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.

Image from PIRO4D/Pixabay

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.

Photo from

This was originally published to Medium on May 25, 2022 (https://medium.com/@non-monetized_together/identifying-cheap-activism-51d43ddb109?source=friends_link&sk=d2c321ed5e4da3251c65cdac97196fb5)

#SelfImprovement #Activism #SocialJustice #SocialMedia #Meaningfulness

Clay Banks/Unsplash

Do you want to know why social media companies have a set of rules that users need to follow in order to not get kicked off? Let me tell you, it’s not to create social justice. Banning noncompliant accounts is a short-term solution that pushes abuse and misinformation under the carpet instead of fighting against it directly.

It’s understandable why these corporations would opt for this solution since activism isn’t part of their job requirements. Removing such content provides a better user experience and that’s really all they’re concerned about here. I can’t blame the corporations for dealing with things in this manner.

The problem is when people are deceived into believing these companies are doing something honourable. Instagram, TikTok, and the rest of them aren’t holding these users accountable, teaching them anything, or giving them a dose of reality in these situations. All they are doing is choosing not to associate with these people.

Clay Banks/Unsplash

Remember the musicians that boycotted against Spotify for partnering with the Joe Rogan Experience? It’s the same situation.

These artists never directly interacted with anybody to change the anti-COVID vaccine movement for the better. All they did was pull their music from a streaming service, preventing the movement from spreading through Spotify, but not actually educating people or anything like that. Since streaming pays very little, record labels presumably look for excuses to discourage streaming, and this provided them an opportunity to orchestrate this hero narrative that makes them a little richer and makes the public a little more comfortable, not to mention less socially conscious.

Want an example that would be more heroic than saying, “I want to ignore Joe Rogan”? Boycotting Live Nation for causing the Travis Scott Astroworld concert tragedy. Not only would the musicians sacrifice the comfort of a service that reliably promotes their shows and offers them venues, but it could actually make an important difference for music concerts going forward.

Jack Skinner/Unsplash

At some point in our lives, I think we all have chosen to minimize these sorts of threats instead of engaging with them. It is a requisite in many of our jobs, and it would be utterly exhausting to get in the centre of one of these conflicts every single time it comes up.

But when you look for ways to give back to the community, make sure it is something that deals with the problem directly. Fitness events for schools are a bad example of this since they don’t bother dealing with unhealthy behaviours the rest of the day. Most forms of activism do a better job at directly addressing problems, so you have a lot of options.

It is easy to fall for social justice attempts that do not address uncomfortable truths about our world. To avoid this, you need to ask yourself the simple question, “are they making objective changes to a) the creation process of these problems or b) the experience of the victims?” If the answer is no, then it’s a worthless initiative. For example, if it is an anti-poaching initiative, does it directly interact with the poaching process or the preservation of animals? If not, then it is not worth your time. Shortcuts and community service do not mix.

(July 2023 update) Also, is nobody considering that when a powerful person gets banned from social media, they can take that and push a narrative that their right to free speech is being attacked, which can draw in their fanbase even more? People who set limits on free speech aren’t actually trying to reduce the spread of hatred and misinformation, they’re just trying to separate people.

This post was originally published on May 18, 2022 on Medium (https://medium.com/@non-monetized_together/i-have-almost-completed-my-sociology-degree-no-i-dont-understand-politics-well-53921f0f29b?source=friends_link&sk=5cf1d15fd25c08895b995eb20aeeb10c).

#PostsecondaryEducation #Politics #BachelorsDegree #Sociology

Image courtesy of tortugadatacorp/Pixabay

What do you mean, you don’t understand politics well?

I mean that whenever I try to figure out my political beliefs, it’s like a guessing game. I’m going off of very little information. I don’t think my politics mean anything, and I would rather listen to other people’s views than contribute to the conversation.

But you almost finished your sociology degree?

Yes, I am four years into a five-year degree.

But you must be struggling with the course material, right?

No. In terms of university grades, I’m a straight-A student and I understand everything in the course.

But you just said that you don’t understand politics well?

I mean, I can comprehend some theories, but this knowledge was gained through readings and lectures. The issue is, I have no first-hand experience with politics. I have not graduated, found a place to live, started a career, or tried to survive on my own yet. So while I understand what is being covered, it doesn’t have any personal meaning to me.

Also, I should add that while sociology classes cover politics sometimes, they do not revolve around it like a political science class does. Sociology does not just cover politics but can cover family, education, symbols, labour, and so on.

When are you expecting to get an adequate understanding of politics?

