Democracy’s Mighty Arsenal
To counter disinformation, let's extend the democratic
principles of Wikipedia across platforms. We'll crowdsource cost-benefit
analysis and conflict resolution, turning anger into constructive dialogue.
Fighting external trolls will also defeat our internal
trolls and help us break Free from Bias
The following approach that links conclusion strength to
evidence strength automagically destroys my-side bias and confirmation bias
because it removes arguments from feelings and uses evidence to
"weigh" conclusions:
Here's how:
1.
Isolating Each Belief: Evaluate each belief on
its unique page, like Wikipedia, focusing on the evidence for and against it.
This will keep the topic from changing.
2.
Linking Related Beliefs: Enhance collective
understanding by analyzing interconnections between ideas and gauging their
strengths and weaknesses. Putting similar ways of saying the same thing will
allow us to reduce redundancy and truly have one page for each belief, not
matter what language, dialect, or style is used to express it. We'll group
similar expressions of ideas, assigning scores to determine their equivalency
and identifying the "best" way to articulate them.
3.
Brainstorming Reasons: Participants are
encouraged to explore reasons for both agreement and disagreement, fostering a
well-rounded understanding of the issues.
4.
Pro/Con Analysis: Every conspiracy theory
undergoes rigorous evaluation through a pro/con analysis, where the strength of
supporting and opposing evidence is meticulously weighed, and bad arguments are
not deleted, just moved to the bottom of the lists, so conspiracy theorist can
see all the valid counterarguments, keeping their arguments and ultimately
their belief from gaining traction. In a world where bad arguments don't help
and can even hurt their cause, they will eventually run out of steam.
5.
Evidence Linking: The strength of each belief is
tied directly to the robustness of the evidence, promoting transparency and
honesty in our assessments.
6.
Identifying Logical Fallacies: We scrutinize
information for logical fallacies and provide verification scores, grounding
our plans in evidence.
7.
We will separate arguments by their type, to
keep them separated (e.g., arguments about logical fallacies, verification or
replication, importance, and linkage)
The Path to a Stronger Future
With this robust approach to information evaluation, we pave
the way for a brighter tomorrow. Collaboration becomes the driving force behind
an enlightened society where democratic participation thrives.
So, let's steer our course with clarity, reason, and
precision. We can neutralize disinformation, triumph over biased thinking, and
lay the foundation for a new era of logical decision-making and societal unity.
Let's forge ahead with a specific and actionable plan, embracing the power of
collective intelligence to safeguard our democracy.
