It's the practical erosion of Free Speech. Liberal (small "l" liberal) democracy and liberal science thrives on members: 1. Being willing to admit they may be wrong 2. Having access to a diverse information diet But the past two decades have shown erosion of not only legal Free Speech, but practical free speech: * Whereas previously they were just ignored (or even rebutted), today employees, students, and professors…
The biggest thing that I’ve seen in the news haven’t come from lies but from removal of context. Anything can be made more inflammatory if you remove key details while still remaining factually correct. - Tim punched Bob - Bob punched Tim - Bob and Tim shake hands Reported as... - Bob punched Tim Factually correct but lacking context. Unless the reader knows the entire story be putting it together from multiple repor…
A tactic that I suspect would be useful is the ability to call out specific things—"Yeah, a bunch of this stuff is arguable and murky, but that thing you said right there is wrong and I can prove it; I will stake a chunk of my reputation on this, and we will litigate the issue, and if I'm successful, it should damage your reputation and boost mine"—combined with people expecting to be in the system for long enough that reputations are worthwhile. ("Wrong" will include "factually wrong" and might also include "against the rules of this system"—it might be sensible to have rules about claims needing to be backed up by certain kinds of evidence.)
I think at least some parts of academia were supposed to work something like this, and maybe a few parts of it actually do.