Tag Archives: Post – truth politics.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WHY IS THE TRUTH UNDER ATTACK AS NEVER BEFORE?

14 Friday Feb 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2020: The year we need to change., Algorithms., Communication., Dehumanization., Disconnection., Fake News., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Post - truth politics., Social Media, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Truthfulness., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WHY IS THE TRUTH UNDER ATTACK AS NEVER BEFORE?

Tags

, , , ,

 

 

(Thirty-minute read)

 

It is widely assumed by the general public that humanity is “progressing” and that we are better both physically and mentally than our predecessors were. Of course, this is true for some of us but for 6 billion of us on 2$ a day I doubt they would agree.

A person’s conception of truth is deeply intertwined with their conception of reality and truth isn’t actually divorced from reality. Science is dependent on truthfulness.

Few of us these day’s has the time or resources to check all of the news we confront on a daily basis. Instead, we rely on other methods of assessing truth, but can we or should we trust the source?

As the saying goes, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

In a world where facts are under siege, credentialed sources are proving more important than ever.

We are getting our news from platforms, run by Facebook, Google, Twitter, Messanger,  etc including other social media sites and search engines, but can we place our trust in those platforms.

The profession of undermining truth has been in existence for decades. For much of recorded history, the truth was rooted in scholasticism now it’s rooted in a capitalist haze where political correctness and social justice including warfare have descended from the ivory tower of the rich infiltrating tech, business, healthcare, and governments.

The quest for facts these days is now governed by disinterested Google algorithms that trade us, accuracy for efficiency, creating a “spiral of silence,” in which everyone believes that everyone else believes something but no one actually believes it.

It seems that we accept truthiness instead of requiring truth.

As a result, humankind is losing mental capacity to know the truth and we are living in an era of rationality inequality.

For example, voters act on issues that don’t affect them personally and are under no pressure to inform themselves or defend their positions.

People vote as if rooting for sports teams, encouraged by the media, which treat politics as a horse race, encouraging zero-sum competition rather than a clarification of character and policy.

So what is happening?

History is littered with the bending or inverting of truth by people in power has long been consequential, so the recent prominence of “fake news.”  is not a new development. The belief that fake news is displacing the truth itself needs to be examined for its truth.

The implication is that we may as well give up on reason and truth and just fight the bad guys’ lies and intimidation with lies and intimidation of our own.

“Social media.”

Not long ago many intellectuals deplored the lack of democratic access to mass media.

Now a few media corporations, in cahoots with the government, “manufactured consent” with their oligopoly over the means of production and dissemination of ideas.

We used to say, freedom of the press belongs to those who own, one no longer true.

Social Media with it’s like algorithms are now fueling, accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia that can be weaponized: since everyone reviles these bigotries, they can be used to demonize adversaries, which in turn spreads a terror of being demonized. It has become the place where one can express heterodox opinions without fear of being silenced or fired.

A network of pluralistic ignorance enforced by denunciation mobs.

So when it comes to intolerant repression of non-leftist ideas, don’t blame the Millennials or the iGens because unregulated Social Media is now blazing out of control abetted in part by government subsidies and lack of will to regulate.

People gravitating to people who are like them.

Social media held out the promise of giving a voice to the people, unfortunately, is making us dumber.

It is true to say that the network dynamics of social media are still poorly understood, but they do not yet host the mechanisms of vetting and reviewing that are necessary for true beliefs to bubble up to prominence from the turbid pools of self-presentation, group solidarity, and pluralistic ignorance.

We project the best sides of our lives through social media but revile real vulnerability.

So we are living in a post-truth world” true?

If your answer is “yes” then the answer is “no” because you’ve just evaluated the statement in an evidentiary manner, so evidence still matters and facts still matter.

But humans are fundamentally irrational – No.

If humans were truly irrational, who specified the benchmark of rationality against which humans don’t measure up? How did they conduct the comparison? Why should we believe them? Indeed, how could we understand them?

We did not evolve with the truth-augmenting technologies that have been invented in recent millennia and centuries, such as writing, quantitative datasets, scientific methodology, and specialized expertise. We evolved with the reality of the thought of what is true.

We don’t believe in reason; we use reason but as soon as you try to argue that we should believe things by any route other than reason, you’ve lost the argument, because you’ve appealed to reason.

That is why a defence of reason is unnecessary, perhaps even impossible. The very fact that one is examining the validity of reason shows that one is committed to reason.

This is the point where it gets somewhat complicated.

