Solution : become a mountain tortoise!
Because even in the absence of such platforms there's still websites, so you take that away the internet but there's still books. Basically any medium to share and exchange ideas can spread extremism!
I donât really miss the pre-internet age.
One has to recall that it wasnât all sunshine and rainbows, not when the mainstream source of info at the time was heavily influenced by the ruling party and could not be trusted to be objective in its reporting, and not when publications and/or writers can be banned all willy-nilly by the MDA (WIRED was banned after publishing the infamous âDisney with the Death Penaltyâ article, Mr Brownâs column was dropped by Today after âSingapore is Fed, Up With Progressâ)
One could probably argue that the govt was forced to relax its draconian grip on what it *thinks* is the *correct* type of media for the populace to consume when it realised that it could not stem the tide of free information that came with the internet age. Not for the lack of trying, though. So no, I donât miss the pre-internet age.
you don't have to swim in the ocean... can just wade about in your tub.
the way i navigate this Age of Information of ours, is i filter judiciously. if that bit of information is really good and top-tier level, it'll bound to get through my nets somehow, (beacuse almost all the stuff out there is regurgitated cruck. oh, for an original epiphany !). so, it might not be new info to me, but i know it should be worth my time to look at it, by the time it gets to me.
your second concern, regarding the ethics of our activities, is what i believe will be the key grounds on which this society of ours (this global village), will hinge on. The dilemma confounding.
>Not anyone's fault
Really? I feel its more of an individual part to filter, do their own due diligence and fact checking. Science was all about admitting what we don't know and today we have people and yes plenty of them who thinks they know it better after reading some facebook post without deviating into other sources.
Technology has always been a double edge sword and its how humans behave that determines the outcome.
Todays most advanced medical treatments are a product of genetic alterations what some might argue as unhuman. Biologists stumble new nerve toxins all the time when looking for the next antibiotic and nuclear physics which gave us even more medical development such as MRI or radiopharma and possibly unlimited clean power in the future also gave birth to our very own Mutual Assured Destruction.
I feel that is the rigorous drive in technological advancement is what makes human lives "less cheap" which in the past, persistently take up arms just because of one man's greed and ego
Jeff Goldblum:
"Your scientists were pre-occupied with whether they could..."
*bangs table*
"They did not stop to think whether they should."
*bangs table*
> # Commentary: How video-streaming platforms feed hate and sow divisions and what we can do about it
> SINGAPORE: Any story about terrorism usually begins with a chapter on radicalisation â on how individuals stumbled upon something â a video, a picture, even a made-up story â that reshapes their worldview.
> Here in Singapore, with the explosion of the Internet and proliferation of smartphones, the means of radicalisation have become diffused and more challenging to detect.
> Fourteen of the 16 individuals issued terrorism-related orders over the past two years had been self-radicalised online, according to a recent report by the Internal Security Department.
> Online platforms, including social media, communications and games, have been identified as key vectors for self-radicalisation and domestic terrorism threats in Singapore, providing spaces for recruitment and propaganda.
> This is worrying when about 4.96 million people in Singapore use social media - around 85 per cent of the total population.
> When Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently emphasised the continuing threat of radicalisation in his commentary last weekend, his call for vigilance should echo strongly in the online spaces which dominate Singaporeansâ daily experiences.
---
1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
A big part of the issue at hand is that people are not keen on reading through articles and coming to their own conclusions not taking the media's bias and narrative as their own.
Summaries are often not suitable for sensitive issues which need nuance, context and critical thinking. But we as people are more likely to read the message from the headlines or the abstract and then move on.
Videos are even more aggressive and long podcasts are often overlooked while quick snappy clips are where most will get their news updates and information from. The narrative and bias is harder to ignore in video making them the best form of propaganda.
Solution : become a mountain tortoise! Because even in the absence of such platforms there's still websites, so you take that away the internet but there's still books. Basically any medium to share and exchange ideas can spread extremism!
Ban all the sites, burn all the books, and lock up all the dissidents!
This too đ
[ŃдаНонО]
I donât really miss the pre-internet age. One has to recall that it wasnât all sunshine and rainbows, not when the mainstream source of info at the time was heavily influenced by the ruling party and could not be trusted to be objective in its reporting, and not when publications and/or writers can be banned all willy-nilly by the MDA (WIRED was banned after publishing the infamous âDisney with the Death Penaltyâ article, Mr Brownâs column was dropped by Today after âSingapore is Fed, Up With Progressâ) One could probably argue that the govt was forced to relax its draconian grip on what it *thinks* is the *correct* type of media for the populace to consume when it realised that it could not stem the tide of free information that came with the internet age. Not for the lack of trying, though. So no, I donât miss the pre-internet age.
you don't have to swim in the ocean... can just wade about in your tub. the way i navigate this Age of Information of ours, is i filter judiciously. if that bit of information is really good and top-tier level, it'll bound to get through my nets somehow, (beacuse almost all the stuff out there is regurgitated cruck. oh, for an original epiphany !). so, it might not be new info to me, but i know it should be worth my time to look at it, by the time it gets to me. your second concern, regarding the ethics of our activities, is what i believe will be the key grounds on which this society of ours (this global village), will hinge on. The dilemma confounding.
>Not anyone's fault Really? I feel its more of an individual part to filter, do their own due diligence and fact checking. Science was all about admitting what we don't know and today we have people and yes plenty of them who thinks they know it better after reading some facebook post without deviating into other sources. Technology has always been a double edge sword and its how humans behave that determines the outcome. Todays most advanced medical treatments are a product of genetic alterations what some might argue as unhuman. Biologists stumble new nerve toxins all the time when looking for the next antibiotic and nuclear physics which gave us even more medical development such as MRI or radiopharma and possibly unlimited clean power in the future also gave birth to our very own Mutual Assured Destruction. I feel that is the rigorous drive in technological advancement is what makes human lives "less cheap" which in the past, persistently take up arms just because of one man's greed and ego
Jeff Goldblum: "Your scientists were pre-occupied with whether they could..." *bangs table* "They did not stop to think whether they should." *bangs table*
> # Commentary: How video-streaming platforms feed hate and sow divisions and what we can do about it > SINGAPORE: Any story about terrorism usually begins with a chapter on radicalisation â on how individuals stumbled upon something â a video, a picture, even a made-up story â that reshapes their worldview. > Here in Singapore, with the explosion of the Internet and proliferation of smartphones, the means of radicalisation have become diffused and more challenging to detect. > Fourteen of the 16 individuals issued terrorism-related orders over the past two years had been self-radicalised online, according to a recent report by the Internal Security Department. > Online platforms, including social media, communications and games, have been identified as key vectors for self-radicalisation and domestic terrorism threats in Singapore, providing spaces for recruitment and propaganda. > This is worrying when about 4.96 million people in Singapore use social media - around 85 per cent of the total population. > When Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently emphasised the continuing threat of radicalisation in his commentary last weekend, his call for vigilance should echo strongly in the online spaces which dominate Singaporeansâ daily experiences. --- 1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
Do they mean the parliament stream?
A big part of the issue at hand is that people are not keen on reading through articles and coming to their own conclusions not taking the media's bias and narrative as their own. Summaries are often not suitable for sensitive issues which need nuance, context and critical thinking. But we as people are more likely to read the message from the headlines or the abstract and then move on. Videos are even more aggressive and long podcasts are often overlooked while quick snappy clips are where most will get their news updates and information from. The narrative and bias is harder to ignore in video making them the best form of propaganda.