Slashdot Mirror


YouTube To Blame For Rise in Flat Earth Believers, Says Study (cnet.com)

According to research, almost everyone who believes in flat Earth theory got started on YouTube. From a report: Asheley Landrum is an assistant professor of science communication at Texas Tech University. Her focus: how cultural values affect our understanding of science. Most recently she's been looking at the rise of flat Earth theory. Incredibly, more people than ever believe in a flat Earth. Google searches for "flat earth" have grown massively over the past five years and flat Earth conventions have begun popping up all over the globe. That's where Landrum focused her research. Landrum interviewed 30 people who attended one flat Earth convention and found that all but one became flat Earthers after watching videos on YouTube.

She presented her research at an event run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. While Landrum didn't explicitly blame YouTube for the rise in flat Earth believers, she does believe that Google could be doing more to stop the spread of scientifically incorrect ideas. "There's a lot of helpful information on YouTube but also a lot of misinformation," she said, as reported by The Guardian. "Their algorithms make it easy to end up going down the rabbit hole, by presenting information to people who are going to be more susceptible to it."

62 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

    If the number of "believers" is going up then it might be that the number of critical thinkers is going up.

    On the other hand it could also be that I don't hang round with the other end of the spectrum and it really is the number of idiots that's going online to confirm their beliefs that's going up.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I caution against the "I doubt it" as a way to profile oneself as critical thinker.

      Doubt is just a version of belief, albeit a belief in the negative. As Henri Poincaré eloquently pointed out: believing everything and doubting everything are equally convenient ways to avoid the work of actual thinking.

      A critical thinker has to be able to do both: list the pro- and the counter-arguments and weigh them against each other. A critical thinker has to be able to argue both sides, and to really understand the consequences of each hypothesis. And he has to be able to think of alternate third hypotheses to not fall into the false dilemma trap (e.g. there is not only Darwinism and Biblical Creationism, there is also the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well said. The conspiracy nut I know claims he is a free thinker and everyone else is held back by what they were taught in school. In reality he just dismisses anything mainstream and believes whatever 'feels right'.

      It's a common cry from conspiracy believers that they are the skeptics and everyone else is just blindly following.

    3. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

      How do you know?

      There is very little difference between an idiot and someone who pretends to be an idiot.
      To the extent where there is absolutely no reason for anyone to make the distinction and treat them differently.

    4. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, believing in flat earth or other kinds of extreme nonsense has nothing to do with "critical thinking"!

      Critical thinking is the cradle of science and technology the road out from the dark ages, feudalism and authoritarianism, do not credit these cretins with any such description. What they are doing is the exact opposite, they are placing themselves or someone else who they trust as a higher authority to blindly believe in rather than trusting in science. Their choice is to avoid thinking, particularly critically, at all, not thinking critically!

    5. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Z80a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Defending flat earth is a hell of an discussion and debate exercise.
      It's probably one of the hardest non-evil things to actually defend.

    6. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. A critical thinker will often change his mind, sometimes his whole outlook on life without falling into a deep crisis, or resisting the change out of a subconscious fear of that change.

      That is a pretty rare kind of human being I've unfortunately come to realise. To equate this to not believing everything you're told cheapens the value of the character trait.

    7. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does it matter what they really believe in their heart-of-hearts?

      Someone might not believe that there are literal angels or that when they die they are literally tortured for eternity, but that doesn't really matter if the result is the same, e.g. they support religion based policies and morality stemming for those ideas.

      Believing in a flat earth may seem somewhat benign, but if it results in more impressionable people being mislead (e.g. children) or people using it to enrich themselves by organizing profitable conferences, then it's not just a joke any more.

      As Sique pointed out above, it's not a gateway to critical thinking either, it's a gateway to post-truth distrust of everything except what you can personally observe with your limited faculties.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not at all, you just need to declare all evidence contrary to your beliefs as being "fake".

      You cherry pick any conclusions that can be used to prove your claims while dismissing any conclusions that are contrary to your views and voila.

