What is the role of the most disadvantaged in relation to the public interest?
I feel that the most disadvantaged populations are criminally underappreciated. Poorer populations tend to do more for society than most. Whether it be by providing food, infrastructure, and or talking part in the most unwanted jobs, these populations rarely ever get the recognition they deserve.
Even the Greeks, despite their glorious yet truncated democratic experiment, would only apply the tragic to the elite
I can see this in our society today. The deaths of innocent people often go unheard unless they were in a position of power. This is terrible, as every life is equally important.
The recovery of a tradition always begins at the existential level, with the experience of what it is to be human under a specific set of circumstances and conditions. It is very difficult to engage in a candid and frank critical discussion about race by assuming it is going to be a rational exchange. Race must be addressed in a form that can deal with its complexity and irrationality.
I found this paragraph a bit sad considering they talk about conversation of race being an irrational exchange. The fact that it's difficult to engage in this type of conversation just shows that we haven't progressed enough as a society to promote decency rather than oppression.
Those who spread misinformation—false content shared by a person who does not realize it is false or misleading—are driven by sociopsychological factors. People are performing their identities on social platforms to feel connected to others, whether the “others” are a political party, parents who do not vaccinate their children, activists who are concerned about climate change, or those who belong to a certain religion, race or ethnic group. Crucially, disinformation can turn into misinformation when people share disinformation without realizing it is false.
This point was probably the most interesting point I have read in this article. One person I follow in particular seems to just post anything they personally agree with without fact checking once. I have personally fact checked many of these posts and found them to be false. Now, I understand why this person might do this.
Much of this content does not even masquerade as news—it appears as memes, videos and social posts on Facebook and Instagram.dfp.loadAds("right2","MPU3","dfp-right2-article-2")
Why would this content actually be on the news? If the news is really lying, there is no way they would admit to it themselves. Individual citizens have to figure this out for themselves, and memes, social media posts, and videos are all ways that people can get their voices heard.
They failed to see how technology would not change who we are fundamentally—it could only map onto existing human characteristics.
I found this statement very interesting. Growing up in a time where I have always had technology, it makes perfect sense to me that tech would be used in a way which reinforces our biases. After all, tech and social media is meant to be addicting, and by showing us things we agree with, it gets more addictive.
When there is nothing reputable to show users, it’s better to show nothing at all.
I completely agree, but also feel that firsthand videos might not be shown when they should be. It might be impossible for Google to counteract this.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, there just isn’t a lot of content to serve up for the search “Devin Patrick Kelley,” so Google reaches to less authoritative users so that it can show something, anything.
Showing the truth form reputable news sites is much more important than showing just anything.
Congress appears to have missed a key point in its questioning last week. It’s clear that fake news and outright lies are, in fact, a small portion of the total content on any of the big tech platforms. But what matters are the routes that these companies provide to unreliable sources of information. You don’t have to silence Julian Assange or some random Twitter account that’s set up to look like a real news outfit, but you also don’t have to inject them into a legitimate news discussion.
For something to pop up on the top "news" section, I think these developers should have to fact check and read through the information. They could also add a tag such as potentially untruthful which would help stop spread the misinformation..
After a horrifying mass shooting, searching for the shooter’s name on Google surfaced an editor of the conspiracy site InfoWars, a parody Julian Assange account claiming the shooter had converted to Islam, and a “news” Twitter feed that’s tweeted a few dozen times since it was created last month. (The account using Assange’s likeness was an impersonator account, not actually Assange, as we previously reported.)*
After doing my essay on the spread of misinformation, I was not surprised at all to read this. Social media and tech giants play a huge role in the spread of misinformation, and it is easy for something to seem true when it isn't.
All of these links appeared high up in the search results, just below the “Top Stories” modules in the “Trending on Twitter” box.
It would make sense that these links would appear in the top news section because it is something that would get lots of clicks.
“serious” video games that could combat or mitigate what were deemed to be the six most damaging biases: confirmation bias, fundamental attribution error, the bias blind spot (the feeling that one is less biased than the average person), the anchoring effect, the representativeness heuristic, and projection bias (the assumption that everybody else’s thinking is the same as one’s own).
I found this very interesting, but the entire point of videogames is to have fun, so I don't believe people are going to want to play "serious" videogames.
“I live by base rates. I don’t read a book or see a movie unless it’s highly recommended by people I trust.
I don't agree with this train of thought. You should never restrict yourself especially when it comes to using other peoples opinions as your own. Everyone is different, and it is an individuals job to do their own research and come up with their own conclusions.
be confirmation bias. That’s the effect that leads us to look for evidence confirming what we already think or suspect, to view facts and ideas we encounter as further confirmation,
The idea of confirmation bias is a huge problem today. This is especially true when it comes to software and apps which track our interests. It is very easy to see your feed with a bunch of liberal news as the only right way of thinking, but it is important to look at everything possible, not just what you believe in.
he found that the students who regularly did research online—in other words, the ones who expected Web pages to yield up useful facts—were better at this task (and at ignoring irrelevant information) than students who used the Internet mostly to send email, chat, and blog.
There is no difference between paper and digital reading. The only difference is whichever one you feel more comfortable and experienced with.
One of the greatest dangers we face,” he writes, “as we automate the work of our minds, as we cede control over the flow of our thoughts and memories to a powerful electronic system, is ... a slow erosion of our humanness and our humanity.”
I do not agree with this point whatsoever. Carr believes that technology somehow makes us less human, but I can only see this making us more human. There is little to no difference between finding information online and finding it through physical books. The only difference is one makes it easier to access information and the other makes it a chore.
. When Augustine (the future St. Augustine) went to see his teacher, Ambrose, in Milan, in 384 A.D., he was stunned to see him looking at a book and not saying anything. With the advent of silent reading, Manguel writes,
I found this very interesting. I had never even thought about the idea that people may have read aloud before they read silently. It seems like a given in our modern world that reading aloud and reading silently go hand in hand.
But maybe voting is neither commons nor market. Perhaps, instead, it’s combat. Relatively gentle, of course. Rather than rifles and bayonets, essentially there’s just a show of hands.
The idea of voting being combat seems like a dangerous one. It means that one side will always win, when I know for a fact that it's possible that both sides can compromise.
Voters may also rely on the simple heuristic of throwing out incumbents who have made them unhappy, a technique that in political science goes by the polite name of “retrospective voting.” Brennan argues that voters don’t know enough to do this, either.
Retrospective voting seems to be a very good idea in practice, but it is also true that most people simply don't have enough information to vote even after someone has been in office for years.
A more practical suggestion came from J. S. Mill, in the nineteenth century: give extra votes to citizens with university degrees or intellectually demanding jobs.
I understand what Mill was trying to get at here, but I definitely don't think votes should be based off of intelligence or the job you have. This seems like a one way ticket to oligarchy.