We build mental models of the world around us that allow us to explain, predict, and control things to our advantage.

Algorithms know this by monitoring our lives and consultancy firms that specialize in defending products from tobacco to industrial chemicals that harm the public (that have and are with us since the dawn of Capitalism) are manipulating the market place for profit while ensuring that the truth stays buried.

So our reasoning is contaminated by false news.

Social media is a major source of these falsehoods coupled with peculiarities in human behaviour on social media, make it easy for fake news to spread. Twitter, Facebook you name them.

“Political” fake news spread three times faster than other kinds, and the top 1 per cent of retweeted fake news regularly diffused to at least 1,000 people and sometimes as many as 100,000.

Out of all of the news you see reported, how much of it do you believe is made up or fake news?

Around 40% with 70% per cent more likely than true news to receive a retweet.

While the political repercussions of fake news are quite obvious, the phenomenon it depends on how the information is presented and how rationality is defined.

The powers of inference for example.

Rational inference, scepticism, and debate are in our nature but set against false news that is normalizing the production of alternative facts are a project long in the making.

Politicians—two in particular—lies a lot. But politicians have always lied. They say that in war, truth is the first casualty, and that can be true of political war as well.

THERE’S A TON OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE, AND WE’RE NOT OKAY LETTING IT GO UNCHECKED.

Why is the truth important?

We all need to know the truth if we want to be able to behave rationally.

Spreading disinformation here, hiding evidence of harm there, undermining authorities evidence can change people’s minds. Internet discussion groups, in which these ideas harden and grow more extreme in the absence of critical engagement.

Group loyalty is an underestimated source of irrationality in the public sphere, especially when it comes to politicized scientific issues like evolution and climate change.

Forecasting is no longer the dark art of pundits, gurus, it is big data and everyday fact-checking with Google has and is been revolutionized.

When people are confronted with their own ignorance of the facts, they become more epistemically humble about their opinions.

Unwelcome news is automatically rebranded fake news.

In the end, we are mere mortals but has the day of rationality-promoting norms and institutions passed?

The causes are complex, but it’s exhausting to live in a society where asking for help equals failure.

“Life before Google.”

Nothing can reverse the damage that has been done during our own generation, and some of this regression in truthfulness in the last 50 years is a paradoxical byproduct of the fantastic progress, we have made inequality.

From climate breakdown to air and water pollution, Co2 emissions, natural disasters,  the spread of the coronavirus virus, ongoing wars, our media watchdogs that don’t know what they are watching only using them to boost their viewing ratings.

Something important about the way we conceive of truth in our daily lives is needed if we are to tackle the difficulty assessing the reliability of the information that we find on the internet.

To achieve this these platforms with profit-seeking algorithms need to put their money where their mouths are.

Considering the technological boom are humans becoming smarter or more stupid?

The art of creating scientific disinformation is now at a new level of the tricks reanalysing results to reach different conclusions and hiring people prepared to rig methodologies to produce funders’ desired result.

The truth of history constitutes its whole value.

Enriching a favoured few at the expense of the great majority of mankind will be the last lie. The inconvenient truths will inevitably come to light.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

The films served to both promote products and a vision of America undergirded by chemicals and synthetic materials. We learn the industry was proud to produce insecticides, PCBs, vinyl and other materials and toxins later identified as environmental toxins.

Advertisement

THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT POPULISM. WHAT EXACTLY IS IT?

08 Saturday Feb 2020

Posted by in 2020: The year we need to change., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Communication., Democracy, Digital age., Disconnection., Human values., Humanity., Inequality, Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Technology, The common good., The far-right., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT POPULISM. WHAT EXACTLY IS IT?

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Eighteen-minute read)

The word came from the “prairie populists”, a 1890s movement of US farmers who supported more robust regulation of capitalism.

“But no one is clear what it is.”

We can’t really talk about populism without talking about our conflicting conceptions of democracy – and the question of what it truly means for citizens to be sovereign.

So is it an ideologically portable way of looking at politics as a forum for opposition between “people” and “elites”?

Or is it simply part of what it means to do politics?

Or is it a lens for looking at our politics?

Or a mode of talking about politics, rather than a set of beliefs?

Or is it an emerging political movement driven by technology, spread by social media, the smartphone and ruled by algorithms.

There is one thing for certain populism is inherent to democracy.

So it would be in the first place a massive mistake, considering the hollow, undemocratic mess we are in, with algorithms making decisions about our collective fate – outside the reach of politics, to ignore its power.