      It may be hard to defend if you are debating honestly, but it's not that hard if you rely on deceptions and lies. As far as I know, most flat earthers fall into the latter category.

    9. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Jahta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A lot of the flat earthers I've met are really just trolling other people.

      Well Flat Earth Conventions and even cruises are a thing, so it's not just trolling. And the folks who attend these things genuinely seem to believe they are doing actual science, while proper peer-reviewed science is considered to be part of some grand conspiracy.

      The problem with Youtube, in my experience, is with the recommendation system. I regularly get fringe political, pseudo-science, and conspiracy theory videos showing up as "Recommended for you"; even though they are in no way relevant what I'm watching or searching for.

    10. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by cs96and · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, it matters.

      I recommend watching the documentary "Behind The Curve" on Netflix. I watch it last night and it was a real eye-opener.

      In the last few years, Flat Earthers have gone from being a joke to something that a lot of people take very, very seriously. These people go hand-in-hand with anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and creationists as part of a new wave of "Anti-Intellectualism".

      Flat Earthers want Flat Earth theory to be taught in schools. That statement alone should be enough to make you realize that this has now gone beyond a joke and is something that should be vehimintly denied. The problem is that Flat Earthers are impossible to reason with. They keep saying "there is no scientific proof for a round earth", but if you try to present any sort of proof they completely dismiss it. Some of them even tried to do their own experiments to prove the earth was flat and (surprise, surprise) the experiments instead showed that the earth was round. This then just leads them to believe that their experiment is flawed in someway. They are completely unwilling to take on board any facts that disprove the flat earth theory.

      The funny thing is, Mark Sargent (the "King" of the Flat Earthers) says that you should "question everything". Yet these people are completely unwilling to question their own theory.

    11. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      And he has to be able to think of alternate third hypotheses to not fall into the false dilemma trap (e.g. there is not only Darwinism and Biblical Creationism, there is also the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

      Well, we all know that this third hypothesis is just complete nonsense. The only valid third hypothesis is, of course, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    12. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can easily explain this photograph:
      - the file format is JPEG, in 24-bit colours, which is the appropriate format considering the image
      - the DPI is set at 72 pixels per inch
      - its dimensions are 300 × 294 pixels
      - the file size is 27628 bytes

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    13. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Funny

      What would be funny is "around the world" cruises for flat-earthers.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      That's true.

      But I was understating my case. Projecting the same growth rate to 2040 would be a 1000x increase over current production. That would take care of all electric generation plus allow for electric cars to supplant petrol based cars.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    15. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      I have a brother that will gladly troll you on flat earth, global warming, etc... just bring up a subject and he will disagree with you no matter which side you take. I think he get's a kick out of it.

    16. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Right, but you also need to account for time required to upgrade grid and replace all existing transportation. Also keep in mind that wind/solar installations start with the best locations, and that subsequent expansions have to move to poorer places, limiting their growth rate.

    17. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All of those people ultimately believe that they are being lied to in one way or another, which is not unreasonable.

      There is no important difference between guessing the authorities are telling the truth and guessing the authorities are lying, if you are too mentally lazy to consider the topic in a non-superficial way. That is not "critical thinking".

      Critical thinking means coming up with a coherent set of thoughts, supported by some amount of evidence, that is more likely to reveal the truth than pure guessing.

      If you believe the people around you are sheep who are not thinking, dyeing your wool to be a more garish colored sheep who is also not thinking is not an improvement. In fact, it is sincere endorsement of sheep-thinking.

    18. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you need God to act morally, you're not acting morally. You're just acting out of fear or hope for reward. I have a lot more respect for the person who acts kindly out of love for his fellow man than I do the person who acts kindly because they think God is going to reward them for it.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    19. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Critical thinking is also acknowledging evidence for or against a proposition. “I believe” is often merely an easy way to deny reality.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Please. We all know George Soros and Elvis is paying off cruise companies not to take you to the ice wall that keeps us under The Firmament.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    21. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Livius · · Score: 2

      How many people genuinely believe God is a human-like decision maker, rather than merely a metaphor for their innate moral system?

