Acquiescing - The Un-informed, Mis-informed and being Informed
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
The information age is not what we had all hoped for. We effectively digitized the vast majority of human knowledge and made it freely available to the vast majority of people. The issue now is that we have too much information. The majority of queries have answers in hundreds of different locations on the internet, and the new challenge is “whose information can we trust?”
Delivering the truth is much harder today, than it has ever been in the digital age. Sometimes we are reminded that the “Truth will set us free”. But even this is now harder to define.
There are many issues to address, such as Information Overload, Pollution by Bots, Social Herding, Eco Chamber Affiliation, Rise of Social Bots, and Online Manipulation.
When tackled by a Journalist, I think Denzel Washington said it best, with a familiar line from Mark Twain:
“If you don’t read the newspaper you’re uniformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed.”
“What is the long-term effect of too much information?”
“One of the effects is the need to be first, not even to be true anymore. So, what a responsibility you all have; to tell the truth, not to just be first, but to tell the truth.”
"We live in a society now where it’s just first. Who cares? Get it out there. We don’t care who it hurts, we don’t care who we destroy, we don’t care if it’s true. Just say it, sell it.”
Some would argue that perhaps George Orwell was right all along, that what he envisioned 72 years ago is the dystopia that human society faces now. And whilst there is no one defining figure of Big Brother watching over us, there are several contenders under the remit of social media, multinational technology companies and billionaire owned news outlets and corporations.
Given its breadth and the diversity of stakeholders engaged, misinformation on social media is a real and contentious policy issue. Increased usage of social media, in particular, has made the transmission of misinformation practically ubiquitous. Experts in the field of Social Sciences and Communication are now trying to demonstrate strategies using a preference elicitation methodology to evaluate instruments for detecting misinformation, as well as an integrated decision analytic method for assessing desired aspects of systems for combating misinformation and lies.
Results from various framework tests showed that participants prioritized information on the individuals that spread misinformation and following the life cycle of mis-informative posts, according to the findings. Another crucial consideration was whether or not someone wanted to deceive others, demonstrating a desire for trust, accountability, and quality in journalism for example. It's also vital to consider how misinformation spreads. All factors involving active efforts to combating misinformation, on the other hand, were scored low in significance, indicating that participants may not have been personally invested enough in the issue or situation.
The results also showed differences in preferences for tools that are influenced by cultural background and that might be considered in the further development of tools.
So, let’s take a step back and consider the earlier example of journalism, and why so many in journalism fall short of the mark of publishing facts and the truth.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists, they believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.
The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.
Seek Truth and Report It
Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
Be cautious when making promises but keep the promises they make.
Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
Label advocacy and commentary.
Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
Considering this is just the first pillar of ethical journalism, you can start to see the passive undertaking of those in the profession, and in terms of policing what is published by the general public or amateur advocates of the news and what is to be considered ‘newsworthy’.
Onwards to the second pillar:
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
Here we can see and understand that appropriation in today’s world is no where near the ideals of this pillar. Despite measures taking place both in the public and private sector, regardless of new legislation or the idealism of groups, political or celebrity figures, onboarding to these points globally is almost an impossible undertaking.
Act Independently
The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.
Journalists should:
Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
Refuse gifts, favours, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality or may damage credibility.
Be wary of sources offering information for favours or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
Deny favoured treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
Serving the public, is a moral duty, in recent events of the pandemic, we have had many examples where journalism, both professional or amateur have failed in communicating clearly defined messages to help protect society as the pandemic widened and dramatically changed the fabric of our way of life. But not just journalists, figure heads, heads of government have equally failed in the task of acting independently for the greater good of the general public, rather than their own self-interest.
Be Accountable and Transparent
Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
Journalists should:
Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.
Transparency the very measure of Trust… With public trust in all information sources at record lows globally, the need for news organizations to enhance their credibility through greater transparency is more pressing than ever.
