Report Blog Entry
in my how to stop being terminally online post, i realized that i forgot to include an important facet - not engaging with sensationalist posts and headlines. campaigns for internet literacy often don't go into the detail or touch on all the tings i wish they did, so i wrote a list of tips myself.
- don't just read the headline.
- when seeing any post or news article, ask yourself what the op/author is trying to accomplish by posting it.
- fact check sites can be a good place to start, but some, like snopes, may be at the mercy of someone else - in snopes's case, advertisers and corporate executives. don't rely on them to do all your work for you.
- when seeing a post that seems to confirm something you agree with, do the same fact-checking routine as you would for something you wouldn't agree with. doubly so if a post makes you feel something immediately as you read it.
- never like, repost, or react to something before looking into it yourself.
- if you see something like a video or a picture that corroborates your views, it may be fake or taken out of context. look around to make sure that you're getting the whole story.
- remember that an entire world and points of view outside of the country or community you're a part of exist.
- don't do research with the intention of finding an answer. it's likely more complicated than it's made out to be. in general, never be satisfied with easy answers.
- proprietary search engines manipulate search results. try using something like searx, an open-source, non-tracking, and self-hostable search engine that aggregates from several others. not all searx instances yield the same results, and searx isn't a perfect solution. ultimately, looking for good sources is something you have to take on yourself and without the aid of an algorithm.
- check to see to whom the news agency, account, or study you're fact checking belongs. these are often funded by a particular company or government. they likely have an agenda of their own and are hesitant to release information that conflicts with it.
- a particular group or person having a particular bias doesn't mean that they or anything they say are inherently "wrong" or "right". the validity of their claims is something you can only determine from fact-checking. you will only get the full picture if you understand who is saying what and why.
- just because something is on a graph doesn't mean that it's accurate. graphs online can often be misinterpretations of the studies they're sourced from, outdated, from an inaccurate or disproven study, or leaving out particular, important components of the data. ask yourself what story a graph is trying to tell, check it, and cross-check it.
- don't read things you disagree with in bad faith. this means not skimming something, searching specifically for things you think are stupid or harmful. go along with them. you can only really disprove something if you understand how proponents of it think of it. (and no, this doesn't mean you're obligated to "debate" anyone.)
- be wary of anything that seems like "secret knowledge". it's especially tantalizing to believe that we're being let in on something that we're not supposed to know because it makes us feel important and better than others. if something like this is true, it will most likely be corroborated somewhat by the "other side".
- for these same reasons, check to see if something telling you to "think for yourself" is advocating for or biased towards specific viewpoints. (this includes me.) they want you to "think for yourself" in the way they approve of.
- be wary of things that blame a specific group, demographic, or phenomenon on an issue rather than or without the mention of specific individuals. these sorts of insinuations, when they target us, prey on our need to belong and to find easy answers to multifaceted or complicated problems.
- be wary of anything that feels like revenge or gives you petty satisfaction. this is likely done for the sake of your clicking on it and reacting to it, is most likely not the entire truth, and it may be exposing someone to public ridicule that it would be best not to have to face.
- be wary of anything that makes it sound like the situation - any situation - is hopeless. this sort of tactic maintains systems. it ignores people who are actively trying to improve something and takes advantage of people's gaps in knowledge. if you think this, it most likely isn't true.
for further reading, newslit.org is a great american non-profit focusing on promoting internet and news literacy. it can be pretty america-centric, so if you're not english-speaking and/or american, be sure to check for similar websites based in your country/native language.
Comments
Displaying 0 of 0 comments ( View all | Add Comment )