    22. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, they are predominantly a right wing thing though, and as other countries become more right wing authoritarian, you will see a rise in anti-intellectual beliefs. Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, and creationists are about 99.999% right wingers. The fact they are so incredibly gullible is how right wingers manage to get elected anywhere on Earth in the first place.

    23. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Micah+NC · · Score: 2

      What's so bad about wanting a reward? Do you work for free?

      Jesus promised rewards to his followers. He did this a lot.

      You're just as important as anyone else, and you are the only one you have any control over.

    24. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by richpoore · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Biblical Christianity, our motivation to do good should not be about fear of punishment or hope of reward. After accepting the gift of the payment of our sin debt, God asks us to love others as He loved us. The motivation is love and gratitude. It's doing for others what's already been done for us, or as much as we can do toward that.

    25. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 2

      And anybody claiming to be a "critical thinker" should first be critical of their own assumptions.

      Being self-critical, wondering about the assumptions 'your side' makes, wondering if the arguments made make any sense is considered a "weakness" these days. It shows you're not strong and confident enough. People naturally follow confident, decisive people, even if they're flat-out wrong.

    26. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      A critical thinker will often change his mind, sometimes his whole outlook on life without falling into a deep crisis, or resisting the change out of a subconscious fear of that change.

      Bang on.

      That is a pretty rare kind of human being I've unfortunately come to realise.

      Not so rare, I think. I've been encouraged recently by people who are wiling to open their minds. I'm old enough to remember when miscegenation was considered shameful and in some places, illegal. People's minds changed on that, and widely. There was a time when most gay people were closeted. Gay marriage was unthinkable. That changed completely in less than a decade. I was alive when people only admitted to being socialists in anonymous mimeographed newsletters. Now, there are socialists elected to congress.

      If you look closely, you can even see minds changing around here.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      One of the more famous experiments was done to disprove a bet against a flat earther in England. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... The scientist was Alfred Russel Wallace, essentially the co-discoverer of evolution who was a bit naive in thinking that the flat earther would ever actually pay up when losing the bet.

    28. Re: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? by astrofurter · · Score: 2

      "those people ultimately believe that they are being lied to in one way or another"

      Those people _know_ they have been lied to many times by ostensibly trustworthy authorities. Therefore they quite reasonably distrust the pronouncements of credentialed "experts". Thinking, again quite reasonably, that many "experts" given voice in the semi-official media are charlatans, who peddle injurious lies for the narrow benefit of their own class or partisan interests.

      I find the outage endlessly hilarious. A bunch of obvious internet trolls making "Flat Earth" videos (herpy derp derp herp!) has _succeeded_ at trolling the herd of "but muh SCIENCE(tm)!!?!!1!" bros who believe everything an official journalist tells them.

      The real issue here has nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth. Rather it's all about the collapse of media credibility. Reading a "fact" in the New York Times used to suggest it was true. Nowadays publication in the NYT suggests it's false. Especially to the masses of working and lower-middle class people who have suffered dispossession and immiseration under 40 years of disastrously failed neoliberal economic policy. While being lectured about their "privilege" by silver spoon Ivy League mountebanks.

  2. "Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up all by phonewebcam · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..over the globe"

    We all saw what you did there.

  3. Re: Trolls by c6gunner · · Score: 2

    It's pretty rare to see "critical thinker/debunker and academic types" even bother addressing flat earth claims, let alone get "pissed off" about it. Some things are just too stupid to be taken seriously. The response to things like 9/11 conspiracy theories or even moon hoax claims has been far stronger. If the goal is to annoy and get a rise out of people, you're far better off focusing on those topics.

  4. Democracy was a nice dream by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

    It relied on the assumption that most people are rational, which in fact they were not. It was able to support itself using media gatekeepers which prevented mass-hysteria of the population and managed to keep them educated and informed to some extent. The moment that freedom of speech became absolute, and any idea of "knowledgeable" or "respectable" was lost, the truth about the populous was revealed. It was then that many people began to realize that democracy is based on a lie - that every man is rational.

