pull down to refresh
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 5 Sep \ on: Misformation spreads like a nuclear reaction on the internet science
[...]
I imagine lots of people here won't agree with this conclusion ;)
Leaving that aside, I wonder what the consensus here is on any intervention done to quell the propagation of rumors or fake news. We quickly get into the realm of censorship which has shown itself to be a tricky beast. Who gets to decide what is considered real and what is considered fake?
I think one thing that could help people differentiate between real and fake news within science is to better educate them on the difference between science and the scientific method.
It is ok to question science, there is indeed a lot of garbage science out there, which has been infected by personal beliefs, politics, religion, etc. Lots of so-called science is plain wrong.
However, realizing that the scientific method is the best thing we have to assess if something is objectively true (leaving philosophical considerations aside on what is objectivism), we could probably get to some kind of agreement on what is considered scientifically true (until proven otherwise) and what lies in the realm of propaganda, fake news, rumors, etc.
Fake news or events can be easily assuming people are not censored.
Governments are afraid of the truth. People are censored for exposing truths not propagating fake news.
Brazil has suspended X because they would not suspend the political opponents of the ruling party.
reply