You may have been right 5 years ago but it's time to wake up. As a gay PhD, I've found the YouTube full of long form conversations and insights that have long disappeared from the mainstream press, or whatever I can call it without sounding silly. The gatekeepers have kept out cogent, reasoned, critical debate and I've been horrified about this for years. I had students stick solely to reading newspapers for class assignments and my own consumption of TV news is down to practically nil. So, even though there is still risk of falling down rabbit holes with YouTube, there's an even better chance that people are finding better reporting and discussion than TV has produced in some time.
This argument makes some sense, but the problem is that our Covid response has shown that the "expert" class is clearly willing and able to intentionally lie, mislead, and delude itself en masse in order to conform with uninformed and just plain wrong opinions that they see in mass media or hear from politicians, so long as they see a personal professional or public political goal in doing so.
Where does that leave us, epistemologically? In deep trouble, frankly. True radical skepticism, while warranted, is tough to sustain.
Poilievre may well be wrong, but at least he, unlike MacDougall, knows there's a problem.
1. PP watches YouTube channel to learn about Crypto. Said YT channel has criticized central banking and has spoken about topics the writer has decided are conspiracy theories. Therefore PP is a bad person and should not be CPC leader.
2. Gatekeepers curate knowledge and report on current events. The writer does not want to put in the effort to learn about things by himself, so the mainstream press does the work for him. Therefore, gatekeepers are Good. PP is BAD.
3. Only peer reviewed knowledge appearing in gatekept publications are approved sources for information. Everything else is fake news. Therefore EXPERTS are good. PP is bad.
Did I say the writer wants you to know that PP is bad?
Seriously though, what is happening here? I thought the whole idea behind The Line was to remove the idea of gatekeeper from reporting and get perspectives and information that would otherwise not be published in mainstream press. But this is just a plain hit job on Poilievre. Isn't the mainstream press doing enough of these hit jobs on Poilievre?
The internet is a mostly unregulated information marketplace. That's both its strength and (increasingly) its weakness. I'm sometimes shocked at the clearly fraudulent advertising served up via social, including an ad on YouTube for a phone charger that apparently can make your smartphone defeat the 'planned obsolesence' built into updates (hint: it won't). That kind of ad wouldn't make it past the 'gatekeepers' in the old media, but it slips throught the cracks (at least for a while) in automated systems like social media.
And, that's just the ads!
The problem is that the digital realm is getting really noisy with crap information, which makes finding useful stuff harder and harder. Which in turn reduces the utility of the internet. And, it also seems to be hurting civil society. But, as the Liberal government is discovering, regulating the internet without violating people's freedom of expression is a lot harder than it sounds!
The best solution would be for all of us to become a lot more media savvy; to think about who is providing information online (if they are identifiable, and if they aren't, start wondering why) and what their motivations might be. A smarter population is harder to fool and social media really responds to us -- what we engage with. If we get smarter, the crap will stop getting eyeballs.
What we have today isn't sustainable, though. Either we find ways for people to be personally accountable for posting lies, crap and scams, or eventually we'll all slowly start to tune out of the digital realm (or become far more selective at what we engage with).
This last decade has seen three things: journalists have been laid off in huge numbers. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of venom shown toward them and thirdly they are expected to provide timely accurate information via tweets, newspaper stories. I am a strong believer in good journalism - why I pay for three subscriptions. Journalists play an incredibly important role in the face of shrinking pay and animosity
I am tired of hearing people complain in a generic way about journalists. I agree 100% with Mr. MacDougall.
Lets just say that the peer-reviewed information today is not what it used to be. It is, as the Corporate and Government Financed Media is, an outlet for the ideological dogma of the Government and its Corporate allies. Peer reviewed means, people funded by the government agree with each other for an intended purpose. Science is no longer science as that too has been corrupted due to funding by the very same sources.
They have proven to be untrustworthy as have all the Institutions who recieve funding from or are connected to the Government of Canada. Even the banks have lost credibility for the same reasons. That is why bitcoin and Crypto are popular as they are not controlled by the greedy elites. I would think, due to its popularity with many people, along with other trusted news sources, that these same people are aiding in the demise of both. Hense the crash of the crypto world and the need to silence all those other voices. The truth shall be what they say it is and you will repeat it whether you believe it or not.
