I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while misinformation is doing damage right this second.
The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I think of is that when presented with a table full of junk food, its hard to get people to pay attention to the veggie platter.
This study[1] indicates more success could be had with a new narrative that doesn't just refute the misinformation, but crafts a new narrative with additional information that can dislodge the other one, like a flank attack instead a head on one. Anecdotally I've seen that work and I've also been guilty of the lazy head on approach and seen it fail.
The explanation is in the first sentence: "Early data indicate a year-on-year 14% jump in fatality rates per distance driven in March, the document by the National Safety Council (NSC) says."
The number of deaths is down, but the deaths per mile are up.
How do you know that it was a brown recluse? I'm not disputing, I'm just wondering if it was assumed based on the injury or if you were able to find the actual spider.
I've had discussions with coworkers and friends about this issue and similar issues where there is a lot of moral ambiguity but a lot less academic ambiguity - we basically know what works and doesn't work but what does work is not morally acceptable to about half the country. It is super frustrating to a lot of us because there doesn't seem to be a way to reach them, they can change their minds but only when they are personally affected by the issue but it doesn't seem to then spread much to their peers.
To paraphrase one conversation that reminded me a lot of the larger national conversation "I play by the rules, why shouldn't everyone else?". It didn't matter that punishment didn't help or in a lot of cases, was costing them more and having worse outcomes, the larger (and to me, more trivial) moral and emotional argument won out.
This is one of my favorite Arthur C Clark books. What makes his books so interesting is that the technology aspects are very much sidelined by the human aspects. I don't think it appeals as much to people who enjoy hard sci-fi with a lot of jargon but I've always loved how interesting technological ideas are almost used offhandedly as plot devices but the real story is always the people (even if his concepts for the technology are groundbreaking to the reader or to the field at large).
I feel the same thing about renewable energy and climate change - a top down approach could have such massive impact, but a bottom up approach is so difficult. There are thousands of groups (there are literally a dozen probably coordinating together in my mid sized city alone) all trying to do the same work from the bottom up and on the ground with churches, local governments, individuals etc but it requires so much pressure and buy in from your average citizen to get anything done that way.
Source? People tend to put much more thoughtful words in his mouth after the fact trying to make what he says seem more reasonable, but if you have a source I'd gladly review it.
In the meantime, politifact has a good breakdown of what he says about the issue and where the numbers come from (spoiler, they make some wild assumptions) [1].
I'm hesitant to give Obama credit, but I think Trump claiming that the unemployment rate was 30, 40, 50% during the election and immediately taking credit for the unemployment numbers in january 2017 was so disingenuous that it truly boggles the mind. Anyone that gives Trump credit for the current trajectory of unemployment numbers is beyond the pale.
Giving Obama credit to me is at the very least questionable - things were at rock bottom, they could almost only go up (and I supported Obama). There are so few absolutes to hold on to in terms of economic indicators for the layperson, but its hard to see how the Obama years were an economic catastrophe, and unfortunately we'll never know what the effect of a larger stimulus might have been (or no stimulus for that matter).
Not to mention how unpopular this is with his evangelical supporters (which is to say, 80+% of all evangelicals), private prison companies, etc.
This won't happen, this is the kind of thing he throws out there and walks back or just forgets about. He gets the benefit of giving someone a moment of "hey, thats pretty reasonable!" that might stick with them, despite the fact that there is almost no way he'll maintain that position or ever do anything to achieve it.
Thats great, but it only saved him money because it washed up right on his shore. It saves a small farmer money to let their cows graze on lush green pastures that they need to keep eaten down anyways but that doesn't mean that letting cows graze on lush pastures saves the industry money overall. In general its going to cost more more than likely to get seaweed into the supply chain. Its a race to the bottom, it has to be cheaper than subsidized corn which almost nothing is.
Thats crazy, that depends entirely on people being able to afford to pay more for the same basic product. What economics would indicate that this would happen?
You can get antibiotic free meat from whole foods etc, but what do you think is consumed at higher quantities?
If its purely up to buyers choice, it will not happen unless there is a cost associated with carbon output.
Serious question, what incentive is there for this to be done on a large scale by anyone?
The EPA is being systematically dismantled and the official line of the government (or at least, those in charge of the government) is that climate change is not man made. If it is just a natural process, how could our food systems have any impact on it?
I can't imagine how this wouldn't add at least some costs to feed prices, and my guess is farmers are operating on razor thin margins already. Without some government regulations that put a price on greenhouse gasses why would anyone implement this except on boutique scales?
I don't think the democratic party has a hold over the African American voting block in so much as it has been the only real choice for them for the last 40 or 50 years (unless you have Stockholm syndrome that is). Couple that with the increase in leadership roles and overall candidates and the democratic party is becoming more representative by the day. This results in more and better legislation targeting the issues of black Americans.
Contrast that with the republican party, how well are poor whites represented in the party (aside from near-constant lip service)?
Having "control" over cities does not mean being able to cancel out systemic racism and discrimination. That doesn't mean I give the left a pass, but it has been a constant fight to make progress of any kind, especially given that cities don't often have the resources to deal with systemic issues. Cities are on the front line of these issues doing symptom relief (affordable housing, homelessness etc). It often requires legislation to tackle systemic issues, like redlining[0].
To compound that, a lot of urban areas that are "controlled by the left" are at the mercy of their state governments for a lot of funding and the ability to make major changes. Some states are disallowing their cities from enforcing their own minimum wage increases while also enshrining discrimination as legal.
Expecting cities to be able to take on a national issue stemming from the enslavement of millions of people and the subsequent economic subjugation of said people is like expecting developers to be able to take on decades old technical debt while completing their day to day work.
The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I think of is that when presented with a table full of junk food, its hard to get people to pay attention to the veggie platter.
This study[1] indicates more success could be had with a new narrative that doesn't just refute the misinformation, but crafts a new narrative with additional information that can dislodge the other one, like a flank attack instead a head on one. Anecdotally I've seen that work and I've also been guilty of the lazy head on approach and seen it fail.
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134904.h...