Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.
My wife and I are watching Griselda, a miniseries on Netflix. I don’t usually watch shows like this. However I occasionally watch a series with my wife, and this is one she started a couple weekends ago… and since it’s only 6 episodes, I decided to join her. I don’t tend to like stories that glorify historical villains. To me this is a movie bias that I’m not a fan of.
If you want to create a fictional story like Breaking Bad, that’s fine. But when it’s Capone, Pablo Escobar, or any other real-life criminal, I usually stay away. I am not a fan of glamorizing and even glorifying people who took the lives of others in the quest for money and power. Griselda reminds me why I’m not a big fan of these shows.
If you want to make a fictional villain, that’s fine. But inventing dialogue for real, unpleasant people is a bit much. And there is always the urge to show an appealing perspective that makes the villian likeable before they do awful things.
Another movie bias is that in the movies you are almost always rooting for the rebellion. Dune, Star Wars, Braveheart, Les Misérables, all the way back to Spartacus, the movies are always about the underdog’s rise. This is more understandable, we all love seeing the unlikely hero with little to no chance of success prevail.
But to me glorifying real life villains goes too far. It’s not just that these characters are built up as bigger than life, it also that no matter how they are portrayed, they are always given a stature of someone who accomplished something to be admired.
I’ve openly shared that I think when someone does a heinous act, like a mass shooting, in the media they should only be recognized as ‘an idiot with a gun’. I continued on this topic and said that media coverage of these events is part of the problem. I think movies and series that highlight real-life thugs are the same. They give bad people recognition and fame that they do not deserve.
I’m happy to root for the rebellious underdog any day. I’m a lot less willing to watch shows that highlight the rise and fall of really nasty people whose only causes are greed and power, because the attention we give them are a form of power, and immortalizing their story is ultimately a win for them.
Like I mentioned yesterday, my dad passed away leaving hundreds of boxes to sort through. Today I found a few with memorabilia and one specific one I was looking for with a diesel fuel formula he invented. Most of the other boxes were files with copies of patents and research my dad collected. Although, there were also quite a few boxes with some strange topics he also ventured into.
As a self taught generalist, my dad was always taking ideas and combining them, and he wasn’t afraid to delve as deep into ‘wu wu’ science as he did into ‘legitimate’ research. He had a knack for seeing connections where others didn’t.
So it was no surprise when I found these periodic tables where he was identifying the elements that were prime, double prime, and Fibonacci numbers, and looking at their isotopes.
This is the kind of thing my dad did. He would think laterally and make unusual connections that would be completely missed by anyone else… and the reason they would miss it is because there isn’t a logical connection.
My dad developed a CRO/REDOX process to chemically extract platinum and other precious metals from catalytic converters and recyclable computer components. He actually got a test lab built and proved the technology, while scientists at the Ontario Research and Technology Foundation (ORTECH, now ORF-RE) said it couldn’t be done, and even after it was proven said, ‘This shouldn’t work’.
But like many things, my dad had a different angle, and in this case a different perspective on the chemistry behind the process. And when he built the prototype, he made it modular so that he could expand it rather than rebuild it. For many reasons, including terrible timing with a stock market crash, this project never got off the ground.
The ideas that my father combined allowed him to be extremely creative and innovative. He was brilliant in the connections he made. Yet that same ability was also a disability. My father was also an end-of-the-world prepper, and followed a lot of conspiracy theories.
The same lateral thinking that made his scientific mind so brilliant also created lateral (read more as sideways) connections to far out conspiracies that kept the ideas alive long after others had moved on. Among his boxes and boxes of printed patents and research are other boxes with articles that I would describe more as delusional rather than just ‘fake news’. In fact these articles date back as far as 2004, long before the term fake news existed.
I think the internet broke my dad. He was a doomsdayer since the 80’s. After we watched World War III, a miniseries that aired on NBC on January 31, 1982, he turned the TV off and had a heart-to-heart with his kids. He basically told us that WWIII was inevitable in our lifetime. I remember getting upset not just that the world was going to end, because at 15 I believed everything my dad said, but also that my younger sisters were crying as he broke this ‘news’ to us. Why did they need to know this at those ages?
It got really bad with Y2K, that’s when he started ‘prepping’, storing food and collecting thousands and thousands of dollars worth of supplies. Supplies we now need to get rid of for pennies on the dollars spent. But what really made it worse after that was the internet. Dad found all kinds of websites that he considered reliable, some of which where known Russian propaganda sites, but that didn’t phase my dad who believed all kinds of conspiracies about big media. Now I’m not saying that big media is fully trustworthy, but I’d put more weight on them than on Russian propaganda websites.