If one looks at the state of liberal democracy today it is becoming more and more a sham.  A nice-sounding set of universal principles that, in practice, end up functioning as smokescreens to normalise the exploitations and inequities of our capitalist system.

Nothing can stay depoliticised forever. The questions of populism would have little urgency were it not for the widespread agreement about the shortcomings of the political status quo: About the abyss between the shining ideals of equality and responsive government implied by our talk about democracy and the tarnished reality of life on the ground.

Populism is supposed to explain: Brexit, Trump, Viktor Orbán’s takeover of Hungary, the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, even Putin.

However, neither Trump nor Brexit should be regarded primarily as populist phenomena.

His election and Brexit shows that every status quo – however sturdy – is only temporary, and can always be challenged by a movement that seeks to replace it with something new.

Populists consider themselves as victims of economic exploitation, anti-austerity movements – such as Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, and Occupy these movements are obviously animated by a sense of opposition.

From this perspective, populism is just another word for real politics.

On the other hand, what most people knew about these parties, at first, was that they were openly nativist and racist. They talked about “real” citizens of their countries, and fixated on the issue of national and ethnic “purity,” demonising immigrants and minorities.

But I say that there are no real populists in politics – just people, attitudes and movements that the political centre misunderstands and fears.

The question of populism, then, is always the question of what kind of democracy we want.

The only inherent connection between rightwing and leftwing populist movements is that both embrace the same fundamental truth about democracy: that it is an ever-shifting contest over how the default “we” of politics is defined and redefined, of which no one definition can be guaranteed to last.

When populism appears in the media, which it does more and more often now, it is typically presented without explanation, as if everyone can already define it.

It sounded less alarming than “extreme right” or “radical right”.

It will always live in the shadow of the muddled media and political discourse and there can no longer be any doubt that we are going through a populist moment, so which type of populist you want to be.

A liberal democracy populism that is forced by rightwing populism to make good on its promises of equality. That needs to reacquaint with the need to construct a democratic “we” – a people – around their demand to protect liberal institutions and procedures, in opposition to radical rightwing parties who are happy to see them discarded.

Liberal democracy, in this context, has almost nothing to do with contemporary distinctions between left and right. It refers, instead, to the idea that government should facilitate pluralistic coexistence by balancing the never fully attainable ideal of popular sovereignty with institutions that enshrine the rule of law and civil rights, which cannot easily be overturned by a political majority.

or

A populism that can never be disentangled from the concept’s pejorative baggage.  An ideology runs the risk of making effective and worthwhile political strategies seem irresponsible, even dangerously promoting nativisms and short term gains.

Obviously, there are leftwing and rightwing populisms both are motivated not by passion for populism’s core ideas, but by other ideological factors best described as a fuzzy blanket to camouflage nastier nativism.

We are now living through a time when familiar webs connecting citizens, ideologies and political parties are, if not falling apart, at least beginning to loosen and shift and old theories of populism that defined it specifically as rightwing, racist or anti-immigrant is insufficiently wide to describe these new developments in populist politics.

It seems to me that Populists deal in “simplicity,” in “glib, facile solutions” while liberal leaders have been “oblivious” to the sufferings of their people.

So why are the traditional parties of the left in the western world being defeated?

Because the other side doesn’t play fair any more with conflict an inescapable and defining feature of political life.

The juvenile incapacity of both to bring their preferences to the political arena and engage in the complex give-and-take of rational compromise is with Social Media now fraught with a political examination and association accusation and assassination.

With the impersonal forces, of “globalisation” and “technological change voters are deciding that mainstream political parties have done nothing for their static incomes or disappearing jobs or sense of national decline these past two decades.

The “many, not the few.”

Populism is a new, consensus-smashing thing that is now secondary to nativism. Ultimately, they are disputes about which types of politics make us suspicious, and why.

To conclude that the two camps are simply talking past each other would be to miss the extent to which they are in agreement –and what, taken together, they tell us about the current political moment.

We can never know exactly where democracy is going to take us – not this time, nor the next, nor the time after that, but political parties must come to terms that the elephant in the room is that we no longer vote once every five years we vote on Social media ever five minutes.

Unless politics is not achievable, or rewarding, it obviously is sowing the long-term seeds for discontent.

It’s great to see politicians with Twitter accounts but there’s only so much you can do with that. Online participation in local decision-making is possible.

Failing to practice what you preach has ethical and political costs. E-voting is the next step.

Here below is what they are voting on and its not Fifty Shades of Grey Popularism.

 

 

Capitalist greed has and is poisoning political life.

