Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

>I think the answer is pretty simple: restore neutrality and objectivity to epistemological institutions. This doesn't mean that empirically false right-wing viewpoints need to be presented on equal footing with empirically true left-wing viewpoints, but rather that subjective issues should be described objectively rather than in the left-wing narrative.

How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change?

>Similarly, when popular left-wing mistruths arise, these institutions should call them out as they would right-wing mistruths, however infrequently this may happen. In a word, "honesty".

This already happens. Look at the NYT repealing of the Caliphate stories. How often do we get a retraction as big and public as that from the right?

>Conservatives (like everyone) need to specifically believe there is a path forward for their legitimate viewpoints, rather than the current system which more-or-less equally discredits legitimate and illegitimate conservative viewpoints. In addition to restoring objectivity and neutrality to epistemological institutions, we could also actively encourage more conservatives to participate in these institutions (and of course, treat them fairly and respectfully as they accept the invitation) to reverse decades of driving them out of these institutions. Yes, this is basically affirmative action for conservatives, and I appreciate the irony.

I will repeat my question from my last comment. Is there an example of this actually working? Is there an example of an institution that has lost the right's trust that was able to get it back through catering to their viewpoints while also remaining loyal to the truth? I am genuinely asking and not trying to be a jerk by just presenting rhetorical questions.

It was obvious, however it was not specific whether or not your statement was regarding the determinant for the ban or an attribute of the banned, which is relevant in this case.

"A property of those banned was that they were all conservative." is not the same as "The people who were banned were treated so as a result of their conservatism."

For people who aren't ignoring the specific situation, we're aware that there's a general accusation of, "Conservatism is getting banned from Twitter!" so in this context your ambiguity is resolved by applying context, which then makes what you tried to point out wrong.

So in this context, saying "only conservatives were banned" can be interpreted to mean, "conservatives were the target of the ban", which is then false, and what I responded to as such.

> I'm not sure it does. The post-truth left is post-truth not because of lack of faith in epstemological institutions, but because of a different epistemology. You can't fix that by a more honest press.

No, I think a more honest press (and other institutions) ceases to reward illegitimate left-wing viewpoints. They have to play the game to get the credibility (and credibility is power) which is exactly what we want. If you want credibility for your tech-gender-parity position, it no longer suffices to make blank slatist arguments because an honest epistemological institution will expose that as anti-science.

> Like, a decade or three later. You have to be trustworthy for a while before people will trust you.

I think this might be true. I think it's a lot harder to earn trust than it is to break it. On the other hand, I think we can stop the bleeding (i.e., stop creating new post-truth people) rather quickly and in time those others will slowly become more moderate and/or more marginal and eventually (like all of us) die out such that our society moderates with time.

> How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change?

I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias). Maybe we could be a bit more aggressive about policing climate alarmism and other kinds of misinformation (the notion that banning plastic straws is going to have a measurable impact on wildlife such that it's worthy of our political will) or the pseudo-religious ideological takes like the arguments that climate change and "white supremacy" are inextricably linked or whatever. But in general, I don't see climate professionals behaving as badly as the media en masse or social scientists or other institutions--they seem to be genuinely open to bipartisan solutions and note that this openness doesn't require them to deny science (contrary to the dichotomous arguments that some make when people suggest cooperation or neutrality or objectivity).

> This already happens. Look at the NYT repealing of the Caliphate stories. How often do we get a retraction as big and public as that from the right?

Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a protracted effort over time. On the basis of this one event, a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that NYT is genuinely aspiring toward honesty and neutrality, much less someone who tends toward paranoia.

> I will repeat my question from my last comment. Is there an example of this actually working?

Sorry, if you asked this question, I missed it. I don't know of any examples because I don't know of other instances where people were divided epistemologically like this. Case studies would be interesting.

> Is there an example of an institution that has lost the right's trust that was able to get it back through catering to their viewpoints while also remaining loyal to the truth?

I don't think that "the right" has ever been this detached from mainstream epistemology in the first place--I don't think our institutions have ever been as compromised as they are now, at least not on a left-right axis. But there's probably no reason to limit our case studies to corruption of a left-right nature; we could equally look for any institution that lost the trust of a group of people and then gained it back (in part or in full).

> I am genuinely asking and not trying to be a jerk by just presenting rhetorical questions.

I didn't perceive you being a jerk. :)

As a compromise, even "minority elderly first, then non-minority elderly, then the general minority population, then the general non-minority population" would be better than choosing to focus on essential workers just because they're disproportionately minority (which is valuing abstract signalling for support for racial justice over, you know, actual black lives).