So lateral thinking was both a blessing and a curse for my dad. Making incredibly insightful scientific connections made him a brilliant scientist and inventor. And making incredibly dubious doomsday connections made him a paranoid prepper, who always believed ‘the shit is going to hit the fan’ at any moment.
There is a fine line between brilliance and madness.
I’ve already seen some really good deep fakes of famous people that both look and sound real. That was over a year ago and the technology is far better now. I just watched this NBC Nightly News clip on TikTok:
The whole video is cautionary and a little scary, looking at Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a possible threat to Humanity. At the 2:17 minute mark this was said,
“AI tools can already mimic voices, ace exams, create art, and diagnose diseases. And they are getting smarter every day.
In two years by the time of the election, human beings will not be able to tell the difference between what is real and what is fake.”
It occurred to me that the lead up to the next US election is going to include countless deep fakes that will be virally shared and reposted and re-shared, which will be far more convincing than anything we’ve seen so far. The clever ones won’t be far fetched in content, they will be convincing because they will subtly send people down a specific narrative without being outrageous or egregious and easy to spot. For example: Biden supporting and endorsing some ultra-left wing, ‘woke’ group the makes the right outraged. Or Trump speaking to a friend about how he hates guns and the NRA. Each of these can be completely fabricated and completely convincing.
This is really scary because where you get your news will be vitally important. Hopefully major news outlets would vet the videos and verify authenticity before sharing, but digital newspapers are always worried about missing the scoop and letting other networks go viral. Many less reputable sites will share the fake videos just because it fits their narrative. Other sites will knowingly share the fake videos because their intent is to mislead, and to feed anger and vitriol to their naive followers.
Conspiracies will be magnified and any mention of the videos being fake will be counter argued that reports of the video being faked are just the way the government is trying to keep the truth from you. The message being, the fakes are real and the reports of them being fake is the fake news. People already believe fake articles with no fact-checking, they are going to be completely fooled by extremely convincing fake videos.
My advice, find websites that you trust and make sure the web url is correct. Follow people you trust and question anything suspicious from them that isn’t from your trusted sites. If it’s not from your trusted site, if it’s not right from the horses mouth and it seems suspicious, consider it fake until you verify.
How serious is this? You don’t have to be famous to be deep faked. Here is a story of a mom thinking she was talking to her kidnapped daughter, convinced it was her voice on the phone with her kidnappers, but it was a fake and her daughter was upstairs in her room. The point of the video is to have a safe word with your family because anyone’s voice can be easily faked.
We are entering a time when people are defining truth differently, when fakes seem more like truth, and when sources of information are going to be as important as the information itself.
I think in an era of fake news and deepfakes, we are going to see a resurgence and refocus on web page branding. When you can’t even trust a video, much less a news article, the source of your information will become even more important.
I was on Twitter recently, after the tragic earthquake in Turkey and Syria, when I came across a video of what was claimed to be a nuclear reactor explosion in Turkey. The hashtags suggested that it was a video from the recent crisis, but with a little digging I discovered that it was an explosion many years ago and nowhere near Turkey as was suggested. The video had tens of thousands of views, likes, and retweets. I didn’t take the video at face value, but many others did. I reported the tweet, but doubt that it was removed before it was shared many more times.
Although I wasn’t fooled this time, I have been fooled before and I will be fooled again. That said, part of my ‘bullshit detector’ is paying attention to the source. Recently I saw a hard-to-believe article online by a major news station… except that the page was designed to look like the major news station but had a completely different web address. The article was fake. What drew my attention to it being fake was that it seemed more like an advertisement than a news article. Otherwise I probably would have been fooled. As soon as I was suspicious, the first thing I did was ask myself if this really was the news organization I thought it was? I went into my browser history and looked for the website this morning to take a screenshot of the article, and I found this:
The website is down… which is good, but again I wonder how many people it fooled? It was a website surprisingly high up in a google search just a few days ago, and so I clicked thinking it would be legitimate.
When looking for information from controversial people or topics, it’s going to get harder and harder to know if the source of the information is reliable. One sure fire way to be certain is to look at the website. In some cases even if the source is legitimate, you might still have to question the accuracy of the source, and use a tool like MEDIA BIAS/FACT Check to see what kind of bias the site tends to hold. But you will build a repertoire of reliable sites and go to them first.