In light of the origins of the Covid-19 Pandemic, China’s Press Freedom Ranking was 177 out of 180. USA as of 2021 stands at 44 out of 180 and the UK is 33 out of 180.
The RSF Reporters Without Borders, have highlighted the following as their reasoning for taking action. “The Internet has become both a popular place for exercising the right to free speech and an essential vehicle for circulating news and information. As some governments try to control the Internet and silence dissidents, RSF defends the position, both at the national level and internationally, that the rights guaranteed offline should also be guaranteed online. RSF also lobbies international bodies in support of net neutrality and against surveillance and carries out specific projects such Operation Collateral Freedom to unblock censored websites.”
Many believe that transparency in news gathering, and publication is crucial to the longevity of traditional news.
When reporters are transparent about their journalistic processes, audiences can see how one piece of news can be more trustworthy than another. Transparency also allows the public to understand the motivation of the publisher, the expertise of the journalist, and the editorial and editing process the piece.
Ralph Keyes stated in his book The Post-Truth Era that the immediate consequence of post-truth is post-veracity. This is due to a lack of faith in public discourse, not because of the substance, which may be accurate and even scientifically verifiable. The mistrust fostered by post-truth is predicated on the possibility that the communication has a hidden aim that the listener does not want. Is this concept accurate in terms of our culture and the way we act in it?
It appears that post-truth can only emerge in times like these, when there is a disparaging attitude toward public discourse because we anticipate information to not convey the entire truth. We may believe that we should avoid becoming dramatic because we continue to consume news and a lot of real content is still available. Large segments of society, on the other hand, feel that truth has lost its value, that it has been decimated, and that it is decaying on the ground.
We may be confused by the idea that truth can be assassinated, yet this is exactly what has happened in terms of its societal value. As a result, the question of post-truth is not irrelevant. The issue, according to Keyes, is that we may be dominated by it and actively engage in it without recognizing it. This might happen as a result of an attitude formed from justifying our own lies, causing us to grow accustomed to living in a world where the truth is discriminated against based on our own personal interests.
This may happen when we don't think about the sources of the news we consume or, in a larger sense, when we turn away from points of view we don't agree with. We sometimes retreat from all of this without pausing to consider how things may be viewed from a different perspective, simply because we don't want to be fooled.
But what of the audience, after all it takes two to tango in the information world, the transmitter and the receiver. So, let’s dive in.
The Uninformed
To put it another way, this group has no idea what it doesn't know. The uninformed simply lack the knowledge required to make informed decisions. A lack of access or interest is frequently the cause. In any case, their ability to contribute is hindered. In certain situations, inane lawsuits, senseless precautions, and the opportunity cost of pursuing other more productive activities cost society time, money, and resources. This group is usually meek, easily influenced, and even self-destructive at times, but they are rarely passionate.
The Misinformed
Of the two groups, the Misinformed is the most dangerous. I use the word "dangerous" because, unlike the uninformed, the misinformed have a propensity to get obsessed with their own ideas, perspectives and opinions. Regrettably, it appears that the uneducated lack conviction, but the misinformed are filled with intense emotion — and, unfortunately, passionate ignorance fosters contempt.
This group adheres to the widely held belief that knowledge equals liberty. Regrettably, they are once again "misinformed." “Information is not knowledge,” as Einstein put it. Only the use of right and precise information leads to freedom.
However, wrong information is more harmful than ignorance since it generates new issues while perpetuating old ones, which explains our alarming propensity of repeating our less than desirable history.
Moving Forward
Unfortunately, time is the only true measure of what constitutes "correct knowledge" in nature, and ignorance always disappoints, forcing us to reconsider our assumptions and information. Unfortunately, this implies that a great deal of unneeded suffering may occur before the truth is revealed. The concept that "good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from faulty judgment," although correct, is also horribly inefficient.
But we can help the truth surface by choosing not to participate in these two groups. Strictly speaking, don’t suffer fools or you’ll become one.
