Tag Archives: social media

Is this real?

There is a commonality between hearing the question, “Is this spam?” regarding an email, and hearing the question, “Is this real” regarding a video that might be staged, enhanced with AI, or even intentionally spreading lies.

In an age of unlimited information a new kind of skepticism is needed. What’s the source? Does the source have a slant, a bias, or an agenda? Is this actually from the source it claims? (Just yesterday a fake article that was sent to me had a Toronto Star subscription banner access the top of the web page, to make it seem like it was from this newspaper, but the URL was totally different.)

You would think that in a curated social media world you would be able to discern fact from fiction, real from fake. But more than ever we need to be sceptical about what we see and hear. In a world of abundant information our need to question what we believe to be true is more important than ever before. I find myself Googling quotes to see if they match other sources, and questioning headlines that seem even subtly surprising. Is this true? Is the article real? Or is it an elaborate ploy to pitch a product or simply to garnish shares and likes? Is the title of the article misleading? Do I click on that link to learn more?

Is it real? I never used to ask this question. A news headline used to mean that I was getting curated information from a reliable journalist who attempted to be impartial. Now even mainstream media seems increasingly biased and agenda driven. Knowing the source means understanding the bias more than the reliability of the information. And so my BS detector is always on… and even then I find myself being fooled until I see a product placement or a clear agenda being pushed. Media consumption now requires a good dose of scrutiny and skepticism… and with AI being more and more convincing, the level of scrutiny will need to increase.

Access to abundant information doesn’t make us smarter. Instead, the constant stream of data requires discernment and thoughtful consideration. Reliability is no long assumed, and the question, ‘is this real?’, is a necessary part of information consumption. Skepticism has become the most important part of media literacy, and curating trusted sources of good information has became a skill not easily duplicated or taught.

It’s easier to accept information than it is to question it… especially when that information fits my model of the world. And the internet (and our ‘trusted’ social media platforms) are filled with information that fits my world view. In fact, that biased world view I have is further fed to me by an algorithm that learns what I like. This only makes it harder to determine what is real and what isn’t.

Propaganda machines

Leave a reply

It is fascinating to see Americans on TikTok discuss their experiences on the app RedNote. The main things that they are surprised about are related to learning more about other cultures, (particularly the American and Chinese), and seeing how the ‘others’ live. The Americans are shocked by things like grocery prices and the fact that America is one of the only countries in the world where medical bills can bankrupt you.

I lived in China for 2 years. I saw the way that country has embraced a form of capitalism that is tiered to markets in a way that wouldn’t work in many other parts of the world. While there I could walk into an almost empty, expensive mall where the purchase of one item would pay the salary of the three employees in the store for the entire day. I could then walk out of the mall into an outdoor market where I could buy much cheaper but still good quality knockoffs of the same items in the expensive stores. And then in the back alleys less than a block away are the cheap buyer-beware knockoffs and trinkets where you can get affordable items for any budget, but the quality is very suspect and you need to be savvy about purchases.

But rich or poor, there are places for any Chinese citizen to find items they can afford. And while there is a definite hierarchical class structure, with ‘haves and have-nots’, the vast majority of the have-nots are way better off than a significant number of people here in the Western world that live below the poverty line.

The fascination I have watching these Americans is that they are, in rather large numbers, recognizing that other countries are not the only ones that spit out pro-national propaganda. They are seeing with their own eyes that they are being fed propaganda too… like this TikTok post of woman reading warm new year’s wishes from a Chinese friend she met online.

There are simple kindnesses to foreigners that me and my family received in China that were totally unexpected. For instance, a young couple exiting an elevator so that my family of 4 could fit, or asking for directions and having someone walk two blocks in the opposite direction to make sure we got where we wanted to go. I generally don’t see this kind of thoughtfulness to strangers here in the West.

China is a socialist country with some odd rules, but it’s also one of the most capitalistic countries I’ve ever visited. The people do the best they can within the governing rules of their society, just like most Americans. And people coming together on an app and learning about each others cultures are a way of breaking down propaganda barriers that are put up to villainize or to ‘other’ countries that are seen as economic enemies.

Here is another TikTok where a comment by a Chinese RedNote user is being read aloud, sharing his view of America after spending time getting to know them on the app. I’ve seen dozens of videos similar to the four I’ve shared here. Most of them are from shocked Americans realizing, for the first time, that they have been living under a façade of American exceptionalism.

In short, this Chinese run App is breaking down cultural biases and introducing a more global perspective between two cultures that have been fed miss-and-disinformation about each other. The propaganda machines are falling apart, and world views are becoming a little more worldly.

‘unable to distinguish’

Leave a reply

Carl Sagan wrote, ‘The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark’ in 1996, almost 30 years ago. When I read this quote from the book it really resonated with me. Carl Sagan saw what was coming.