More and more the web domain will be the ultimate litmus test that will help you determine if a claim or a quote (delivered in written, audio, or even video format) is legitimate. Because fake news and deepfakes will become more convincing, more authentic looking, and more prevalent… and that trend has already started.
“The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.”
This is a quote I heard in a communication course that I took in my early 20’s, more than a half of my life ago… but I remember it and it is a bit of a mantra for me. So, when I share something and the message isn’t clear, I recognize that I need to take at least partial responsibility. An unexpected response tells me that my communication was not clear enough to get the response I expected.
Yesterday I was mad. I actually expected a shooting like the one in a Texas school to happen. I didn’t know it would be a school, but I saw the publicity the supermarket shooting in Buffalo the week before got and I figured another high profile shooting was coming. When it happened, and when it was a school, I was angry. That anger came through in my post, Enough is enough. But writing it wasn’t enough for me. I don’t pretend I have an audience big enough to make a genuine difference. So, I sent it to some local and some US reporters that I have access to via Twitter. It only went to accounts that allow Direct Messages, so that I was sending the messages privately.
One reporter responded. I won’t name him, because I have a lot of respect for him and I appreciate him responding to me… he was the only one. These were his words:
David, I don’t agree with you one bit. The rate of mass shootings in Canada (and MANY other countries) versus the US is so vastly different, with practically no difference in the way media treats the subject. That in itself is evidence of a flaw in your logic. I am in the businesses of shedding light on the issues that erode our safety and security because ignoring a problem never makes it go away. Do I wish these events never happened? Am I heartbroken and traumatized by what I see and hear and have to filter for our audience? You’re damn right I am. I hate every minute of it. But am I to blame? Not at all. Why don’t you direct some of your energy at those who refuse to put restrictions on killing machines and those who pull the trigger?
And this was my response:
I’m only saying don’t report their names. Don’t highlight their lives. Yes this is a US problem, I’ve mostly sent this to US news. But how hard would it be not to dignify the killers. To remove any mention of their identity? The stats tell us these are more likely to happen after a high publicity act. The people doing the copycat act know they will be (in)famous like the other killers before them. I know gun laws in the US are a big problem… but that doesn’t diminish the fact that all news outlets are making it worse. Apologies if you think I’m blaming you, I’m not. I’m blaming a news system that glorifies killers. That’s the part I am struggling with. Stop naming the killers. Stop highlighting their lives. That’s my point. It’s not about you, it’s about this:
That is the part media outlets play. And all of them can do better.
He took it as a personal attack, and he missed the point. I blame myself. I should have written a plea, not a condemnation. The irony to me is this line he shared, “I am in the businesses of shedding light on the issues that erode our safety and security because ignoring a problem never makes it go away.” The simple fact is that by glorifying the killer, he and his colleagues are eroding our safety and security. They are publicizing to the weak and the disturbed that they too can become famous.
“Am I heartbroken and traumatized by what I see and hear and have to filter for our audience?” He said. Yes, filtering for the audience is part of being a news reporter, and what I’m asking is for him and his colleagues to filter out the names of the idiots with guns. I’m not saying, ‘Don’t report the news.’ I’m not saying, ‘You are responsible.’ I am saying that highlighting and profiling the idiots with guns erodes public safety and security. How hard would it be for news media to have a simple code of conduct:
Do not mention a mass shooter’s name.
Do not share images of them.
Do not investigate their lives, profile them, or quote them.
That’s what I wanted to say. But that’s not what I communicated. I can’t blame anyone for missing the point, when I failed to make the point clear.
Yesterday I went for a bicycle ride with a friend whom I hadn’t connected with in months. We had a great ride and we talked about a lot of different things going on in the world today. Our views differed on a scale from slightly to considerably. There were some topics we talked about that tend to spur arguments in public discourse, but for us it was just good dialogue.
That’s a huge challenge today and news media makes the situation worse. The news does not try to make stories nuanced, media stories work to polarize views. Subtle shades of difference don’t draw attention and clicks, conflict and contrast does. The result? Every story is a problem, and every conversation is a debate. The middle ground is a no man’s land that is attacked by the extreme views on both sides, and everyone is either for or against a view.
Nuance is missed… and not just by news media, by me, by my friend, by you! We all get stuck looking at issues from the extremes and not seeing the complexities of issues that are very nuanced.
My friend and I were able to break down a few hot topics into the complicated issues that don’t sit on the extremes. We were able to partially agree and disagree with each other. We had a conversation, not an argument. Discourse rather than disregard.