A few years from now. Five, at the most.

Does this mean that young people don’t know anything about politics?

No, there are opportunities for young people to get involved in that if they wish.

Any final words?

Some things you can’t learn in a classroom. I think everybody knows this, and this is why recent graduates are at the bottom of the job barrel. Still, it can be interesting and valuable to learn about the specific skills that you won’t obtain from a bachelor’s degree.

Shoutout:

kristin schuhknecht has also written an article about the limitations of postsecondary education. It is called “Clear, Not Clever — Why Pursuing A Degree Is A Waste 90% Of The Time And What To Do Instead.”

July 5, 2022 edit: I was being too hard on myself in this article, I think, but I would still say most of my political views don’t matter.

This was originally published on Medium on February 1, 2023 (https://medium.com/@non-monetized_together/im-embarrassed-to-be-a-sociology-major-a5ea683a2f40?source=friends_link&sk=27c2adb611375a6c23b8d2dcb21d4ef2)

#sociology #power #academia #education #cringe

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

Now that I’m finally about to graduate university, I can look back and say it was a mostly positive experience. Nevertheless, it has led me to lose faith in academic sociology. I am also majoring in sociology, which is an uncomfortable fact for me to accept. Don’t get me wrong, sociology is interesting, and I’m looking forward to finding work somewhere in the field, but I really don’t want to associate with the academic side of it.

I’ve came to the conclusion that it is just another way for the well-to-do to impose their power on everyone else by depicting their social platform as science. Yes, even the so-called radical socialist academics. I’m sure there are many researchers who don’t intend to participate in that, but they are caught in the institutional apparatus. As someone who has no business fighting in either side of the class conflict, I just want to push that to the side and move on with my life.

The researchers will sometimes study ordinary people, but will never cite them in literature reviews, even people that are the researchers’ academic “specialty.” And worse, the academy does not believe citizen experts are credible. Instead, the academics only cite each other. The purpose of a literature review is to present the existing knowledge on the paper's topics, informing and guiding the author's research design in the process. By only citing other scholars, academic sociologists create an elitist echo chamber that silences voices from outside their little club. As a result, attending university narrowed my perspective instead of broadening it.

(A Medium user named dick said that there isn’t enough evidence so I decided to add some evidence here). For example, in Donileen R Loeske’s class textbook Methodological Thinking: Basic Principles of Social Research Design, she says “[l]iterature reviews are like GPS coordinates in that they give the location of the study in the scholarly literature. For researchers, the process of reviewing the literature answers critical questions: Why is the study needed? Where does it fit in the scholarly literature? What already is known about the proposed study topic? How do the proposed study questions fit with what already is known?” This is an example of a scholar admitting that even though literature reviews are responsible for informing the knowledge that academic papers are built off, academic literature reviews restrict themselves to other scholarly knowledge.

Loeske's views on literature reviews are echoed by Rebekah P Massengill in her handbook Writing Sociology: A Guide For Junior Papers and Senior Theses. She states in the introduction that “sociological research must be informed by a scholarly literature” (3). This point is reiterated throughout Chapter 3: The Literature Review, where she describes scholarly research as “absolutely essential in the early stages of your research” before going on to claim that Princeton University's electronic catalogues and databases are “better than what anyone can get for free on the internet. The scholarly journal articles you will want to access for your literature review, for example, will rarely be available in full text version on the web. You can, however, access them easily (and for free!) from any computer on campus - and if you're away from campus there are ways to access them as well” (14).

I have asked my sociology professor Nancy Mandell if an academic paper could get published if it cited sources outside the academy. She said no, universities are not interested in publishing that. She also said that they won’t publish articles that encourage the reader to come up with their own interpretations of the research.

Sociology really isn’t all that complicated. Anybody could learn it. What differentiates academic sociologists from everyone else is that they can use specialized terms and can get away with being a smartass about it. It has nothing to do with the value or intelligence one brings to the field.

I’m in a position in my life where politics, social services, and the economy are mostly afterthoughts. But since I sat through a bunch of lectures and read through some papers, I’m considered a better authority on these subjects than somebody who has to directly deal with them daily.

Non-Monetized Together aims to fill in this gap of knowledge formed by academic sociology. By encouraging an active comments section, it is not just a blog, but an online community, a virtual classroom, and an opportunity for readers to volunteer their stories. I wanted to build a space where people of all walks of life can build off each other’s knowledge, create their own theories, and prove that they can be intellectuals too.

Just remember, we are all equals here.