Goodbye 2021, Hello 1984
Does anyone else find today's "fact" conscious culture to be a bit strange? We've likely all seen the "missing context," "this post contains partly false information," and "fact check: false" text blurbs accompanying social media posts. We see them, probably laugh it off, and move on with our day, grateful to not have to do any of the hard work related to thinking for ourselves. Not only that, we categorize those who question the missing context-blurbs as freaks, idiots, and politically misaligned. By simply asking a question, we surrender any ounce of credibility we might have had. By now, I'm sure I have as well... and I haven't even explained myself yet - which is part of the problem. Even worse, we use the blurbs to guide our worldview. We think we're being told the truth and guided in the right direction, but what incentive do these "fact-checkers" have to do any of that?
It's as if we see these arbiters of fact as omnibenevolent figures, only looking out for the well-being of the masses, not possessing within them the propensity to commit malevolent acts whatsoever. This is precisely what I find odd about this whole scenario. People in general possess the ability to commit acts towards the downfall and the destruction of others, so why are the "fact" checkers off the hook? After all, they're human, too.
Think of all the destruction you've ever caused - even the arguably petty and negligible things - via lies, violence, ignorance, and arrogance. Just in my life alone, I can recall some things that expand my understanding of the inner workings of human nature - and I've not even lived a full life yet. I also do not regard myself as a particularly malicious individual, but I am human. I have made (and still make) mistakes.
Still to this day, I kept a secret from my stepfather. I dated a guy I knew he would not approve of and so, I lied to him. He raised me better than that. I knew telling lies was one of the worst things a person could do; however, I was brimming with teen angst and selfishness. Enough time has passed that now that I would likely not break his trust if he were to read this today, but he would have been enraged had he found out before. I threw a very large party at my parents' house when I was 17 (again, filled with teen angst and selfish motivations). They found out and I was semi-severely punished because I had destroyed their confidence in me that I would make good decisions. At 17, I made the choice to start smoking cigarettes, thereby destroying my health. Even now, I wouldn't say I have a drinking "problem," but I've been having trouble choosing hot tea over beer as my nightcap. At one point in my youth, I figured that old people should just give up all their stuff - wealth, property, miscellaneous valuables - to people my age because they didn't seem to need it anymore. In short, I've committed abhorrent acts, things that pain me to recall here. But the fact remains: I am human and these sorts of dilemmas and conflicts are an inescapable part of the human condition. (Funnily enough, I did consider editing out the word "fact" in the prior sentence, but thought it would be funnier to see if anyone would get caught up trying to actually fucking fact check that).
What say you, then? What transgressions dost thou confess? If you've ever experienced difficulty discerning right from wrong, then congrats on being human. I must ask again, though, why do we not think the same of the "fact" checkers? Expert or not, the capability to do harm to others lies within each of us.
And, for those readers who might find only perfection in the history of their actions and have had no uncomfortable thoughts provoked quite yet, let's explore the following: if two different entities claim they speak the "facts," but both "factual" accounts contradict one another, then which truly holds the correct fact? Usually, it's the fact with the evidence to back it up that is universally believed. Usually, we do not need fact-checking middle-men to do this job. Usually, the bad information weeds itself out by being bad information (how many genuine, real-life flat earthers have you met? If you know a lot from the internet, then maybe we can do an experiment and vet how many of their posts get "fact-checked"). What's weird - and counter-productive to their purposes - about all these fact-check bubbles is that they try to weed out information that is backed up by evidence, professionals, and studies. It's like we only get to learn from those "experts" that the tech companies want us to learn from.
Imagine this scenario - you enter a public library, searching for a book on world religions. You want to explore the insights from other cultural beliefs. You want to research the Quran, the Torah, works discussing Buddhism or Paganism. You search the library thoroughly for such works until finally you find them, half-hidden on the bottom of a shelf. You are surprised to find that there are warning labels on all of the jackets, reading something to the effect of: the contents of the following publication have been unanimously regarded by all religious officials as dangerous and mostly false, please see a copy of the Holy Bible for a more accurate collection of spiritual, theological, and moral guidance. Wouldn't you, in this scenario, think to yourself that this is weird? Who are these "religious officials" that think they have a say in what ideas I choose to explore as a free person?
To be clear, I am not comparing religious beliefs to evidential data in terms of accuracy or factuality; that would be beyond foolish. I am merely trying to illustrate how absurd (and, quite frankly, frightening) it is to censor information based on a difference of interpretation.
If you've made it this far and you think I sound crazy, I'd be curious to know what you think about this specific instance. A recent Face Book post that was flagged by Lead Stories read: if you think and unvaccinated person is a threat to a vaccinated person, then you don't believe in vaccines. The headline for Lead Stories' response goes as follows: "Fact Check: A Vaccinated Person is NOT Wrong To Think An Unvaccinated Person Is A Threat To Their Health."
Lead Stories is spacing it with the word "to," but they are dangerously close to declaring a social media post wrongthink. Let that sink in a minute - and welcome Orwell's 1984 while you're at it. When we read his work, by the way, we weren't supposed to let it guide our way of life. We were supposed to be abhorred, disgusted and working towards never allowing that in modern society. But, here we are.
And, I know I must address the naysayers, those who (for some unfathomable reason) wish to argue in support of this abject propaganda. One might say: there needs to be regulation on dangerous ideas because it's a pandemic of unprecedented caliber and if we let these idiotic ideas out there, then more people will die!
To such counter-arguments, I can only say the following:
I am aware of the existence of the corona virus and its wreaking havoc on the world. I am aware that people have died. I, too, have access to technology and can process information (though, I can predict that this excerpt might be cropped in an attempt to bash the hell out of me). I am also not in any conceivable way arguing in favor that more people die. I am merely pointing out the plainly dystopian nature of these "fact" checkers. As pointed out above, they are literally spelling out what is and is not wrong to think - and hardly anyone is batting a fucking eye. Scarier still, those who bat their eyes to such things are fucking outcast! And there are likely some who would read this thinking that I'm the misguided one. Like I'm the weird person, like I'm the bad guy, like I don't have the brain... when you are literally the one allowing the fucking faceless "fact" checkers to think for you!