Consider this very simple perspective:
1% control the world.
4% are sell outs and architects of restriction of information and / or disinformation.
90% are blind and asleep, a combination of the uniformed and misinformed.
5% are awake with their eyes wide open to the truth and are well informed.
They are trying to wake up the other 90%, so that they too can be informed.
The 1% doesn’t want the 5% to inform the 90%.
So, they will do anything to stop the 5% by coercing the 4% sell outs who either restrict the flow of information and / or transmit disinformation to keep the 90% blind and oblivious to the truth, thus creating a constant flux of uniformed / misinformed sheep.
So, who are the 5%?
They are the Informed. You wouldn't anticipate these people to be contemptuous intellectuals, professors, journalists, or scientists. Instead, the depth of awareness and humility and or being truly knowledgeable and competent distinguishes them.
While the informed will gladly share their viewpoints, they will not leap to conclusions; they will review their sources; and they will continue to question their views and assumptions about themselves, others, and the society in which they live. This is the type of person the world longs for.
Of course, it's naïve to believe that we won't occasionally find ourselves among the uninformed or misinformed, but you have the option of staying put. The sad reality is that we are the only ones who can challenge our own stupidity. No rule, mandate, or educational institution can impart the required sense of self-awareness and humility to save us from ourselves (both on a personal level and a global scale).
While impartial information may not exist, we may nevertheless pursue a well-rounded education by cultivating an inquiring mindset. Finally, our ability to acknowledge our own ignorance may be the greatest indication of optimism. Awareness is the first step, Staying Awake is the second.
But it possible in this time to stay informed and not be totally overwhelmed?
World events, like the COVID-19 pandemic, can create uncertainty and a feeling of being out-of-control. Collecting information and keeping up with the news can be helpful. But at some point, it can actually be too much of a good thing. Therefore, it’s important, whether we are on social media or regular media channels, that we establish some limits.
Reading accurate, unbiased news sources is important for staying up to date on critical happenings around the world. Shutting yourself off from reality isn’t the solution, but overconsumption of news can push your stress levels into overdrive. So, here’s how to limit your news intake effectively.
For instance: Give yourself permission to step away, Pay attention to your feelings and instincts, Start your day with mindful smartphone use when reading news and information, Where necessary take appropriate action, Find a balance take on board positive news and stories, and finally and most important of all, Remember the power of choice. Its ok to switch off than stay tuned in.
But returning to the individual who has perhaps defined our future, despite the discrepancy of time. One might ask how such a contemporary novel could possibly exercise the same force on future generations when George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in the United Kingdom on June 8, 1949. Commentators anticipated that the book's appeal would fade 35 years later, when the present 1984 finally caught up with Orwell's future and the world was no longer the horror he had depicted. But 37 years later, Nineteen Eighty-Four is still the book we turn to when the truth is distorted, language is skewed, authority is abused, and we want to know how terrible things may go, and how close we are that dystopian nightmare.
It turns out Orwell’s predictions were frighteningly accurate.
Let’s consider the following:
In 1984, the state was the one who decided what was permissible speech in order to keep society in order. In 2021, a tiny group of Silicon Valley-based private businesses and their executives have complete control over what we are allowed to view and say online.
In 1984, the majority of the world's inhabitants belonged to only a few nations. In 2021, the majority of the world's netizens are members of only a handful social media oligopolies.
The state was the one that conducted surveillance and restricted speech in 1984. In 2021, social media corporations employ massive armies of human and computational censors that monitor their users 24 hours a day, identifying individuals who commit thoughtcrimes and removing their posts. Those who commit too many thoughtcrimes are sentenced to "unperson" status or permanently banned by these same private businesses, without any involvement or even in defiance of the state's desire, and with no right of appeal.
