I remember a time when the tolerance for spreading misinformation was a lot lower. Now, it seems to be normal. I understand how and why this happened, but it bothers me just the same.
I created an account on Quora a long time ago to gain access to crowd-sourced information. I intended to answer questions and do some moderation. I mostly answered questions for a while. I didn't really pay much attention to moderation. I assumed enough people were reviewing new "questions" before they became available to general population. I also assumed this mechanism would filter out misinformation and wrong answers. That certainly is not the case today.
I've been trying to figure out how to filter the sources of data I receive to be factual and trusted. I would like the data to be information, but this is big ask. (I'll get to this later). Quora provides a daily summary which I've been using for a long time to get a quick summary of what's happening and interesting things. Lately it's all been click-bait. I recall when this happened... basically Quora operated at a loss for a long time, like Facebook. They wanted to create a large database of knowledge using crowd-sourcing. After losing money became problematic they started to take ads. Quora+ showed up and some form of compensation for answering questions was available. I don't know the details. However, this is when click-bait started showing up. It has ruined the platform. Apparently this doesn't bother Quora enough to rectify the matter.
In an attempt to understand the Quora system failed me, I asked a simple question using the platform itself: "Why doesn't Quora fact-check questions before they are posted?" I got a handful of responses. Seems people have lost any form of common decency, so I forgave the accusatory responses and tried to look past them. Someone explained how Quora should work, i.e. down votes and some way to get the post removed. However, this does not prevent my summary from being a source of misinformation. So, that sucks. I also got an "education" on why it's too expensive to fact check and about free speech. Ok, good points, but again not helpful.
What was helpful is someone indicating that free speech comes with the burden of fact-checking all data you consume and it's worth it. The alternative is untenable. I agree. However, I can fact-check, but honestly with the amount of data I see fact-checking everything defeats the purpose of paying attention in the first place.
Here's the problem. Humans assume a lot of things that make it possible to live without going insane. We have a innate need for the world to behave in a predictable manner. If I drop a spoon, I know it will fall to the floor (I may even realize this due to gravity). When I drive or walk on a sidewalk in the US, I except everyone to keep to the left and I stay on the right. I also assume people don't drive through red lights, but apparently I'm in the minority now (silly me).
Like the spoon and driving on the right assumption, I think we depend on the source of data being real or factual. This is apparently a foreign concept now. I could cite the rise of this bad behavior as social media, which does exacerbate the problem. But propaganda, politics and the like have been around forever. It fuels most conflicts. I learned a long time ago from Colin Powell's teaching on leadership: "Influence is good leadership. Manipulation is evil."
Narcissists manipulate people. So do sociopaths and other people who basically have a missing or underdeveloped capacity for empathy. Technically, this is a basic characteristic of humans, so I contend these people are no longer human - but that's beside the point. Given the need for everyone to feel significant and the nature of social media encouraging you to compare yourself to others, vast numbers of people lie to feel significant. This slippery slope starts to erode the capacity for empathy in my opinion. (I should really research this assertion...) It's easier to commit a 2nd crime after committing the first. Since lies are apparently no longer considered a crime (in the case of slander) it seems the barrier to the first offense is low, even deemed necessary feel significant. I can see this happening to people. But how did it happen to the media? Technically, the media is only protected by the First Amendment if they provide information (not just data). This is why journalists are required to verify data before reporting it as information.
Turning something into information is called synthesis. It is a form of analysis that humans can consume without having to do the fact checking, analysis and synthesis themselves. Apparently, this is no longer the case. Lawsuits against media giants often encounter the, "we're just providing entertainment" defense. Sometimes this works, sometimes not. But it seems to me if a media outlet has "News" in the moniker they use, it's not entertainment. I suppose if you consider all data about the world today evidence that it's a violent place, then you could draw an analogy to movies and TV shows. Most of this entertainment is fiction and it is violent. In fact, it's well known that without a nasty antagonist in an any story the movie, book or TV show won't sell. People hate when there is no bad guy or if he wins in stories. Human nature I suppose. But, when did real life, especially the media become a work of fiction? It's always been there, but not to the degree it is today.
I hate pointing out stuff without a solution. But, I can't fact check everything. I can't convince people to try to do it themselves. I can't even get them to listen to information, even when I know it to be true because I have expertise in the area. The law doesn't prosecute it, not that it would matter. So it goes unchecked.
Interestingly enough, there are federal government initiatives to fight misinformation. I believe one is sponsored by the justice system. In the private and state sector, some universities are studying it as well. I've also read books on how to get someone to believe the truth instead of silly things like the Earth is flat. Apparently it takes over 23 steps and one requirement is to listen to nonsense, be understanding and provide facts to counter the fallacies. But, you have to be someone the other party respects. Good luck. Oddly, enough, this is basically what Barrack Obama said at the DNC on 8/21/2024. So, it's not a foreign concept, it's just hard.
I recall IU having a program studying misinformation... here's a blog article about it:
New $6 million center will investigate media and technology in society
Oddly enough, 5 years later this was posted:
The UI Network Science Institute is Closing
I'm not sure what this means, I guess it's a pretty hard thing to work on and they gave up. Just kidding, you'll have to read up on it.
Suffice to say, the problem with misinformation is real, serious and there are no silver bullets. However, like the combined speeches of Michele and Barrack at the 2024 DNC, it's up to everyone to behave like adults. Be kind. Be considerate of others. Serve others. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's disturbing that these concepts have become foreign, but also not surprising. Or live with the consequences.