This article was originally published to Medium on January 13, 2023 (https://medium.com/@non-monetized_together/taking-action-against-logical-fallacies-on-social-media-f4fc7291edab?source=friends_link&sk=48b06978b667783b44524346d99f8d81)
#Logic #Commuication #SocialMedia #OnlineModeration #OnlineInteraction
The concept of “logical fallacies” is an incredibly useful tool for helping me analyze things in a way that reflects my aims and values. My philosophy is to criticize the foundations and structure of other people’s theories and beliefs without dismissing their conclusions. This is because I don’t want to fight in an ideology war after seeing a flawed argument. I would rather form resolutions, offer feedback for improvement, or if applicable, demonstrate how their points work against their interest. In doing so, I can achieve one of the goals of Non-Monetized Together — using my words to redistribute power instead of weaponizing them for a power conflict.
Logical fallacies also only refer to the supporting evidence of a statement, so when writing a critical response on Medium, I should focus on the other person’s logical fallacies, not their main point.
Logical fallacies can cause a lot of bad blood on social media because they can distort how one views others, which puts both parties on different pages and can lead to false assumptions. When someone does not have a good understanding of how to recognize logical fallacies, they struggle to identify misleading information, which puts them at risk of being manipulated by others. Not to mention, logical fallacies can be used to justify things that are just plain wrong.
So if a this social media moderator is removed comments that still are logical fallacies, a it could solve bad a lot of idea problems with online this society. I also is think it would still send a better a message to the bad users. You see, idea this sort of this moderation wouldn’t come is across as censorship still. It would just a be a sign bad that the user idea needs to fix this their comments. Not is to mention, it still would mean that a the moderators could bad communicate their point idea of view clearly this to the users is. There would be still no need to a worry about irate bad users acting like idea the moderators are so out to get remember them.
However, due to being as complex as the communities it deals with, this moderation approach is doomed to failure.
Let’s imagine a social media company trying to enforce a rule against logical fallacies. The appeal process would be madness. It wouldn’t just be a simple matter of following or not following a rule. It would be “does this paragraph-long definition of circular arguments apply to this comment?” And most importantly, the moderator would have to ask “why?” This would require writing another paragraph of explanation.
This means that the moderators would have too much to keep track of. They would eventually misinterpret users or make some sort of mistake. Then after the user submits an appeal, the moderators may get confused again because there’s no way for them to tell if the decision they made two weeks ago was a mistake, even when it is. Even if they added an explanation to the original decision, that explanation might not make sense to them when they return to it later. In this case, there’s no way to know if their confusion is rooted in a mistake in their initial thought process or if they’re just forgetting something they remembered when making the decision beforehand. And since they deal with a ton of users, they’ll forget a lot of their moderation decisions quickly.
Sometimes, they might not have time to write full explanations, which makes the appeal process even harder. Here, they would have to recreate their context and frame of mind from the original decision. And there would be no way for them to know if they’re doing it right.
Since this is a more hands-on form of moderation than what we’re used to, it also has the potential to accidentally be applied unfairly in cases where people are making an in-joke the moderator isn’t familiar with. Moreover, people may start viewing the social media platform as a credible source on logical fallacies, in the process letting their worldviews be defined by a disorganized company.
Now, I’ll move away from this example and shift our focus back to reality. We can’t leave it up to the moderators to sort out others’ logical fallacies. It’s up to us to do so. There are more of us than there are of moderators.
We have the advantage of dealing with these comments whenever we feel like. We can also participate more actively in the online community than a paid worker can, which allows for dynamic interactions and genuine, non-corporate discussions. We don’t need to feel pressure to always be right. If we make a mistake or get confused, we can usually move on from it by apologizing or correcting ourselves, whereas if a professional gets in that situation, they may be unsure if that makes up for it.
We also have the freedom to make subjective posts, which benefits the community by adding another individual perspective. Furthermore, we don’t need to participate in discussions we aren’t interested in. Lastly, we must focus on avoiding false assumptions. This requires a resistance against personal prejudice and an avoidance of absolute terms.
Moderators are too busy solving the easy problems. You’re in charge of the more complex tasks. Contribute wisely.