    1. Re:Democracy was a nice dream by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!
      --Agent K, MiB

      Or, as I tend to put it, the collective IQ of a group can be determined by taking the IQ of the biggest idiot and dividing by the number of feet.

      The only thing the internet changed was that no loonie is alone anymore. Before the internet, anyone who had some batshit crazy outlook on life got a pretty quick reality check when his tinfoil hattery hit the reality of the rest of the world around him. Now it's easier than ever to find others who believe the same bullshit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Flat Earther Here by wolfheart111 · · Score: 2

    We are in a simulation, so the earth must be flat like a CD or circuit board... lol

    --
    [($)]
  6. Re:Trolls by spazmonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No. They are quite real, and it has nothing to do with anyone but their own personal need for a flat earth. There is a major conference of them held periodically near me, and I had to go see what was up. It seems to be primarily a religious thing actually. These people really just can't handle the idea of a large, cold, arbitrary, and uncaring universe that they are simply not in the center of. They MUST believe in the flat earth, because no matter who you talked to or how byzantine and strained the rationalizations, it all came back to - in their minds - proof of God. Of a master plan, of the comfort of an ordered universe, one in which we have a defined purpose for being here, and that it was all put here for us. That's what a flat earth means to them. It was really that simple. Its not trolling, its existential fear.

  7. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by mentil · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Earth is flat from the point of view of the 4th spatial dimension. Flat-Earthers are actually cosmic horrors possessing the weak-minded.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  8. Re:Trolls by geantvert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are definitely trolls in the flat-earth community and I am pretty convinced that the majority of the 'famous' flat-earthers on Youtube are only doing it for the money. They are scam artists and their target is the myriad of scientifically illiterate people who genuinely believe their crap. Look at all the people who believe in unscientific ideas such as astrology, homeopathy, spiritism, power of crystals, ancient hidden civilizations, ... Add to that the bronze age cosmologies described by the holy books of most religions and you have the perfect environment to bring people to the border of the rabbit hole. Once they are there, Youtube provides the final kick to fall in the hole.

    An important factor is the recent resurgence of creationism in the US and in most areas of the world where religious fundamentalists are thriving. Initially, the creationist movement was only targeting the Evolution Theory but all sciences are connected:
    - The old ages of Earth and of the Universe are confirmed by Geology, Astrophysics, and Nuclear Physics (i.e. via Radiometric dating) so those sciences MUST be wrong.
    - The common ancestry of all life forms is confirmed by DNA analysis, Paleontology and Anatomy so those sciences MUST be wrong.
    - The Noah Flood is disproved by History, Geology, Climatology, DNA analysis so those sciences MUST be wrong.
    - etc
    The end result is that a fundamentalist preacher has no other choices than to denigrate all modern sciences to justify his bronze age beliefs.
    Youtube and other social networks are not the cause of irrational beliefs but they provide a good environment to amplify them.

  9. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Enough is ENOUGH! I have had it with these motherfuckin' flattards on this motherfuckin' plane!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:A question to more experienced folks here: by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is actually two kinds. Just like with religion. The ones that really, really, REALLY try hard to believe it and at least convinced themselves, and now want to convince someone else to strengthen their faith so they don't "fall". To them it's quite a bit of a religious thing, and more often than not you'll notice that they follow some other religion and think that their holy book kinda "demands" that the world is flat, so they have to believe in a flat earth or their holy book could maybe be wrong, and that MUST NOT be.

    And then of course there's the snakeoil peddlers that noticed that the former group is a welcome source of income.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. i can tell you how to fix that by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    you got to convince the flat earthers that the earth is really a cube, then gradually soften the corners of the cube so it is back to being a sphere

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  12. Re:and they just went on record they are elminatin by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    They're not eliminating it, they just don't promote it anymore. I.e. you won't get it in your "recommended" list anymore.

    Doesn't keep flattards from crying CENSORSHIP, of course.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Funny

    All over the disc, that is. I wonder if their compasses have directions named H (Hubwards), T (Turnwise), R (Rimwards) and W (widdershins) as well.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  14. Re:Trolls by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think they're trolling. Most, if not all, flat earthers are religious. Science makes their believes less relevant, and therefore scientific thinking should be rejected.