Unregulated Algorithms will ensure it continues to do so.  Combined with the new realities of the portability of populism’s ideological movements spread by social media it is no wonder that liberal democracy is crumbling around the world.

To keep up with algorithms and their lavishly detailed position papers, their leaders,  Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Mircosoft, and their inc have little personal sympathy any longer with the travails of working people.

We can only hope that the fear of populism on the left will enable the victory of populism of the right.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S ITS TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH AS TO WHY ENGLAND IS LEAVING THE EU.

10 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., Our Common Values., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S ITS TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH AS TO WHY ENGLAND IS LEAVING THE EU.

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Twelve-minute read)

This truth has been with us from the dawn of humanity.

The inability to share leads to most world problems.

Inequality.

With the ability to share truth and untruths through social media right now, it’s difficult to know what to trust or who to trust.

Are we seeing a return to protectionism or the redefining of capitalism, to sustainability before profit?

There is one certainty Social media is having an effect on where power and how power is used giving rise to Popolusim contra Eliatilism.

So I think it is time to be a bit more honest and plain-speaking about the circumstances that have led to Brexit.

Politics and the media are being pushed to the limit by advancements in technology and uncertainty about the future.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the truth in the future"

Misinformation is spreading.

When it comes to Brexit, we have reached the point where, to an extraordinary extent, the implementation of the 2016 referendum result trumps all else. But as we approach the departure date all statements about British politics should be assumed to include to the word “probably”

If it will happen when it will happen.

For the most part, the debate about Brexit since the 2016 referendum has been framed primarily in economic terms but it is my contention that Brexit, whether it happens or not, is now showing that the EU never was the problem. 

The problem is fixing Britain’s relationship with itself.

The irony is that the country that was least affected by the migration crisis is the one where we are now seeing the most consequential political backlash.

Those who promise that leaving the EU will deliver “control” are really promising something quite specific: a social and cultural reboot.

Of course, this is a complete impossibility. We live in a world defined by the economic, social and cultural interdependence of nation states.

Take back control” was indeed the slogan of the Leave campaign, but it was “control” with one purpose, above all others, the relationship between taxation and public spending and immigration.

A wealthy nation is essential both to the aspirations of individual households and the funding of public services. Unfortunately, England is now reaping the rewards of putting the economy before its people.

Of selling most of its assets, of investing in a world image of power when in fact its people were on the streets due to lack of social housing, were lying in hospital corridors due to lack of funding, were relying on food banks due to lack of decent wages, were running up personal debts, were educated for the market place.

These are now the gravitational centre of the whole debate:

Britain’s act of masochism in leaving the EU will create a country that is unpopular, self-hating and insecure about its identity.

There will be no game-changing trade deals.

It is better that they draw this conclusion today rather than in 2040 after a period of harsh isolation in the middle of the North Sea.

The British people (and particularly the English), who have been in search of their identity since 1945, might finally recognize that it lies not in the distant past (Empire/Commonwealth), nor in the recent past (“special relationship” with the US) but in the future.

The only sensible course, therefore, is to suspend Article 50 and request a return to the status quo ante.

This could be done following a proper constitutional process, meaning a parliamentary vote. Britain can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and therefore freeze the process of leaving the EU.

Britain can write a letter to the EU and state that it wants to freeze its withdrawal process, and that’s what it takes to get yourself off the default path towards crashing out.

However, this process cannot be used just to pause the process and regroup.

In order to pause the process and regroup, the U.K. would need to have the consent of all the other EU members.

If it were just a request to say, oh, we’ve really lost our mind, we don’t quite know what to do, it’s very unlikely that the other 27 members would say, oh, yeah, sure, fine, let’s do that.

Then we come to the Backstop re Northern Ireland;

Northern Ireland wants some legally binding assurances that the U.K. will be able to get out of it unilaterally.

The probability of EU leaders conceding this is zero. And it’s zero today. And it’s zero down the road.

The EU’s position has been very much: This is—this is not negotiable. And, frankly, they all know that you know, a number of EU members are unhappy with the terms of the withdrawal agreement. And if it were to be reopened, it would be a whole can of worms with a lot of, you know, different asks being put on the table.

So this is just not going to happen without the backstop becoming the front stop.

The priority list in continental Europe, with coming elections you know, Brexit isn’t the first thing, or the second thing, or the third thing; it’s somewhere after that.

The disasters to befall the EU27 won’t have befallen them. They will, instead, have continued to evolve their community, grow their economy, taken heed of lessons played out across the Channel, made things better.

