Government-Sponsored Disinformation: Combating the Trolls through Democratic Principles

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.

Harnessing Collective Intelligence: A Proposal for Transparent, Data-Driven Decision Making

Peter Thiel has argued that aside from advancements in data, our society has seen little progress in the past century. Google's success, valued in hundreds of billions of dollars, stemmed from their innovative use of links as a voting system for website rankings. This suggests that we could apply similar principles to rank ideas directly, rather than merely directing users to external websites. Google's algorithm places trust in websites with more links, but this can be flawed as people often make mistakes.

A more robust algorithm could consider the number of valid arguments supporting a claim, rather than merely counting links to a website. By refining this approach, we could harness the power of big data to improve decision-making. What we need is collective, transparent intelligence, not closed, artificial intelligence.

Imagine a system where we assign scores to various elements, thereby building conclusion validity from evidence validity. These could include:Linkage scores, addressing the relevance of evidence to a conclusion,

• Uniqueness scores, indicating the lack of redundancy,
• Data validity scores, addressing verification,
• Logical validity scores,
• Bias-free scores.

This could provide a solution to life's most pressing challenges. Rational collective thinking necessitates the dissection, evaluation, and scoring of arguments. We can't begin to address our problems without this process.

Transparent, collective cost-benefit analysis is the key to avoiding major catastrophes such as wars, artificial intelligence threats, global warming, extinction events from comets, supernovae, and super-volcanoes.

As it stands, our public policy is declining in intelligence. We're filtering all our decisions through our limited attention spans, compounded by the demands of our full-time jobs. We must embrace the complexity of these issues and start working towards solutions.

Should Marco Rubio Be Our Next President? An Examination

Pros of a Rubio Presidency

1. Economic Stewardship: Critics argue that Democrats haven't efficiently balanced the deficit. Rubio has proposed fiscal policies aimed at reducing government expenditure, potentially reducing the deficit.

2. Incentives for Success: Some believe that Rubio's policies favor the successful and discourage wasteful spending, promoting economic growth.

3. Diversification of the Presidency: Having the first Hispanic Republican president could disrupt patterns of racial party alliance and stimulate balanced representation across parties.

4. Family Values: Rubio, a father of four, could bring a family-oriented perspective to his presidency.

Cons of a Rubio Presidency

1. Lack of Executive Experience: Rubio served as a Senator, but critics argue that gubernatorial experience could better prepare a candidate for the presidency.

2. Leadership Questions: Some critics question whether Rubio has demonstrated leadership on major issues.

Further Exploration

For more in-depth discussion and exploration of political and social issues, visit our main sites: Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +14

# of reasons to disagree: -2

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +3

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +15

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

===============================================================

Images

Images that agree: +

Images that disagree: -

1. Leave a comment with a link to a photo, and I'll add it. 

===============================================================

Websites That Might Agree:

1. The National Review
2. The American Conservative
3. The Daily Wire
4. The Federalist
5. Republican National Committee

Websites That Might Disagree:

1. The Democratic National Committee
2. Mother Jones
3. HuffPost Politics
4. The Intercept
5. ThinkProgress

===============================================================

Videos

Videos That agree: +

Videos That disagree: -

1. Leave a comment so I can add a reason.

===============================================================

Interest

Valid Interest of those who agree: +

1. Judicial Balance: Supporters may desire a more balanced judiciary. They believe that after periods of liberal influence, a shift towards a conservative viewpoint is needed to maintain equilibrium.
2. Fiscal Responsibility: Supporters are concerned about the national debt and its potential impacts on future generations. They trust in Rubio's proposed fiscal policies to tackle this issue effectively.
3. Strong Bipartisanship: Supporters value a robust two-party system, arguing that political diversity is key to a healthy democracy. They see Rubio's potential candidacy as contributing to this dynamic.
4. Diversity in Leadership: Supporters believe that leadership should reflect the nation's diversity. They see potential in candidates like Rubio to represent various communities within the country.
5. Nominee Considerations: Some supporters might be deliberating over potential Republican nominees, based on their policy platforms and potential to draw a diverse electorate. They may be comparing Rubio's suitability with other potential candidates in the current political context.