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

The line, “unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true”, seems to me the most chilling insight. It’s like gut instinct, a failing intuition, and biased sources of information all get weighed heavier than fact… and truth is a construct people create in their minds. The capital ‘T’ Truth seems to be constantly up for debate, and somehow a well researched theory loses validity when it is contrasted by conspiratorial ‘facts’ shared on social media with a little background, spooky mood music. As if these two sources of information deserve equal consideration.

Here’s a news flash… they don’t. And the fact that so many people are unable to distinguish the difference is both alarming and scary.

Fitness delusion

Leave a reply

Recently I’ve seen a few social media posts from a guy who has been working out for 11 years. I don’t follow him and can’t remember his name right now but basically he is in decent shape but not super muscular. He also shared the image in poor lighting that didn’t highlight his muscles like you see most fitness influencers do.

He got ridiculed. Most comments were all about how he should look a lot bigger after all that time. But the good news is that a lot of healthy, fit, natural body builders came to his defence.

People have a false sense of what it means to be fit because the people they see on social media are jacked up and have rather unrealistic physiques that are too hard to maintain. Some use steroids to enhance their growth. Others have chiseled abs, and that involves not just physical training but a very strict diet. And of course they only take photos in the best light after doing a ‘pump’ to maximize their size.

Here’s the reality: adding just 10 pounds of muscle is hard work! Adding 10 more after gaining your first 10 is significantly harder.

Six years ago I was overweight and started a fitness journey that I’m still on. It took me a year to lose just over 25 pounds. I did this with regular cardio, weights, and reducing my snacking using intermittent fasting, (basically, no snacking food from dinner to a late breakfast 5 days a week). I accomplished this in one year, then it took me 5 years to build my weight back up with 13-14 pounds of good weight. That’s right, my gains average are less than 3 pounds a year… and I’m thrilled with my progress.

Gaining muscle is hard. Unless you take the route of unhealthy supplements like steroids, you aren’t going to bulk up any time soon. Will you see results from your hard work? Yes. Will that mean that you get a lot stronger? Yes. Will you see a massive difference in the size of your muscles? Probably not without considerable effort over a long period of time.

Being fit doesn’t mean that your body looks like a body builder. It doesn’t mean that you walk around with six -pack abs. It does likely mean that you are feeling better and stronger than you were a year ago. It does mean that you are making small gains that you might notice even if others don’t.

Don’t buy into the delusions of ideal fitness that influencers share on social media. They aren’t sharing the sacrifices they make to look like they do. They are sharing month old images of when they were jacked up for a competition because they can’t maintain that look day to day… or they are making unrealistic dietary or lifestyle sacrifices to keep looking that way, so that they can sell you their program, or suppliments.

Find a way to make fitness part of your life, so that your quality of life can be better in the years to come. That’s it, that’s all. And once you’ve figured that out, appreciate all the small gains, because realistically that’s all you’ll see, small gains over time… and that’s a good thing no matter what the bulked up and juiced up influencers say.

Free Speech and Audience

Leave a reply

For most of my life I’ve been a bit of a free speech absolutist. I believe, or maybe believed, that even idiots had the right to free speech. You want to deny the holocaust or believe the earth is flat? You are an idiot. You are free to express your beliefs and people are free to ridicule your unsubstantiated beliefs. You want to share your stupidity, go ahead and do so to the cost of your social credibility.

But social media has changed, or is changing, my view. If you wanted to stand on a soap box and share dumb ideas, you will likely be ridiculed in the community you live in, and no one will take you seriously. You will essentially ostracize yourself and your message would fade as people got fed up listening to your nonsense.

But move from a town square to the metaphorical global town hall of Twitter and Facebook, and suddenly you get these echo chambers of stupidity that feed off of each other. Throw religious absolutists into the mix and some really silly beliefs start to get amplified. Essentially, there is an opportunity for idiots to find their tribe.

“A theory isn’t a fact,” is a common theme used to debunk scientific explanations. But then pseudo facts that are invented by these people are not held to nearly the same standard. So, on social media, bad ideas spread, gain popularity, and start to build an audience of believers. Instead of ridicule, these fools find a community. Instead of being ostracized, these morons find followers.

So the incentives are there to be inauthentic and to spread misinformation, instead of the disincentives of ridicule and shame. And so absolute freedom of speech no longer has the consequences it once had, and bad information ends up spreading faster than good information.

Even the debunkers and scientific thinkers speaking out against these charlatans peddling misinformation end up feeding the algorithm that puts the bad messages in front of more people. So bad ideas get spread, and this happens at a faster rate than good ideas.

I don’t know how to fix this, and I struggle to think that censorship is the answer. But allowing bad ideas to spread freely seems wrong too. Who decides? Who censors? What criteria do we use? The reality is that censorship is a slippery slope… but we are already on a slippery slope where the current social media models and the algorithms that promote more time on these apps already seem to favour the spread of bad ideas. And the tools used to elevate ideas effectively are being used to share and amplify bad ideas faster than good ones.