First of all, PePo has been talking about a LOT of other things besides crypto and the Bank of Canada - it is HARDLY a 'jihad'.
The massive overreaction of the punditry to some fairly non-controversial ad lib comments Mr Poilievre has made (literally hundreds of articles arising from an off the cuff one-liner) tells me that he has struck a nerve.
...and in someone who is actively running to become Opposition Leader, perhaps someday even Prime Minister, isn't this EXACTLY the goal?
What? Did you expect him to run for this position by agreeing with everything currently being done?
When Trudeau was in this exact same position, he said MANY outrageous things, many of which he later backtracked on. I don't recall him being raked over the coals for it - in fact I'm fairly certain he was hailed for thinking fresh thoughts....
Overall, this strikes me as a very sensible piece.
Whereby I mean, the point that partisanship whether it's being for or against, crypto, Youtube, Poilievre, A, B or C, needs to be based upon a sound social process of evaluation and adjudication.
Why? Because truth is a social product requiring sustained human labour. Not magical thinking and narcissistic self-assertion. Our truth-producing social processes are under pressure from two sides, the proliferation of opinion-makers and influencers of online media megaphones (the rabbit holes of partisan ideology), and on the other, the deterioration of public social organizations that might invest in sustained, quality research (the ideal of traditional gatekeepers). Science is the model of truth-making, if not always the example. Politics? Of ideology and megaphones?
It remains unclear how or if this tension will resolve itself in a manner beneficial to the human species. The world is becoming increasingly more complex with ever-increasing stress points, with mobs chasing delusions and gatekeepers hiding in bunkers, each of which seem like dead-end solutions to sustainable human progress.
Do we need a sensible re-invention of our politics to find more stable, reality-based consensuses? Can media manage to distill information from misinformation and disinformation? Of course, as in all things, death is the final arbiter. What survives, is true! (Clearly reflecting an evolutionary ideological bias here.)
Would a "ferret hole" be the one you go down to find rabbit-hunters? This is written, not video, bu is the best takedown of crypto myths I've seen so far:
It doesn't matter whether it's video, or cable TV news that repeats and repeats and repeats the same hyped-up story (45 pieces on the "New Black Panthers"; heard of them, lately?), or the "9/11 Truther" text web sites that existed years before YouTube was invented. You either keep reinforcing the same story in your head, or you go *looking* for countervailing information, see if it holds up. "Science" is what it is, because it goes looking for contradictions.
In a nod to the right wing, let me recommend Jonathan Kay's "Among the Truthers", a whole book on conspiracy theorists. They have clear markers, and Poiliviere doesn't match. He's cynically using conspiracy theories for electoral purposes, but I don't think he believes them.
Over the years I have enjoyed Andrew's writing, even when his role as a pr flak for Harper had me shouting at my computer. His stances have moderated recently to where I often find myself in agreement with his columns.
Given Andrew MacDougall's political provenance, does this critical piece suggest that Harperites are backing away from former cabinet minister PP as a viable leader?
Trust. We've had our trust in institutions betrayed again and again, so we reach for something that we feel we can trust, knowing the risk we take. Sure there's lots of trash on YouTube, but there's plenty of trash on every newsstand. We just need to be mindful of what we're consuming, and assume there's a spectrum of truth in everything.
Bitcoin is interesting tech, and agreed, it's not a viable investment or stable medium of exchange, but how bad has our trust in modern currencies gotten to make it even remotely trustworthy?
Why, in every leadership election, the CPC winds up shooting itself in the foot? The purpose of a political party is to win elections. It has no other purpose. Choosing a leader who promotes air-supported "fintech" just before the air was sucked out of the balloon is setting the CPC for yet another pratfall in 2025, or whenever even Trudeau has had his fill of Singh.
You may have been right 5 years ago but it's time to wake up. As a gay PhD, I've found the YouTube full of long form conversations and insights that have long disappeared from the mainstream press, or whatever I can call it without sounding silly. The gatekeepers have kept out cogent, reasoned, critical debate and I've been horrified about this for years. I had students stick solely to reading newspapers for class assignments and my own consumption of TV news is down to practically nil. So, even though there is still risk of falling down rabbit holes with YouTube, there's an even better chance that people are finding better reporting and discussion than TV has produced in some time.