Does any of this matter?

Because London is fine, Westminster and the BBC will say Britain is fine. This is no longer so, there is a much uglier reality and one that has little to do with GDP.

If London loses its financial clout there will be a fundamental change to the British economy that Britain now needs to cycle through before it can clarify where it wants to end up with in this Brexit process.

Brexit is both symptom and cause of a breakdown in this consensus.

This needs to be understood outside the day-to-day disasters of the Brexit process itself.

The NHS won’t have fixed itself. Nor will social care. Nor pension problem. Nor it’s out of date infrastructure.

So low and behold we now see department ministers promising funds to fix the NHS etc. However, Brexit will be a suffocating error when it comes to finding these funds. A poorer U.K. outside the EU will be less useful both as a military ally and as a diplomatic partner or as a trading partner.

There could be one unanticipated positive outcome.

The conventional politics of “left versus right” no longer apply:

The political party that can transcend party lines and speak to people across the ideological spectrum will be the rising voice in the next 10 years.

It is unlikely that either of the main political parties in England will survive in their current forms, given the pressures their internal coalitions are already under.

It does not take a nitwit that global we are witnessed the highest number of global battle deaths for 25 years, persistently high levels of terrorism, and the highest number of refugees and displaced people since World War II.

If this is not observable we are left with “the essence of bullshit: a complete lack of concern with truth” and “an indifference to how things really are.”

All one has to do is turn on your TV.  Who can tell what infringements to our civil liberties will have been introduced in the name of keeping us safe? What new walls will be built?

The important thing is not that what he says is true, but that it persuades. and by then none of us will have recourse to Europe to stave them off, either?

Luckily there is no such thing as an average human being.

Nonetheless, that fictional construct is precisely what businesses use to explain human behaviour, reducing us to mere consumers.

There are however those who navigate the currents of uncertainty and change without the need for any particular dogma or orthodoxy to guide them. These are the innovators, thinkers, misfits, activists, artists, and creators who can be found on the fringes of any walk of life, nipping at the hem of hegemonic power, disrupting the status quo, and bravely embracing the unknown.

The future belongs to these voices, not to a world where the truth has become so malleable and subjective as to be almost meaningless as a concept. 

It also belongs to those brave enough to stand up to bullshit in some of its most vaunted forms. There is some hope for this.  

The fine line between the present and the future never looked so blurry.

However, the truth has to persist unaffected, in the past, in the present and in the future.

The next victims of social media will be based on media trends.

What is left when you take away all the ads and the packaging of Brexit is the truth of the product –

Wake up England and stop being the sulking wanting to leave the room when you still have the chance to influence the creation of a Europe, whole, free and at peace.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the truth in the future"
All human comments appreciated/All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UK National Debt is estimated to be £1.84 trillion.

Uk Defence spending is budgeted to be £48.3 billion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A quick examination of the numbers reveals that the world continues to spend vastly disproportionate resources on creating and containing violence compared to what it spends on peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how you design the ballot would have a material impact on how it turned out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEAD EYE SAYS; IT TIME TO GET A GRIP, IT’S NOT ALL A LIE.

04 Thursday May 2017

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Post - truth politics., Social Media., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders

≈ Comments Off on THE BEAD EYE SAYS; IT TIME TO GET A GRIP, IT’S NOT ALL A LIE.

Tags

, , , , ,

 

( A seven minute truth read)

IN A WORLD THAT IS LOSING ITS GRIP THE TROUBLE IS KNOWING WHAT TO GET A GRIP OF.

There is nothing new about this, other than the manner and the pace it is happening at where facts are deemed less important than beliefs.

For Example: In an age of Post – truth politics we now have a  President of the USA that appears not to care whether his words bear any relation to reality.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of post-truth politics"

The declining societal respect for facts, the rise of deceptive partisan media outlets are creating  an echo chamber effect in public discussion.

If people only knew the truth, we wouldn’t have the problems of global warming, economic recession, poverty, War, any Famine. 

Most people now get their news about the world around them pre-digested and customised by social media. They do not get the breadth of information supplied by an even moderately impartial news source.

Material is allotted them not by whether it is true but by whether they might like it.

Which is institutionally biased, and more vulnerable to the dissemination of lies.

Something must be surely be done about this.

Our post-truth era, in short, need not be an obstacle to taking common action.

Feelings trump facts and the power of truth as a tool to solve problems is being diluted by False News. For example the EU is now in danger of breaking up due to a campaign of blatant misinformation.

