc. Basically equip them as well as possible with the tools they need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑April 29th, 2024, 3:50 am The question about what to do with misinformation is not easy to answer. Even if someone is saying something that you think is blatantly wrong, is it best to let them speak and publicly them rebut them or to censor them (which leads to ghettoization of the internet and fuels notions of a conspiracy)? That you might think what someone is saying is dangerous or hateful doesn't make it a less difficult decision.

Personally, I would like to see children educated at school in critical thinking. Help them understand fallacious arguments, not to trust a single source for all their information, etc. Basically equip them as well as possible with the tools they need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

That's clearly the answer, yet I'm baffled why when everyone has heard of catfishing, spam, scams and Nigerian princes, folks believe any ol' thing from any ol' source... as long as it confirms their preexisting belief system.

What I find dangerous is that there has been software to blur out nude images for at least 15 years, yet it isn’t on children’s phones! The super duper AI tech cannot work out when people are being blackmailed?


-was on the news today that the police have sent out warnings to schools.

The problem with expecting people to work it all out for themselves, is that scammers kind of put you in a trance so to say. I was hacked and new about all that but strangely went along with it for a while. Luckily I only had 3 bucks in the bank lol. What was worrying is that the American banker aiding the hacker from India, sounded angry when I said I didn’t have a mobile phone. Why would someone merely facilitating a transfer of money between parties be pissed off when he couldn’t achieve it?
Back before broadband [2006] around 2003 time, I got a phone call from an english bank [abby national] and they were upset that I hadn’t paid the first instalment of the 20,000 loan I had apparently taken out. I laughed at them and stated that I did no such thing and that they wouldn’t even give me a 3 grand loan when I did ask for it [because I was self-employed].
After that they kept phoning my then wife making her cry over and over, sometimes 3 times a day. Finally I got a solicitor and challenged them to provide evidence, at which point they backed down! Do you really think that a bank you owed money to would back down? I don’t.

My conclusion in this and many other instances I have noted in others, is that the banks and phone companies are in collusion with the hackers. This is why our ‘security’ devices are not safe!

Who’s going to challenge them and will anyone ever find out what they are doing? Are they even looking?

Fried Egg wrote: ↑April 29th, 2024, 3:50 am The question about what to do with misinformation is not easy to answer. Even if someone is saying something that you think is blatantly wrong, is it best to let them speak and publicly them rebut them or to censor them (which leads to ghettoization of the internet and fuels notions of a conspiracy)?

The answer to this seems ill-defined, at best, and maybe, perhaps, it doesn't matter?

Fried Egg wrote: ↑April 29th, 2024, 3:50 am That you might think what someone is saying is dangerous or hateful doesn't make it a less difficult decision.

But this is the detail that disproves that 'rule'. This *does* matter. It matters because, if we decide wrongly, people can get hurt, or killed. Thus, the decision becomes rather more important, IMO.

LuckyR wrote: ↑April 29th, 2024, 11:29 am That's clearly the answer, yet I'm baffled why when everyone has heard of catfishing, spam, scams and Nigerian princes, folks believe any ol' thing from any ol' source... as long as it confirms their pre-existing belief system.

Perhaps this only illustrates how far we will go to retain our beliefs? We will do *anything* to confirm and support our valued and treasured beliefs. Roughly half of all Americans sincerely believe that Donald Trump is a suitable and desirable leader of your country...

amorphos_ii wrote: ↑April 29th, 2024, 3:20 pm What I find dangerous is that there has been software to blur out nude images for at least 15 years, yet it isn’t on children’s phones! The super duper AI tech cannot work out when people are being blackmailed?

The American commitment to 'freedom of commerce' is there in the background, I think? Spam email could've been stopped years ago, but Americans insist that any and all businesses have the freedom — and the *right*! — to contact any potential customer, even if that customer has expressed a specific wish *not* to receive such communications. And porn is *Big* Business...? There is profit there, and profit over-rides any other priority.


Not that I disagree with your sentiment; I don't.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 8:41 am

amorphos_ii wrote: ↑April 29th, 2024, 3:20 pm What I find dangerous is that there has been software to blur out nude images for at least 15 years, yet it isn’t on children’s phones! The super duper AI tech cannot work out when people are being blackmailed?

The American commitment to 'freedom of commerce' is there in the background, I think? Spam email could've been stopped years ago, but Americans insist that any and all businesses have the freedom — and the *right*! — to contact any potential customer, even if that customer has expressed a specific wish *not* to receive such communications. And porn is *Big* Business...? There is profit there, and profit over-rides any other priority.


Not that I disagree with your sentiment; I don't.

As an American, this seems like an accurate description of the way most Americans think. We are taught that freedom only means "freedom to..." and never "freedom from...". We tend to be conceited and rather childish in protecting our rights to do things that we know are bad for us, to a ridiculous extreme. A middle ground seems more reasonable, and seems to be the case in much of Europe.

amorphos_ii wrote: ↑April 29th, 2024, 3:20 pm What I find dangerous is that there has been software to blur out nude images for at least 15 years, yet it isn’t on children’s phones! The super duper AI tech cannot work out when people are being blackmailed?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 8:41 am The American commitment to 'freedom of commerce' is there in the background, I think? Spam email could've been stopped years ago, but Americans insist that any and all businesses have the freedom — and the *right*! — to contact any potential customer, even if that customer has expressed a specific wish *not* to receive such communications. And porn is *Big* Business...? There is profit there, and profit over-rides any other priority.


Not that I disagree with your sentiment; I don't.

chewybrian wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 2:59 pm As an American, this seems like an accurate description of the way most Americans think. We are taught that freedom only means "freedom to..." and never "freedom from...". We tend to be conceited and rather childish in protecting our rights to do things that we know are bad for us, to a ridiculous extreme. A middle ground seems more reasonable, and seems to be the case in much of Europe.

Yes, AmeriCapitalism is all-embracing and all-pervasive, in today's world. Outside this topic, on a more global stage, we might observe that AmeriCapitalism, and the unconstrained free-market continuous-growth economics that go with it, is responsible for climate change, global warming, mass extinctions, droughts, floods, and wildfires.

For AmeriCapitalism nurtures and promotes the acquisition, magnification, and retention of personal wealth. This requires profit, which in turn requires consumption. And it is our uncontrolled, and apparently uncontrollable, consumption, ever-increasing, that leads to all of these undesirable ends, as well as all the others that I have not mentioned explicitly.

It is sad to observe that many or most meaningful discussions about the state of our world hinge on this one thing. It isn't all American, it has always been there, but it started to really bite, to be ecocidal, following the Industrial Revolution. And we, the Vassal States of America, are equally responsible, even though we are controlled and constrained by the American Empire, of which we are a part.

But from a philosopher's POV, it is sad that this one issue touches upon almost every other meaningful or useful discussion we might have. It seemingly underlies any and every other matter we might try to consider.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 1st, 2024, 8:39 am

amorphos_ii wrote: ↑April 29th, 2024, 3:20 pm What I find dangerous is that there has been software to blur out nude images for at least 15 years, yet it isn’t on children’s phones! The super duper AI tech cannot work out when people are being blackmailed?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 8:41 am The American commitment to 'freedom of commerce' is there in the background, I think? Spam email could've been stopped years ago, but Americans insist that any and all businesses have the freedom — and the *right*! — to contact any potential customer, even if that customer has expressed a specific wish *not* to receive such communications. And porn is *Big* Business...? There is profit there, and profit over-rides any other priority.


Not that I disagree with your sentiment; I don't.

chewybrian wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 2:59 pm As an American, this seems like an accurate description of the way most Americans think. We are taught that freedom only means "freedom to..." and never "freedom from...". We tend to be conceited and rather childish in protecting our rights to do things that we know are bad for us, to a ridiculous extreme. A middle ground seems more reasonable, and seems to be the case in much of Europe.

Yes, AmeriCapitalism is all-embracing and all-pervasive, in today's world. Outside this topic, on a more global stage, we might observe that AmeriCapitalism, and the unconstrained free-market continuous-growth economics that go with it, is responsible for climate change, global warming, mass extinctions, droughts, floods, and wildfires.

For AmeriCapitalism nurtures and promotes the acquisition, magnification, and retention of personal wealth. This requires profit, which in turn requires consumption. And it is our uncontrolled, and apparently uncontrollable, consumption, ever-increasing, that leads to all of these undesirable ends, as well as all the others that I have not mentioned explicitly.

It is sad to observe that many or most meaningful discussions about the state of our world hinge on this one thing. It isn't all American, it has always been there, but it started to really bite, to be ecocidal, following the Industrial Revolution. And we, the Vassal States of America, are equally responsible, even though we are controlled and constrained by the American Empire, of which we are a part.

But from a philosopher's POV, it is sad that this one issue touches upon almost every other meaningful or useful discussion we might have. It seemingly underlies any and every other matter we might try to consider.

I agree with your description of the status quo, but the picture is incomplete without acknowledging that consumption isn't merely the mantra of American corporations. It plays into the psyche of humans thus it is an easier sell than merely being the advertised perspective of said corporations.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 1st, 2024, 12:27 pm I agree with your description of the status quo, but the picture is incomplete without acknowledging that consumption isn't merely the mantra of American corporations. It plays into the psyche of humans thus it is an easier sell than merely being the advertised perspective of said corporations.

Ah, but does it play "into the psyche of humans", or does it simply tickle our greed? Or are you saying that greed forms part of the human psyche? ... Maybe it does?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2024, 8:53 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 1st, 2024, 12:27 pm I agree with your description of the status quo, but the picture is incomplete without acknowledging that consumption isn't merely the mantra of American corporations. It plays into the psyche of humans thus it is an easier sell than merely being the advertised perspective of said corporations.

Ah, but does it play "into the psyche of humans", or does it simply tickle our greed? Or are you saying that greed forms part of the human psyche? ... Maybe it does?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I don't see other systems being any more equitable.

The gimmicky term, "AmeriCapitalism" does not mean much with this list of countries that experience more wealth inequality than the US:

Brazil
Colombia
Angola
Panama
Zimbabwe
Costa Rica
Honduras
Burkina Faso
Ecuador
Mexico
Chile
Lesotho
Paraguay
Uganda
Togo
Argentina
Turkey
Djibouti
Malaysia
Iran
Bolivia
Uruguay
Philippines
Sao Tome and Principe
Tanzania
Bulgaria
Peru

It's just capitalism, which is still seemingly vastly preferable to other systems. It would be nice to think of a better system, but no one's managed anything better so far, and there's no sign that any better system is in train.

I loath capitalism. It is unfair, it destroys indigenous cultures and it is destructive of the environment.
Unfortunately, everything else that has been tried has been even worse.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 4th, 2024, 2:00 am I loath capitalism. It is unfair, it destroys indigenous cultures and it is destructive of the environment.
Unfortunately, everything else that has been tried has been even worse.

Perhaps AI will come up with a better system!

...perhaps not...

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2024, 9:29 pm I don't see other systems being any more equitable.

The gimmicky term, "AmeriCapitalism" does not mean much with this list of countries that experience more wealth inequality than the US:

...

AmeriCapitalism isn't about "wealth inequality", or anything close. It describes the ideology that drives the American Empire, and much of the rest of the world. It is most useful as an aspect of ecology, or environmental awareness. It describes the ideology that takes the Earth, pulverises it, and sieves out the tiny fragments of 'wealth', leaving the rest as a sort of 'slag heap'. The practical effect of AmeriCapitalism is consumption, on an ever-bigger scale. And as that scale exceeds the capacity of the Earth, it all falls apart. Continuous-growth cannot be sustained in a finite system.