This argument makes some sense, but the problem is that our Covid response has shown that the "expert" class is clearly willing and able to intentionally lie, mislead, and delude itself en masse in order to conform with uninformed and just plain wrong opinions that they see in mass media or hear from politicians, so long as they see a personal professional or public political goal in doing so.
Where does that leave us, epistemologically? In deep trouble, frankly. True radical skepticism, while warranted, is tough to sustain.
Poilievre may well be wrong, but at least he, unlike MacDougall, knows there's a problem.
Here is the TLDR:
1. PP watches YouTube channel to learn about Crypto. Said YT channel has criticized central banking and has spoken about topics the writer has decided are conspiracy theories. Therefore PP is a bad person and should not be CPC leader.
2. Gatekeepers curate knowledge and report on current events. The writer does not want to put in the effort to learn about things by himself, so the mainstream press does the work for him. Therefore, gatekeepers are Good. PP is BAD.
3. Only peer reviewed knowledge appearing in gatekept publications are approved sources for information. Everything else is fake news. Therefore EXPERTS are good. PP is bad.
Did I say the writer wants you to know that PP is bad?
Seriously though, what is happening here? I thought the whole idea behind The Line was to remove the idea of gatekeeper from reporting and get perspectives and information that would otherwise not be published in mainstream press. But this is just a plain hit job on Poilievre. Isn't the mainstream press doing enough of these hit jobs on Poilievre?
The internet is a mostly unregulated information marketplace. That's both its strength and (increasingly) its weakness. I'm sometimes shocked at the clearly fraudulent advertising served up via social, including an ad on YouTube for a phone charger that apparently can make your smartphone defeat the 'planned obsolesence' built into updates (hint: it won't). That kind of ad wouldn't make it past the 'gatekeepers' in the old media, but it slips throught the cracks (at least for a while) in automated systems like social media.
And, that's just the ads!
The problem is that the digital realm is getting really noisy with crap information, which makes finding useful stuff harder and harder. Which in turn reduces the utility of the internet. And, it also seems to be hurting civil society. But, as the Liberal government is discovering, regulating the internet without violating people's freedom of expression is a lot harder than it sounds!
The best solution would be for all of us to become a lot more media savvy; to think about who is providing information online (if they are identifiable, and if they aren't, start wondering why) and what their motivations might be. A smarter population is harder to fool and social media really responds to us -- what we engage with. If we get smarter, the crap will stop getting eyeballs.
What we have today isn't sustainable, though. Either we find ways for people to be personally accountable for posting lies, crap and scams, or eventually we'll all slowly start to tune out of the digital realm (or become far more selective at what we engage with).
This last decade has seen three things: journalists have been laid off in huge numbers. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of venom shown toward them and thirdly they are expected to provide timely accurate information via tweets, newspaper stories. I am a strong believer in good journalism - why I pay for three subscriptions. Journalists play an incredibly important role in the face of shrinking pay and animosity
I am tired of hearing people complain in a generic way about journalists. I agree 100% with Mr. MacDougall.
Lets just say that the peer-reviewed information today is not what it used to be. It is, as the Corporate and Government Financed Media is, an outlet for the ideological dogma of the Government and its Corporate allies. Peer reviewed means, people funded by the government agree with each other for an intended purpose. Science is no longer science as that too has been corrupted due to funding by the very same sources.
They have proven to be untrustworthy as have all the Institutions who recieve funding from or are connected to the Government of Canada. Even the banks have lost credibility for the same reasons. That is why bitcoin and Crypto are popular as they are not controlled by the greedy elites. I would think, due to its popularity with many people, along with other trusted news sources, that these same people are aiding in the demise of both. Hense the crash of the crypto world and the need to silence all those other voices. The truth shall be what they say it is and you will repeat it whether you believe it or not.
First of all, PePo has been talking about a LOT of other things besides crypto and the Bank of Canada - it is HARDLY a 'jihad'.