Those who committed especially heinous thoughtcrimes or had histories of them were exiled to nonexistence in 1984, with all traces of their existence erased. In 2021, social media corporations have the ability to remove anyone for any reason at any time. Every post they've ever made, every trace of their existence, may be erased if they're kicked out of social media's gated communities. Those who dare to mention the name of the digitally deceased or condemn their exile risk being exiled and having their complaints removed, guaranteeing that the "unperson" actually vanishes.
In 1984, the government is continually rewriting and erasing history that is no longer useful or purposeful. Governments secretly modify press releases in 2021 to delete comments that have shown to be false in the past or to add unreliable or doctored claims to support their current assertions. Meanwhile, the European Union's "Right to be Forgotten" gives regular individuals the power to erase their previous offenses from society's memory, allowing them to be "reborn" without the burden of their mistakes.
In 1984, ubiquitous "telescreens" serve as both an information conduit and a surveillance instrument, saturating both public and private places with government-monitored cameras and microphones. In 2021, smartphones take on the function of serving as both a window into the digital world and a tool for a slew of private firms, ranging from data brokers to social media firms, to monitor our every move. Our society, however, is far from Orwell's, in which every gadget, from watches to refrigerators, thermostats to toasters, is increasingly Internet-connected and transmits a real-time record and document our lives in meticulous detail to these private surveillance empires. Companies like the now defunct Cambridge Analytica whom deceptively employed strategies of harvesting this information and data, with such techniques as audience segmentation, psychographic analysis and behavioral microtargeting to not only predict but to assert influence and coercion on the needs of the individual en masse. So much so that they were capable of influencing results of elections and important life changing decisions such as the British people’s choice for independence during the Brexit vote in 2016.
The state, in 1984, was the one that used its massive monitoring empire to keep the so called peace. In 2021, we are monitored, monetized, and manipulated by a panorama of private enterprise that is nearly incalculable.
The government in 1984 utilizes its monitoring state to push each person towards a preferred condition. In 2021, private firms are doing the same thing, accumulating massive behavioral and interest profiles on each individual user, which they then exploit to steer them toward the most monetizable activities.
The government began funding the enormous empire of technology and staff required to keep continuous monitoring of its population in 1984. The public funds the vast surveillance empire that watches, monetizes, and manipulates them in 2021. Citizens buy the newest digital gadgets, upgrade and maintain them on a regular basis, pay for the electricity and internet connections needed to link them, and allow private corporations unrestricted access to their most personal information.
The vast monitoring empire's ultimate objective in 1984 is to maintain and consolidate the state's authority. The ultimate objective of the enormous surveillance empire of the internet world in 2021 is to sustain and cement the dominance of social media firms, and all from watchful eyes and moderation of national and intelligence agencies, including the inescapable efforts of alliances like Five Eyes.
Indeed, the parallels are nearly as numerous as the words of the novel.
We are acquiescing, how can we turn it around?
In law, acquiescence occurs when a person knowingly stands by without raising any objection to the infringement of his or her rights, while someone else unknowingly and without malice aforethought acts in a manner inconsistent with their rights. As a result of acquiescence, the person whose rights are infringed may lose the ability to make a legal claim against the infringer or may be unable to obtain an injunction against continued infringement. The doctrine infers a form of "permission" that results from silence or passiveness over an extended period of time.
When we start to see connections between the various shifts of democracy and dystopia, we see gigantic patterns and our view of the world changes to a completely different space. When we look deeply at this level, we find two states of consciousness tussling for their idea of what the world should be… one wants freedom, balance, fairness and respect for people’s rights to make choices – and the other is deeply disturbed, distorted and chaotic – and plays itself out through the inversion of everything good, while freely lying, and with no empathy or compassion.
The power in the dystopia, is that through acquiescence, we are positioned in such a state, that we cannot say, ‘NO’. But once society realizes that all we have to is to ‘Switch Off’, then we take away the power of acquiescence from the 1%, we are not coerced by the 4%, and slowly we become more aware of the 5% who were right all along, in their awareness and motivation. And remember the truth after all sets you free.