I think teaching people how to spot actual fake news, think critically, etc. is wonderful. Hard to imagine it working in the US though. Especially when the term "fake news" was hijacked by Trump...
I think teaching people how to spot actual fake news, think critically, etc. is wonderful. Hard to imagine it working in the US though. Especially when the term "fake news" was hijacked by Trump and turned into meaning anything that shows him or the GOP in a negative light. There's been solid evidence of Russian meddling in 2016 for a while now, but you'll still get eye rolls from Republicans (mostly older ones in my experience), who dismiss it as some liberal Trump-bashing attempt. These are the people who need to learn think critically the most, but they're too content being told what to think by Fox News and random (very likely Russian-tied) meme factories on social media.
That's fair, however I think just even teaching students to be skeptical of what they hear and especially why and how someone could influence them via rhetoric can be very powerful. I feel like...
That's fair, however I think just even teaching students to be skeptical of what they hear and especially why and how someone could influence them via rhetoric can be very powerful. I feel like even just starting with the you today could reap us rewards later on. Honestly I think one thing the article pointed out as well is how much the Finns read. It seems at least from the article that they have fostered a culture of people digesting and discussing ideas, something that sadly seems to be a bit on the wayside here in the states.
I absolutely agree. It just feels like older generations of a certain mindset are a lost cause and that's a shame. Sometimes folks can see through the bullshit when they're in the thick of it, but...
I absolutely agree. It just feels like older generations of a certain mindset are a lost cause and that's a shame. Sometimes folks can see through the bullshit when they're in the thick of it, but it doesn't seem like most can. But educating students now is a great way to avoid repeating that mistake. Also, I think folks who grew up (or will grow up) with the internet stand a far better chance of filtering through the BS than those who had it thrust upon them later on in life.
Meta: l think it's better to add a little descriptive bit to the title of what the article about, as opposed to only using the current rather vague and clickbaity title.
Meta: l think it's better to add a little descriptive bit to the title of what the article about, as opposed to only using the current rather vague and clickbaity title.
can we please, please stop with calling every vaguely or poorly-worded title clickbait? this is a consistent problem i'm seeing now and it's kinda irritating because it really devalues what...
can we please, please stop with calling every vaguely or poorly-worded title clickbait? this is a consistent problem i'm seeing now and it's kinda irritating because it really devalues what clickbait is or is not. is it a bad title? sure, i would agree with that--but a bad title does not clickbait make. other western democracies are literally working with finland to emulate their model because it seemingly works, which is something the article describes and which backs up the point the title seems to make:
Perhaps the biggest sign that Finland is winning the war on fake news is the fact that other countries are seeking to copy its blueprint. Representatives from a slew of EU states, along with Singapore, have come to learn from Finland’s approach to the problem.
The race is on to figure out a fix after authorities linked Russian groups to misinformation campaigns targeting Catalonia’s independence referendum and Brexit, as well as recent votes in France and Germany. Germany has already put a law in place to fine tech platforms that fail to remove “obviously illegal” hate speech, while France passed a law last year that bans fake news on the internet during election campaigns. Some critics have argued that both pieces of legislation jeopardize free speech. Russia denied interference in all of these instances.
Finland’s strategy was on public display ahead of last month’s national elections, in an advertising campaign that ran under the slogan “Finland has the world’s best elections – think about why” and encouraged citizens to think about fake news.
Officials didn’t see any evidence of Russian interference in the vote, which Toivanen says may be a sign that trolls have stopped thinking of the Finnish electorate as a soft target.
maybe you should try reading the article, then, and then try rereading my comment. the article answers your point, and my comment is specifically about how western democracies are flocking to...
maybe you should try reading the article, then, and then try rereading my comment. the article answers your point, and my comment is specifically about how western democracies are flocking to emulate finland's model because it works (i.e. there is merit to the idea that it may be crucial to western democracy because fake news is a massive issue), not about what finland learned or did not learn.
When you introduced the quote with, among things, saying "their model seemingly works" I just figured the quote would have contained what the model is. And since it didn't I figured I...
When you introduced the quote with, among things, saying "their model seemingly works" I just figured the quote would have contained what the model is. And since it didn't I figured I misunderstood something and that the article also didn't contain that information.
I feel like @asoftbird still has a point with their comment. A little descriptive bit is still valuable for people like me who do not care enough about the subject to read an entire article, but still care just a little bit - enough to read a descriptive bit. Nothing to lose from having those as a comment from the OP, in my opinion :)
I think teaching people how to spot actual fake news, think critically, etc. is wonderful. Hard to imagine it working in the US though. Especially when the term "fake news" was hijacked by Trump and turned into meaning anything that shows him or the GOP in a negative light. There's been solid evidence of Russian meddling in 2016 for a while now, but you'll still get eye rolls from Republicans (mostly older ones in my experience), who dismiss it as some liberal Trump-bashing attempt. These are the people who need to learn think critically the most, but they're too content being told what to think by Fox News and random (very likely Russian-tied) meme factories on social media.
That's fair, however I think just even teaching students to be skeptical of what they hear and especially why and how someone could influence them via rhetoric can be very powerful. I feel like even just starting with the you today could reap us rewards later on. Honestly I think one thing the article pointed out as well is how much the Finns read. It seems at least from the article that they have fostered a culture of people digesting and discussing ideas, something that sadly seems to be a bit on the wayside here in the states.
I absolutely agree. It just feels like older generations of a certain mindset are a lost cause and that's a shame. Sometimes folks can see through the bullshit when they're in the thick of it, but it doesn't seem like most can. But educating students now is a great way to avoid repeating that mistake. Also, I think folks who grew up (or will grow up) with the internet stand a far better chance of filtering through the BS than those who had it thrust upon them later on in life.
Meta: l think it's better to add a little descriptive bit to the title of what the article about, as opposed to only using the current rather vague and clickbaity title.
can we please, please stop with calling every vaguely or poorly-worded title clickbait? this is a consistent problem i'm seeing now and it's kinda irritating because it really devalues what clickbait is or is not. is it a bad title? sure, i would agree with that--but a bad title does not clickbait make. other western democracies are literally working with finland to emulate their model because it seemingly works, which is something the article describes and which backs up the point the title seems to make:
Nowhere in that quote does it say what they're doing/have done. I must be dense because I have no clue what Finland learnt lol
maybe you should try reading the article, then, and then try rereading my comment. the article answers your point, and my comment is specifically about how western democracies are flocking to emulate finland's model because it works (i.e. there is merit to the idea that it may be crucial to western democracy because fake news is a massive issue), not about what finland learned or did not learn.
When you introduced the quote with, among things, saying "their model seemingly works" I just figured the quote would have contained what the model is. And since it didn't I figured I misunderstood something and that the article also didn't contain that information.
I feel like @asoftbird still has a point with their comment. A little descriptive bit is still valuable for people like me who do not care enough about the subject to read an entire article, but still care just a little bit - enough to read a descriptive bit. Nothing to lose from having those as a comment from the OP, in my opinion :)
If you feel strongly about this, make a post in ~tildes so we can discuss it as a Tildes-wide policy, rather than posting a comment on a single story.