The lost of truth has many roots, and indeed it is a human failing not to seek it out.  Life at this juncture is practically unimaginable without the technology we enjoy today.

A large amount of social media feeds on getting strangers to follow each other’s random thoughts or tracking our idle page visits to target advertising, and as a society we seem more than happy to provide.

If you OK-ed the latest update for your Facebook app on your phone, you’ve given Facebook permission to read your text messages?

Everybody knows Google has questionable privacy rules, but Gmail is a really good email provider, and most people don’t tend to make their Twitter private.

Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge. Unorganized knowledge is the king, driving Climate Change, down to the survival of the cutest.

The continued societal focus on economic growth, both personally and as a society driven by algorithms for profit are all forcing a consumer society.

With the continued societal focus on economic growth, privacy is now arguably subject to consumerism. Critical thinking is sacrificed in favour of having feelings, reinforced by soundbite.

The problem is that Facebook (which has somewhere in the region of 2 billion users) and other so-called net works do not see themselves as media companies and are for the most part run by algorithms that have put artificial intelligence in charge of spreading False News.

As capitalism really gaining a grip on everyday life technology is a society constant. The majority of the Facebook users tend to share every mundane detail of their lives.

The inverted distinction between public and private.

What can we do about it?

We’ve built an awesome, sprawling web of technology with a astonishing bit rates entering the human mind and emotions through eyes, ears and even noses, all creating an accelerating escalation of intensity which is now out of control.

In a world increasingly devoid of person to person contact we are becoming more and more attached to morally ambiguous technologies. Given such biases it is no wonder we are unable to even agree on facts.

Precious little is said about the human, societal and environmental impact of such intense and increasing post-truth politics.

Are we more or are we less?

What is happening to our relationships, to our sensitivities, to our abilities to be moved, to our abilities to perceive?

Content is no longer a fixed format so there is no provenance as to what is true or false. With countervailing views filtered it is no wonder we get like clicks or news to boost hits.

Most of us now get our news on social media with anyone becoming a publisher. This information revolution can now play havoc with political falsehood.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "papers on post-truth politics"

So when Trump says we need to go to war now. We won’t know if he’s telling the truth.

What then?

We might even see this proliferation of belief systems and worldviews as an opportunity for human development. We can agree to disagree and still engage in pragmatic action in the world.

Modern democracy is not indeed flawless, but so far it is the most advanced political system the human kind could come up with. However the features of modern democracy for which we consider it as the most ‘human’ form of governance now comes with shortcomings.

These shortcomings like poor access to institutions, low-level of participation, rising level of elitism, ossification of state authorities, etc., are often the root of discontent among the public. Such reasons are making the discontent more than just and as a matter of fact.

But without opposition and discontent, there can be no democracy.

We as an audience must take into account the nature of media and subsequently different sources before making any assumptions on the content itself. Things like lack of critical thinking, an absence of fact-checking before accepting statements, inability to put things perspective and so on, provide opportunities for the rise of unpleasantly phenomena like post-truth and post-truth politics.

The concept of ‘post-truth’ has reached a point of saturation in present-day popular discourse and media punditry. Driven by digitally mediatized representations of reality and social interaction. Resulting in many of our world organisation becoming irrelevant.

Democracy requires a citizenship that meets, deliberates and interacts without fear and hatred. It requires organisations that give people a “voice” and a feeling that they have a stake and some influence in the system.

The pervasiveness of presumed causal linkages between environmental degradation, violent conflict and human mobility has been utilized by policy makers and pundits to shape public opinion.

Democracy now needs online innovation.

When Microsoft created Windows, it created the possibility of multiple lenses or views of any issue. Why not build on that? Before we all become Twit’s.

The problem which remains is purely one of logic.

The world is populated by other people who aren’t you. This is one of the major tools of democracy.

What does post-truth tell us about the current and future state of democratic engagement and of democracy itself?

Truth must no longer legitimize the politics of Brexit and Trump. No matter how democratic it is, the rug must be pulled out from under Post – truth politics. We have lost our power to them; we cannot lose our truth too. 

The pervasiveness of presumed causal linkages between environmental degradation, violent conflict and human mobility has been utilized by policy makers and pundits to shape public opinion about the predicament we are now in.

What can be done?

“Take back control”

The least we can do to make the United Nations a place where minds, hearts and nations connect for the sake of so many people all over the world.

Obviously, don’t vote for fibbers.

Bombard social media platforms to remove filters.

Create an Online Political platform for the Truth.

Remember that knowledge is power.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.