The Spectacle

 I want to take a moment to deviate from our usual unusual explorations, to explore something a bit more exoteric, rather than esoteric. In other words, lets discuss how things seem on the outside of our skulls.

Below you will find a link for a video. My request is that you withold your judgements and reactions until the video is over. Note them, also notice the larger context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmht6Tbtzg

I'm not sure how I happened upon this, but I would never ordinarily watch content from this guy. I think he is just like most other content creators, capitalizing on sensationalism and walking a line.

A few thoughts:

(1)
Instead of social media labeling something as "true" or "false", have it tag content that is "Currently Debated" or "Conflicting Evidence". Then when someone clicks the little "i" for more information, it leads to a screen that shows 2 - 10 different "conclusions" or perspectives, each one containing links to people who support and have evidence for that topic.

You could have it that from that screen that shows the leading arguments, it would be easily visible which and how many: researchers, groups, organizations, corporations, governments, politicians, and people support each argument.

This will help to increase the quality of evidence, debate, analysis, and comprehension which people can derive from any topic or conflict.

(2) Anyone with even a modicum of contemporary scientific understanding, understands the limitations of that knowing. In other words, contemporary scientists understand the inherit structural limitations of the scientific method and mathematics. For our greatest minds to know this, but the mediators of social discussion not to, creates a strange scenario where literally a handful of mediocre minds can dictate what is "true" and what is "false".

(You can more on the limitations of knowledge here: https://explorerunknown.blogspot.com/2021/12/godel-turing-turning-turning-turning.html)


(3) Now. This is completely hypothetical, but what if Facebook were to counter this lawsuit by presenting evidence that 90% of this guy's viewer base also follow flat earth, qanon, or other outlandish/"dangerous" content? What if 90% were also rioters on January 6th? Whatever evidence your mind can fathom, if that came forward, would you judge this dude guilty by association? Would it take away from his lawsuit?



Returning to point 1. Personally, I think everything is changing always, that being said, we have mountains of scientific data starting as far back as the 70's showing evidence that our technoglobal raping of the earth's resources was having a negative impact (gee shocker). I don't really resonate with what this dude is saying, but I do not believe he should be censored for saying it. Furthermore I feel like these are the types of people that are worth having civil discussions/arguments/explorations with. As a society we have seemed to lose our tact and taste for nuance, we find it too slow, too drab. Instead we pursue ever-increasing-sensationalism, shorter slogans, and even more narrow dogmatic world views.

I think these are things worth thinking about. Thank you for reading. Feel free to share your thoughts.