    --

    This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

  15. Re:what is the problem? by sheramil · · Score: 2, Funny

    why is that in this era that we are living in, people can't believe in what they want?

    For flat earthers, I don't mind if they believe what they believe, as long as they aren't put in charge of map-making, arranging routes for cargo ships, or setting orbits for satellites.

    There are other varieties of "ignint" [tm Zappa] that are actively dangerous; vaxxers, for example (I can't see their problem, really - the Vax 11-780 was a cool machine for its time).

  16. Re:Trolls by r2kordmaa · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Nobody can possibly be this dumb, they must be trolling" is a common trap to fall in. Sad fact is, there are more actual morons than there are trolls willing to act as morons.

  17. The article headline is highly misleading by kgroombr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    YouTube is not to blame for people believing that the world is flat. There are many posts that argue both sides, so if a person watched and listened to both sides of the argument, then they could formulate their own opinion. The problem is that people tend to sway to things they already believe in, and support their ideology, so they are typically getting only one side of the argument; thus, it reinforces what they already want to believe. YouTube is to blame for this, like a spoon is to blame for making me fat.

    1. Re:The article headline is highly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real problem is not youtube, as a giant repository of video on all kinds of things. The real problem is the algorithm that suggests videos for watching. The algorithm is probably right as it is, if someone enjoys flat earth stuff they may very well enjoy more flat earth stuff. I guess that youtube could modify the suggestion algorithm to offer pro's and con's for subjects but that almost certainly would piss people off too. Imagine someone who watched a video named "Why X fails" seeing suggestions of "Why X is great" for a bunch of values of X.

      This is the problem with all social media that suggests similar topics. Users get suggested more and more articles of a similar nature. They have to manually search for the videos named "Arguments against the earth being flat".

  18. Slashdot Headlines by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    YouTube To Blame For Rise in Flat Earth Believers, Says Study

    While Landrum didn't explicitly blame YouTube for the rise in flat Earth believers

    When your headline is so inaccurate that it is contradicted right in the summary...

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  19. A prelude to censorship by kbaud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Several articles now have talked about how youtube is feeding various undesirable ideas. I suspect this will be followed by calls for censorship.

    1. Re:A prelude to censorship by nucrash · · Score: 2

      That's my biggest issue and yes that's a slippery slope argument.

      I do think that algorithms for videos should work to push scientifically backed counter videos. I know this is possible because this is already done with advertisements. The difference is they have to make this decision based on morality and not advertising dollars. That can be tough for a billion dollar corporation to do.

      --
      Place something witty here
  20. Nothing you can do. by goodgame · · Score: 2

    These are people who believe NASA guards the ice wall. The second Google identifies and 'educates' these misguided people, it'll only fuel their us vs. them mentality.

  21. Re:Trolls by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    You can have an ordained universe without geocentricism. If their God is so great, he can make a universe, and not just a planet. Their failure is one of imagination, and it is arguably blasphemous in the bargain as it limits their supposedly unlimited deity.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. Re:A question to more experienced folks here: by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    The more powerful social media will try to censor any topic, the more people get interested to see why its getting banned, deranked, reported and removed.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  23. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    The Earth is not flat from the point of view of the 4th spatial dimension. It's still a mostly-sphere shape, without a 4th spatial dimension.

    You live in three spatial dimensions. Do you call two-dimensional squares "flat, one-dimensional lines"?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  24. Thought police? by NormAtHome · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm the last person to argue that the earth is flat since all evidence is to the contrary but I also think that there are concerns over free speech and that "she does believe that Google could be doing more to stop the spread of scientifically incorrect ideas" she thinks google should do something to suppress idea's or beliefs and that in and of itself should be cause for concern. There are a lot of conflicts between what some people believe and what science says, the anti-vax movement is such a instance with plenty of scientific study's saying vaccinations don't cause autism but there also appears to be plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite. I find it very dangerous to even consider giving a company like google the power to suppress idea's or to try and silence people who have a opinion that's not supported by science since aside from free speech there are also censorship concerns.