It was refreshing to have this conversation. I hope that we can figure out a way to make public discourse more about sharing different ideas and less about defending extreme points of view without being able to see the spectrum that ideas fall into.
I know that the first place to start is with myself. It’s not good enough to blame the media, it’s important to recognize how I’m triggered by listening to polar opposite views, and for me to hear other perspectives without getting too hung up on how those perspectives differ from mine. I need to look for nuance, and recognize that there can be middle ground that becomes the starting point for good discussion and discourse.
I’ve been on my phone too much lately. Ironic to say as I peck away on my phone’s keyboard typing this. But it’s true.
I’m already an introvert, and so sinking too much time into my phone, beyond writing this, and meditation, makes me a bit antisocial. Cooking dinner? I’m listening to a book. Entertainment, a game or time on TikTok. Comnections on Twitter. Checking investments. Listening to music. Checking email. Checking email some more. Chatting with my siblings. Doing the Wordle when my sisters share their results with me. Googling, watching videos, reading articles and news.
Not all of these are wasting time, but all of these add up to my phone taking too much of my attention. I need to tome it down. I need to be more present. I need to recognize how much this little device pulls me away from the world… and I need to find more balance.
“We are living in a redpill/blue pill moment, except people are colourblindandeveryonethinks they are taking the red pill.”
— — —
The TermsRed PillandBlue Pillrefer to a choice between revealing an unpleasant truth, represented by the red pill, or to remain in blissful ignorance, represented by the blue pill. These terms are in reference to the 1999 filmThe Matrix.~Wikipedia
The insightfulthingabout this is that there are a lot of people who are (unknowingly) choosing the blue pill. This can be summarized by 2 TikToks I’ve seen recently:
While these are American references, (welcome to using social media in Canada, that’s what you get), there are many conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxers all over the world that think they’ve somehow taken the red pill, but are colourblind and have ignorantly taken the blue pill.
This is so much more dangerous that people who just choose the blue pill because that’s what they wanted. This is about people steadfastly believing that they have seen behind the (metaphorical) curtain. They “know” the unpleasant ‘Truth’.
Ignorance may be bliss but intentionally seeking out ignorance and claiming it is fact is outright dangerous.
Dangerous. Not mistaken, not misguided, not just ignorant. Dangerous.
Social media has amplified this danger. When Facebook posts with misinformation get shared 5 times as fast and as much as the information debunking the information; When QAnon can constantly change their stance(s) and people still believe, despite how wrong this ‘inside information’ has been; When crackpots that claim to be experts get more views than researchers who actually share the data… this is dangerous.
It’s one thing to choose the blue pill, it’s a whole other kind of scary thing when the blue pill is ignorantly chosen while the taker believes they are taking the red pill.
This is an interesting time that we live in. I find myself in a position where I need to question my own values. I don’t do this lightly. I don’t pretend that my values have suddenly changed. It’s just that present circumstances put me at odds with my own beliefs around freedom of speech.
I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. I think that when a society sensors speech, they are on a dangerous path. I take this to an extreme. Except for slander, threats, and inciting violence, I think people have a right to say and believe what they want. I believe that taking away such freedom puts us on a perilous path where a select few get too much control, and can undermine our freedoms.
An example where I take this to the extreme would be agreeing with Noam Chomsky.
So now, even as an ardent defender of free speech, I find myself agreeing with YouTube’s decision to ban vaccine misinformation:
YouTube doesn’t allow content that poses a serious risk of egregious harm by spreading medical misinformation about currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and by the World Health Organization (WHO). This is limited to content that contradicts local health authorities’ or the WHO’s guidance on vaccine safety, efficacy, and ingredients.
Two, four, eight, or sixteen years ago when YouTube began, I would have screamed ‘Censorship!’ at the idea of a platform banning free speech. Even now it bothers me. But I think it is necessary. The first problem is that lies and misinformation are too easily shared, and spread too easily. The second problem is that the subject area is one where too many people do not have enough information to discern fact from fiction, science from pseudoscience. The third problem is that any authentic discussion about these topics is unevenly biased towards misinformation. This last point needs explanation.
If I wanted to argue with you that Zeus the Greek God produces lightning and thunder when he is angry, I think everyone today would say that I was stupid to think such a thing. However, if I was given an opportunity to debate a scientist on this in a public forum, what inadvertently happens is that my crazy idea now gets to have an equal amount of airtime with legitimate science. These two sides do not deserve equal airtime in a public, linkable, shareable format that appears to give my opinion an equal footing against scientific evidence.
Now when dealing with something as silly as believing in a thunder god is the topic, this isn’t a huge issue. But when it’s scientific sounding, persuading and fear mongering misinformation that can cause harm, that’s a totally different situation. When a single counter example, say for example a person having adverse effects from a vaccine, becomes a talking point, it’s hard to balance that in an argument with millions of people not having adverse effects and also drastically reducing their risk of a death the vaccine prevented. The one example, one data point, ends up being a scare tactic that works to convince some people hearing the argument that the millions of counter examples don’t matter. And when social media platforms feed similar, unbalanced but misleading information to people over and over again, and the social media algorithms share ‘similar’ next videos, or targeted misinformation, this actually gets dangerous. It threatens our ability to weigh fact from fiction, news from fake news, science from pseudoscience. It feeds and fosters ignorance.
I don’t know how else to fight this than to stop bad ideas from spreading by banning them?
This flies in the face of my beliefs about free speech, but I don’t know any alternative to prevent bad ideas from spreading faster than good ones. And so while I see censorship as inherently evil, it is a lesser evil to allowing ignorance to spread and go viral. And while it potentially opens a door to less freedom, and I have concerns about who makes the decision of what information should be banned, I’d rather see a ban like this attempted, than for us to continue to let really bad ideas spread.
I thought in this day and age common sense would prevail and there would be no need to censor most if not all free speech. However it seems that as a society, we just aren’t smart enough to discern truth from cleverly said fiction. So we need to stop the spread of bad ideas, even if that means less freedom to say anything we want.
I know I’ve been writing a lot recently about QAnon, anti-makers, and anti-vaxxers. I’m going to continue that today with a bit of a rant:
Is it just me that thinks these conspiracy theory spinners are just idiots? I mean one crazy idea leads to another, which leads to another. They tie so many BS ideas together that you can’t keep track. And when one idea is debunked or one deadline for catastrophe is missed, it doesn’t diminish their fervour for the next conspiracy… debunking one idea does not phase their beliefs on the topic or any other topic, despite the fact that they are the ones making the connections. What’s worse, they seem to always want evidence, but refuse to believe any evidence provided is real.
Is it just me that thinks police should take water guns filled with blue food colouring to anti-mask protests and spray it all over them? If protesters are going to endanger themselves, let’s paint their faces blue for a couple weeks so that we can keep our distance from them when they return to normal society. That way when they come back from the protest and put masks on, and we usually can’t tell they were participating in risky behaviour, we would still know to keep very clear from them.
Is it just me that thinks we should enforce travel bans on people that refuse the vaccine? And while we are at it, if they end up in a hospital with expensive covid related issues after refusing the vaccine, they should have to pay medical bills for being stupid and adding an unnecessary burden to the Canadian economy.
Is it just me that wonders how in an age of unlimited information, stupidity can travel faster than intelligence? What is it about the human brain that makes not just dimwits, but also otherwise smart people too, believe that every government leader can be absolutely corrupt and yet only a single whistleblower is brave enough to come forward? The news is filled with scandals all the time. Humans don’t know how to keep a secret, but somehow there are cabals filled with rich people who live lives surrounded by servants, who can keep global conspiracies a secret for decades.
Is it just me that wonders if the threat of terrorism is greater from within our borders than from outside? That anti-common sense, extreme nationalist, and hate groups pose more of a threat to our societies than fundamentalist religious wing-nuts? The internal threat of stupidity is greater than the external threat of tyranny.
Is it just me that is fed up with cliff jumping lemmings calling me a sheep? I feel like I’m calling out the morons the same way they call out people who actually care about things like actual research and scientific facts. I know that this little rant won’t change anyone’s ridiculous beliefs in conspiracy theories, and will do nothing more than convince these delusional idiots that I’m somehow lost, or blind to some fantasy land reality they live in. But I feel good getting this little rant off my chest, and I’ll work on more convincing arguments again after today.
Here is the thing… it feels good to rant sometimes, but is it just me that thinks dialogue is the only way forward? That we actually have to engage and try to convince people that their loony ideas are wrong? Am I the only one that thinks it’s not good enough to roll your eyes and let these people believe their baseless theories without providing counter arguments? The answer to the spread of bad ideas is to counter them with good ideas. It’s painful to engage, but if we don’t have dialogue, if we don’t provide counter arguments, then we really are sheep, or lemmings… Then we are allowing a small group of small minded people to influence and engage with more people likely to follow them down a path of poor thinking. Is it just me that thinks this?
