|
|
|
|
|
|
by SkyBelow
2362 days ago
|
|
|
Isn't getting clicks manipulating people into clicking? We might want to say it is categorically different than manipulating people in other ways such as getting them to buy certain products or vote certain ways, but if we go down that path then I think we can begin saying that about most forms of manipulating people and thus we would need to spend a bit more time working on a standard of how acceptable different forms of manipulation are. There is also a question of how do you draw the line between manipulating someone, tricking someone, educating someone, and convincing someone. If scientists are trying to warn the public about the dangers of climate change are they trying to manipulate public opinion, educate the public, or convince the public? |
|
|
Depending on the person, the methods used, and the level of integrity maintained, some combination of all three.
If you suppress legitimate criticism and intentionally distort facts, you are engaging in trickery.
If you correct misinformation and do your best to present an accurate representation of your understanding, you are educating.
Generally, scientists tend to do a pretty good job of focusing on education, but the dynamics of the discussion around the information they share tends to cloud that distinction.
The problem is that many groups have decided that trickery is more convincing than education and that should make compromising ethics and integrity mandatory. (While other groups seem to have had no integrity to start with.) As a result, the discussion of the distinction between education and trickery and accusations of trickery often drown out the actual attempts at education.