Ultimately, despite this, I am still a free speech absolutist. I just think free speech and the right to an audience are two different things. How we police this is not something I think can or will be solved any time soon.

Sliding into DM’s

Leave a reply

Maybe I’m just too skeptical, but I am always suspicious when I connect with someone on social media and they quickly jump into a private message. I immediately think they are there for one of two reasons, to sell me something or scam me.

Yesterday I got a follow on BlueSky. I followed the person back and then received two direct messages:

Hello, David, I’m [Name]. Nice to be friends with you here

I just got here. What do you think of the place?

This was my response:

Haven’t invested enough time here to say. But FYI, I don’t spend time on social media messaging people I don’t know, sorry. Happy to respond to public @ responses, but this will be my last private message with you. Nothing personal, just not how I use social media.

Then I got this long response:

I just arrived here and I am curious about everything here, so I will send you a signal to make friends. After all, making new friends is always good. What social media do you use? I have WhatsApp and Telegram, and I usually communicate with my family and friends there

That’s enough for me to end both the conversation and connection. I’m not interested in playing games. I’m not interested in flirtatious banter. I don’t need to waste my time with someone who sounds inauthentic.

I usually respond to DM’s in some way. I try to assess intentions, I try to be polite. But I also feel like my effort to be nice, to engage, is an invite to waste time with people who do not have good intentions. Blocking may seem harsh, but that’s what I do. This one seemed scam-ish from the start, and the first part of this person’s profile was a vague description, ‘Businesswoman from LA’, so my initial response was colder than usual. I’m more open to an honest response from someone who is an educator.

Fortunately this is quite rare. Most of the people I end up connecting with are indeed educators, and if I get a direct message it’s usually good. But when a stranger just slides into my DM’s just to be friends, my stranger danger alarms start to go off, and I am starting the conversation with caution and skepticism.

So if you are new to connecting to me, by all means do say hello, but no need to slide into DM’s. Just @datruss me publicly. There really isn’t a reason to DM me unless you know me. Am I the only one that looks at DM’s this way?

From bird to sky – a social media switch

Leave a reply

For about a year and a half now I’ve been ‘transmitting’ my blog to not just Twitter, but also to Threads and Blue Sky. I use the term ‘transmit’ because I haven’t engaged much on these platforms, I just post my blog post and leave. However, I have more engagement, and conversations on LinkedIn and my blog’s Facebook page.

But I’m starting to see a move to Blue Sky. For me, it means moving from over 12,000 connections on Twitter to under 100 on Blue Sky, but I’m ok with that. I think the community will grow, and for me Twitter was amazing even at 450 connections. The bigger question is weather I’ll actually go back to spending time there or if I’ll just continue to transmit?

For now, LinkedIn seems to be the place I converse more, engage more, and even learn from more. And my Facebook page following is small, but a wonderful community. As I watch people leave Twitter and move to Blue Sky, I wonder if I’ll get a taste of what old Twitter was like pulling me in to this new(ish) site, or if it’s just one more place I post and ignore? Do I need another place to engage, or is LinkedIn and Facebook more than enough already? I’ll figure it out soon enough, but if you are on Blue Sky, let’s connect.

Not all voices are equal

Leave a reply

I love the Bill Nye analogy about the climate debate. He says that if the debate were authentic, rather than having two talking heads debating, it would be hundreds of scientists on one side versus one climate denier on the other.

I saw a social media clip yesterday where a microbiologist was debunking a self declared holistic practitioner on the consumption of unpasteurized milk. The microbiologist wrote his master’s thesis on bacterial infections in cow’s mammary glands.

The self-declared expert espousing unscientific and incorrect information on social media is not an equal voice to an expert. Do they have a right to share their views? Sure. Do they deserve an audience? No.

I wish that I knew how to make the situation better but I don’t have answers. I’m extremely pro ‘free speech’. I think people are entitled to share their views. However, when I see misinformation and disinformation being shared by people with large audiences, I shudder. I worry about how their messages are consumed, by how many people they lead down a bad path.

In 2024 no one, and I mean NO ONE, should believe the earth is flat and yet the group of flat earth believers is getting larger. Imagine being able to own a telescope and see images from the James Webb telescope and still believing something that societies 5,000+ years ago already knew was wrong.

Not all voices are equal, and some voices deserve a larger voice than others. Who decides? Who polices? I don’t know, but I do know that we are entering (have entered) an era where false information gets shared significantly faster than correct information. Corrected information and updated facts don’t get the same play time on social media. So we are essentially living in an era of disinformation.

This doesn’t feel like progress, and as AI models continue to learn from the inputs we are providing, this scares me. I saw a stat that as much as 80% of the internet could be AI generated by the end of 2026. How much of that generated information will be based on incorrect assumptions and conclusions? How much of it will be intentionally misguided? Who is deciding which voices the AI models listen to?

We can’t continue to let ill-informed people have equal voices to those that have more informed perspectives… But I’m not informed enough to know how to change this.

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this: