When I first considered starting this blog I would joke that I wanted to be the first “post-facts” publication. Every single publication in the world was using clickbait and half-lies to get clicks without any remorse so I thought it would be funny to be the only publication that was openly admitting to being deceitful.
That was only a few years ago. Let’s call it the “Buzzfeed Era”. And while that style of clickbait has declined drastically, we’ve somehow entered an even more dangerous and fact-averse era on the internet.
Maybe I’m a dummy. Actually, I’m for sure a dummy. So please take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt but I do think most people will relate. When I’m aimlessly scrolling on the internet, I’m not doing more than 20 seconds of research into any controversial topic. Yikes that doesn’t sound good. Let me explain:
If some legit-enough looking account tweets a serious-enough, well worded-enough tweet about a topic and points out a law, rule, or regulation that I am unaware of, well, that’s simply the truth. Sorry folks. That’s it. I got a new truth and this is it. AND THEN (this is where it gets good) if another legit-enough looking account tweets a serious-enough, well worded-enough response to this tweet that counters said law, rule, or regulation that I am unaware of, then that is the new truth. Double yikes!
I’m just being honest. And I know this makes me look bad and dumb but I am almost certain this is how EVERYONE else consumes information nowadays too. Want to know how I know this. Well both tweets in question will have something like 50,000 favorites a piece. No one is looking into anything. People just see something that aligns with their previously held beliefs, pop a like onto it, and keep it moving. And this isn’t an attack on the youth because every single generation is prone to confirmation bias. Younger people are probably the least prone to this (I WON’T LOOK THIS UP TO CONFIRM IT) because of how much more information they are consuming. Anyway, let’s take the most recent internet controversy so I can add some context to my rambling before I wrap it up with my point (I know I know, let’s get to it already buddy!)
A few days ago, the below post was made about a cop who went to Starbucks and received a cup with the word “PIG” in place of the name. If this is the case, this is disgusting and unacceptable behavior.
Following this tweet going viral, many other tweets came forth disputing the truth behind this tweet. Here’s just one for instance:
The response went way more viral than the original tweet. Meaning this must be the truth right?
For most people, that’s it. Put a period on this sentence because it’s over. It won’t get a second thought. But for the sake of this situation, let’s give this a second thought. In this case, the first tweet is from a reporter and the second tweet is from a person making a claim that is only validated by the unconfirmed statement that they used to work at Starbucks. Now, reporters get things wrong all the time and have had to recant on previously made statements. But in this case, if you were to continue to follow along, which no one would ever, you would see that the reporter continued to report on the incident in which an employee admitted to the act and was fired because of it. But 74,000 people don’t know or don’t care about that. Their belief has been confirmed and this belief will continue to impact their future conversations and actions. And honestly, it’s way more than 74,000 people. Millions probably saw this tweet and agreed with it but I’m going to go solely off of the number of people who publicly endorsed it with a “like”.
Now, I am not writing this blog to comment on the current relationship between society and police offices. I’m writing this blog because I legitimately fear a world where any fact can be disputed. A world where the slightest crack of doubt, fabricated or not, can invalidate a fact in the eyes of an entire group of people. Facts are being openly disputed and the responses are often accepted as the truth because we don’t have the time to look it up or because we’re happy with the idea being pushed.
Like I said at the beginning, I’m as guilty of this as anyone. It’s bad. The internet’s main purpose may have been to facilitate widespread discussion among strangers and there’s truly nothing better than that. But the system breaks down without an agreed upon set of facts. There can be no productive discussion between people that believe in a different set of facts. Many things are subjective and up for discussion but I’m nervous that we may be entering a place where we don’t agree on things that are not disputable. We all need to do a better job of being suspicious of information that confirms our own beliefs.