Valid Interest of those who disagree: -

1. 
   

Common Valid Interest:

1. Economic Stability: Supporters and critics alike share a common interest in avoiding hyperinflation. They agree on the need for economic policies that promote stability and growth.

2. Preparedness: Everyone desires a government that is well-prepared to handle national and international challenges. This includes everything from economic crises to public health emergencies.

Opposing Valid Interest:

1. Fiscal Awareness: Critics might argue for a more detailed understanding of the nation's fiscal situation. They might feel that current policies are steering the country towards a "fiscal cliff" of unsustainable debt.

2. Problem Recognition: Critics might also desire a more straightforward acknowledgment of the nation's problems, rather than denying or downplaying them. They may believe in confronting these issues head-on, with comprehensive plans and proactive policies.

===============================================================

Podcast

Podcast that agree: +

1. http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Politics/Conservative-Politics

Podcast that disagree: -

1. http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Politics/Liberal-Politics

===============================================================

Experts

Unbiased Experts who agree: +

1. Paul Ryan, Former Speaker of the House and economic policy expert.
2. Condoleezza Rice, Former Secretary of State and political scientist.

Unbiased Experts who disagree: -

1. Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator and expert on bankruptcy law.
2. Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate economist.

===============================================================

Books

Books that agree: +

1. "The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea" by Paul Ryan.
2. "American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone" by Marco Rubio.

Books that  disagree: -

1. "Our Time Is Now: Power, Purpose, and the Fight for a Fair America" by Stacey Abrams.
2. "The Fight for Fifteen: The Right Wage for a Working America" by David Rolf.

===============================================================

Miscellaneous

Related arguments:

Websites That Might Agree:

1. The National Review
2. The American Conservative
3. The Daily Wire
4. The Federalist
5. Republican National Committee

Websites That Might Disagree:

1. The Democratic National Committee
2. Mother Jones
3. HuffPost Politics
4. The Intercept
5. ThinkProgress

a) Fundamental beliefs or principles one must reject to also reject this belief:

Pro: To support Marco Rubio as president, you may have to reject beliefs in:

1. Progressive economic policies.
2. Universal healthcare as a right.
3. Green New Deal or equivalent radical environmental measures.

Con: To reject Rubio as president, you may have to reject beliefs in:

1. Conservative economic policies.
2. Limited government intervention.
3. Traditional Republican stances on social issues.

b) Alternate expressions of this belief:

Pro: #Rubio2024, #MarcoForPresident, #RubioRevolution

Con: #NotMyCandidate, #AnyoneButRubio, #NoToRubio

c) Criteria to demonstrate the strength or weakness of this belief:

1. Policy positions and track record: Does Rubio’s stance align with your beliefs?
2. Leadership ability: Can Rubio effectively lead and make tough decisions?
3. Popular opinion: What do polls say about Rubio's chances?

d) Shared interests or values with potential dissenters:

1. Economic prosperity.
2. National security.
3. Quality education for all.

e) Key differences or obstacles:

1. Economic Policy: Progressive versus conservative.
2. Social Issues: Liberal versus traditional.
3. Foreign Policy: Interventionist versus non-interventionist.

f) Strategies for dialogue:

1. Hosting town halls for open discussions.
2. Encouraging respectful debate on social media.
3. Promoting evidence-based discussions over ideological beliefs.

g) Key resources to understand this topic:

1. Marco Rubio's Senate voting record.
2. Rubio's book "American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone."
3. Analysis of Rubio's policy proposals by independent think tanks.
4. Public opinion polls on Rubio's candidacy.

To further delve into pro/con analysis and collective intelligence, visit my platforms: Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange.