40 Times People Posted Screenshots Of Complete BS Being Called Out !EXCLUSIVE!
40 Times People Posted Screenshots Of Complete BS Being Called Out ---> https://bltlly.com/2t7Tph
Yeah, and this takes me back thinking through some of the things that we are trying to project about the election this year, one of the things we said is that there would be a burst of misinformation after the night of November 3. And I think that definitely played out. Not sure if we call this exactly, but I think what you're getting at now, I think is still worth paying attention to, that the demonization of particularly Antifa or liberals that they would be these monstrous anarchistic figures that would just do anything to lie, cheat and steal. This is one thing that we did point out before the election that this demonization of the left was in the air. And that a whole summer's worth of rhetoric of trying to make the political left in the United States out to be this completely lawless, depraved, monstrous figures in black clothing, who had light fires, and set fire to federal lands just to spite people who would just obliterate our cities, more derivative stuff of Trump's American Carnage speech. So it's not new, but the amplitude was up so high, all this misinformation is going around the left. Now you can just tap into that and say, the left of course is going to try to steal the election. They're corrupt through and through. They're a machine, that word kept coming up. They're a corrupt political machine that's just going to wrest power away by any means necessary. I think that I wanted to call attention to how a lot of what we're experiencing after November 3, was waged before November 3, in terms of setting up those narratives. We talked about narratives being more powerful in facts, those narratives took a long time to establish, and there was a dividend for those narratives. In the terms of the how powerful and persuasive the misinformation was after.
Yeah, I hear you on that one, that there was a cell phone on some of these in that the way that the success of the polls was covered, the way that the counting of the votes was covered? Yeah, I think you could make an argument that contributed to some of the collective unease going on. But as you said, people were warned. Also, over and over again, this is how this goes. How many pollsters in advance of November 3, between November first, second, and the morning of the third rush to put out essays and articles that said, "All right, now there's still a chance that Trump could win. And I want everyone to know that right." There were so much hedging and so much bracing for a nonlinear outcome here. But you're right, there was something about needing to see the result immediately in there. I don't know what to make of that completely. I do take your point that it might not be 100%, the outcome of the misinformation efforts that coverage and people's collective expectations surely has some responsibility in this. But I bring this up because I think it's important to think through how for us, a lot of times we think about fact checking as the solution. When I say us, I just mean like generally when folks do misinformation and disinformation, we think about fact check as that thing that has to happen. And that's 100%. True. That's got to go on the record. But I think this election fortnight, as you say, and I think it indicates how there's the priors to the election or the prior to that event are so important to determining how effective this misinformation or disinformation is going to be.
Two terms that echo around, there's echo chamber, plus, there's also some folks might have heard of a filter bubble. But this idea that social media is a space where you join groups and the people that you follow, and your friends are basically only those that echo your beliefs. So your beliefs are just bouncing around and being reinforced by your slice of social media versus a filter bubble. Meaning that like your search results, a lot of your content is then personalized so much that opinions that are against your beliefs, or information that challenges your beliefs are filtered out. And I would argue that a lot of the research says neither one of those things exist to the extent that folks use these terms. So a lot of times when they're thrown out in the media, they're thrown out in this extreme fashion. What we know that there is a bit of confirmation bias within these platforms like you do get filtered content, the links you click on in Google reinforce, and cause future personalization of your search results over time. But the evidence shows that in most social media sites, you're not receiving (and unless you're heavily curating your friend groups), you're still receiving information that might be countered to your beliefs.
You know, I think tools is maybe a little too instrumental to think through. But I do think there needs to be a certain kind of empathy, not exclusively in how people feel. I'm not trying to say that there needs to be some kind of cuddly way through this, but also kind of empathy about how people are reaching the conclusions that they're reaching. I think that can be really helpful. If I hear somebody say something that I don't agree with, it got such a rise out of people years ago, when there was this idea raised about alternative facts. And even though it was awful and deceptive, it was also accurate in some ways about how people really do operate from sets of alternative facts. And if I'm going to be outraged completely every single time that someone is behaving off the set of alternative facts, I'm going to be exhausted. Sometimes you can't afford to do anything else, but react strongly. 2b1af7f3a8