The massive overreaction of the punditry to some fairly non-controversial ad lib comments Mr Poilievre has made (literally hundreds of articles arising from an off the cuff one-liner) tells me that he has struck a nerve.
...and in someone who is actively running to become Opposition Leader, perhaps someday even Prime Minister, isn't this EXACTLY the goal?
What? Did you expect him to run for this position by agreeing with everything currently being done?
When Trudeau was in this exact same position, he said MANY outrageous things, many of which he later backtracked on. I don't recall him being raked over the coals for it - in fact I'm fairly certain he was hailed for thinking fresh thoughts....
Some of the worlds most informed subject matter experts, as recognized by their peers, are on Youtube.
This column is "The Line" equivalent of Grandpa Simpson yelling at kids.
Pierre wouldn't never have any traction with his messaging if our elites weren't second rate and if our gatekeepers weren't self interested clowns.
Overall, this strikes me as a very sensible piece.
Whereby I mean, the point that partisanship whether it's being for or against, crypto, Youtube, Poilievre, A, B or C, needs to be based upon a sound social process of evaluation and adjudication.
Why? Because truth is a social product requiring sustained human labour. Not magical thinking and narcissistic self-assertion. Our truth-producing social processes are under pressure from two sides, the proliferation of opinion-makers and influencers of online media megaphones (the rabbit holes of partisan ideology), and on the other, the deterioration of public social organizations that might invest in sustained, quality research (the ideal of traditional gatekeepers). Science is the model of truth-making, if not always the example. Politics? Of ideology and megaphones?
It remains unclear how or if this tension will resolve itself in a manner beneficial to the human species. The world is becoming increasingly more complex with ever-increasing stress points, with mobs chasing delusions and gatekeepers hiding in bunkers, each of which seem like dead-end solutions to sustainable human progress.
Do we need a sensible re-invention of our politics to find more stable, reality-based consensuses? Can media manage to distill information from misinformation and disinformation? Of course, as in all things, death is the final arbiter. What survives, is true! (Clearly reflecting an evolutionary ideological bias here.)
Don't read this article! It's merely on the internet, not a gatekept media source! You might do a misinformation!
Would a "ferret hole" be the one you go down to find rabbit-hunters? This is written, not video, bu is the best takedown of crypto myths I've seen so far:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/05/why-this-computer-scientist-says-all-cryptocurrency-should-die-in-a-fire
It doesn't matter whether it's video, or cable TV news that repeats and repeats and repeats the same hyped-up story (45 pieces on the "New Black Panthers"; heard of them, lately?), or the "9/11 Truther" text web sites that existed years before YouTube was invented. You either keep reinforcing the same story in your head, or you go *looking* for countervailing information, see if it holds up. "Science" is what it is, because it goes looking for contradictions.
In a nod to the right wing, let me recommend Jonathan Kay's "Among the Truthers", a whole book on conspiracy theorists. They have clear markers, and Poiliviere doesn't match. He's cynically using conspiracy theories for electoral purposes, but I don't think he believes them.
In short, a ruthless liar, not an idiot.
Over the years I have enjoyed Andrew's writing, even when his role as a pr flak for Harper had me shouting at my computer. His stances have moderated recently to where I often find myself in agreement with his columns.
Given Andrew MacDougall's political provenance, does this critical piece suggest that Harperites are backing away from former cabinet minister PP as a viable leader?
Trust. We've had our trust in institutions betrayed again and again, so we reach for something that we feel we can trust, knowing the risk we take. Sure there's lots of trash on YouTube, but there's plenty of trash on every newsstand. We just need to be mindful of what we're consuming, and assume there's a spectrum of truth in everything.
Bitcoin is interesting tech, and agreed, it's not a viable investment or stable medium of exchange, but how bad has our trust in modern currencies gotten to make it even remotely trustworthy?
Why, in every leadership election, the CPC winds up shooting itself in the foot? The purpose of a political party is to win elections. It has no other purpose. Choosing a leader who promotes air-supported "fintech" just before the air was sucked out of the balloon is setting the CPC for yet another pratfall in 2025, or whenever even Trudeau has had his fill of Singh.
I am uninspired by all the leadership candidates. 4 more years of Trudeau... sigh.