    1. Re:Thought police? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      but there also appears to be plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.

      Here's the thing: There isn't plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.

      There's the appearance of this because there's a whole lot of people trying to extract money from gullible people. After all, the gullible are fantastic financial targets, since you can just say anything and they'll keep buying your expensive snake oil.

      These money extraction efforts are served by YouTube's current algorithm because it plays grifter after grifter until viewers start to think there's plenty of anecdotal evidence. There's no particular reason YouTube's algorithm has be reinforcing like this. The viewer is obviously interested in this particular subject, but they don't have to be presented with only the grifter side of the argument.

  25. That's Not Critical Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A critical thinker has to be able to do both: list the pro- and the counter-arguments and weigh them against each other.

    That's all fine and dandy. But nothing in your post actually defines critical thinking. The keyword here is critical. Which is not about making up lists of arguments and explanations - anybody can do that. Its about judging the quality of those arguments. Which for most people means evaluating the source of the argument, the qualifications and trustworthiness of the people making the arguments as well as things like logical consistency (of both the argument and the people making the argument). The fact is, truth is NOT self-evident and anyone who tells you that probably doesn't want you to critically evaluate them.

    99% of the time we are not experts in the topics being debated, so we are left with critical evaluations of arguments based on external factors. Understanding how and why we evaluate those factors is central to critical thinking.

    Media literacy, in particular, is a key component of critical thinking in the internet era. The reason youtube is causing a rise in people believing in conspiracy theories like a flat-earth is because youtube is designed to maximize "engagement" and conspiracy theories are like crack for the unsophisticated - especially those who feel dis-empowered in their lives (and who doesn't feel that way at least some times?) So youtube's algorithms reward ($$$) people who make conspiracy theory videos, which induces the creation of even more conspiracy theory videos.

    In other words, the people making videos for youtube have strong incentives to be manipulative and completely dishonest because that's what youtube's algorithm rewards. The people consuming those videos aren't thinking about how those rewards degrade the trustworthiness of the video makers. Fundamentally its all a grift. A billion dollar grift. Its also the same business model as talk radio which has been lucrative AF for grifters too.

  26. Re:"Flat Earth conventions have begun popping up a by ripvlan · · Score: 2

    Do they take Planes across the Plane to attend the conference held on the Plains?

    I've always been impressed that they believe the flat-earth exists in 3-D. Airplanes travel on this 2-D surface and that water-droplets form balls - but that earth itself is not a ball. When they look at other Planets -- are they all Flat too?

    Sorry I'm a bit ignorant on their belief system. Are the Sun, Moon, Jupiter (and moons) all Discs as well? If not -- how come earth is the odd-ball? (get it... odd ball...)

  27. Where's the edge? by mnemotronic · · Score: 2

    Take me to the edge.

    There's a song in there somewhere, and I mean a good one; not the one from Magnum.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  28. Re:what is the problem? by ChesterRafoon · · Score: 2

    Nice VAX 11/780 reference there. Indeed a great machine back in the day, first computer I was ever paid to manage.

  29. An interesting perspective: relativity of wrong by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 2

    Isaac Asimov wrote an essay called "The Relativity of Wrong". (One of several links thereto.)

    One thing Asimov says is, "... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

    He then goes on to note that the Earth actually is flat, to a reasonable approximation, over short distances. He also notes several observations explained by the assumption that the Earth is (nearly) spherical but that are not explained by a flat Earth.

    Are there really people who believe the International Space Station is all just faked? For what purpose? Not to mention other planets, Kepler's laws, Newton's laws, and GPS.

  30. Re:What exactly is "mainstream" ? by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But also not "the not true". It's mainstream. You can believe it. You can doubt it. Both positions are equally easy and don't need any thinking.

    Actually dissecting which parts of mainstream knowledge is true (for a workable version of true) and which are not, is tedious work, and no single person will manage it during their lifetime completely.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*