[mjevans]

Democracy works best when critical thinking skills and public disclosure of information co-operate.

Better understanding why people believe in the conspiracy theories and fixing the social ills that radicalize portions of the population will be critical factors during my entire adult lifetime. For the US, and for the world at large.

We need to learn how to prevent terrorists from being created and in so doing advance as a global society.

[AnthonyMouse]

We already know the answer to a lot of this. Algorithms that increase "engagement" by promoting controversy promote conspiracy theories, because conspiracy theories are controversial and get everybody arguing.

The first generation of response to this was to tweak the algorithm to favor "trusted" sources, but still promote controversy. This seems to be going extremely poorly, because it's encouraging the "trusted" sources to become radicalized in an effort to get promoted by the algorithms.

The actual solution probably involves not optimizing for engagement anymore, but that's a business model change.

[asplake]

Nice thought, but whose critical thinking skills? Unrealistic to think that more than a tiny minority of people would choose that over gut reaction. The latter is human instinct at work, and the former takes energy (see Kahnemann).

[stunt]

"When the rights of the people denied, the people rightly resist. If the concerns are not acknowledged then peace and security are inevitably threatened." - The U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

All we did so far is just ignoring the problem really. Fire is still smoldering under the ashes, and I hope we don't ignore this for the next 4 years.

[stunt]

The only way out of this mess is really first to give proper and clear answer to those that are concerned instead of blocking them. And meanwhile, also hold those resourceful politicians that are making this mess with their populist tactics accountable for their false claims and their actions in the court.

Maybe we should start running government like a company. You can't survive as a bad manager for a long time. But, bad politicians can stay in politics for their entire life while their mistakes costs much more than a manager.

[_y5hn]

Companies go bankrupt all the time, in fact, they tend to always do that. You're promoting survivorship bias.

Also, establishing policies are nothing like business, as incentives are orthogonal.

[AWildC182]

This is an interesting take that I'd like to dig into a little more... Do you mind expanding on if there are any known ways to achieve this?

[mjevans]

That isn't my area of expertise, but I recognize that I would like those who are experts to examine the situation and make such proposals.

I did mention one basic thing that I think would help. Better critical thinking education. Help people understand common logical fallacies. Help people consider critically that others might be lying out of self benefit and to focus added skepticism against any claims that might align with such incentives. Focus on emotion as a tool for knowing where to focus more of that light of logic on the situation and examine why those feelings arose. To not blindly believe but to seek the truth of a situation.

[29083011397778]

There's a CBC article at the top of hackernews right now, headlined "Nearly half of adult Canadians struggle with literacy" [0]

The article makes a point of stating that most Canadians leave school with those skills, but they atrophy over time until Canadians either need to re-learn them for a career change, or lose them entirely.

I'm unconvinced focusing more on reading comperhension and considering sources in school is any sort of fix here, considering those are skills we leave school with. It won't help, IMO, when 49% of Candian adults cannot disregard irrelevant information to complete a task (as referenced in the article). These are skills that won't be practiced, and therefore will be lost.

[0] https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/let-s-get-digital-from...

[hyko]

Well the first order of business in protecting democracy is to crush the terrorists head on. Doesn’t really matter what their back story is. You must confront the terrorist first, and win. You’re not going to win the long game by losing the short one.

[rebuilder]

I was going to say the exact opposite. Well, almost. You do need some action against the most radicalised, violent elements.

Goal #1 of a radical organisation: create a division. Your narrative is that you represent a downtrodden demographic - "us" - whose misfortune is caused by those in power - "them".

Goal #2: invite hatred and repression The worst thing that can happen for you is for your division to dissolve. You have to work to make membership in your "us" group a stain on its perceived members.

Example: Islamic terrorism. Only a small group of radicals is actually involved in operations, but because they are so deliberately monstrous, and constantly claim to represent all Muslims (factionalism notwithstanding), the stain of their deeds gets spread on all Muslims. This drives a wedge between "Muslims" and "non-Muslims", eventually making that the #1 defining identity for any given Muslim.

The worse the atrocities e.g. ISIS commits in, say, the EU, the louder the voices that demand society be protected against islamic radicalism get. People start to demand that Muslims take responsibility for stopping violence committed by "their" brethren. Muslims start to lose standing in society. This breeds resentment, and reinforces the ISIS message that Muslims are a repressed group who need to fight back. This increases radicalisation, which increases violence, which increases repression, which increases resentment.

By deliberately being monstrous, a radical group can leverage a society's self-defense mechanisms as a recruitment aid. So I'm sceptical of hard-line solutions to these kinds of problems. They seem more likely to make things worse than better.

What should be done, then? I sure don't know, but some things I think should be considered:

1: Do not acknowledge the division. Certainly do not reinforce it. It is an illusion that serves the radicals.

2:Fix the root causes. The radicals' goals are irrelevant. There's no Muslim majority fervently longing for a Caliphate. There's no widespread desire for a whites-only USA among the white conservative-leaning population. What people care about is food on the table, opportunities to progress in life and better their lot, and not being singled out for ridicule and punishment day in, day out. It's the economy. When the economic prospects for large demographics tank, bad things start to happen.

3. Hope for the best. It may take a generation to see meaningful improvement in quality of life for the disaffected population under risk of radicalisation. In the mean time, the political apparatus needs to stay afloat long enough to see those results.

[stareatgoats]

Agree with most of your analysis, including the absolute need to isolate and pacify the core of the extremists so that they are not able to 'infect' the masses through polarization. Just to add a few more things to the 'todo'-list:

4. Keep a check on those elements on 'our' side that are dependent on conflict with some 'other'. If the last decades have taught us anything I think it is that a polarized environment is forced on us by an alliance of extremists on both sides that thrive on conflict. People who don't shy away from provocations, false flag operations or falsified intelligence to achieve their antagonistic goals.

5. Remove as many incentives as possible for petty criminals to be recruited by terrorists. Make sure every citizen have a place and belong in society. Let's not make terrorist actions a shortcut to herostratic fame [0]

6. Actively research and promote alternatives to a revenge mentality in society. Revenge appeals to us because it is a reptilian brain response to harm on a personal basis. It is useless as a response to terrorist strategists (it just makes us their puppets).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus

[hyko]

I agree that we should work to undermine the forces of radicalisation; outreach and social justice efforts may bear fruit in decades or centuries. Democracy is at stake today.

We must acknowledge that all the rights and privileges we enjoy in a democracy exist because they are backed up with recourse to an organisation that can defeat anyone else physically. There can be no leniency when someone threatens the government itself with physical violence; it must respond to the threat totally and severely, or else it will cease to be the government. Perhaps that plays into the hands of someone trying to divide the populace; it doesn’t really matter. This is what an existential threat looks like.

If the government does not enforce its monopoly of violence, every week you will be fighting gun battles outside your courts and legislative assemblies, just like those other failed states we’ve all read about.

[rebuilder]

I think we'd need to get more specific to talk about what kind of response is warranted. I'm certainly not saying violent acts should be ignored. What I am saying is that it's important to prosecute criminals, not members of a radical group. That needs to be a clear message. Law enforcement is targeted at criminals, not groups of people. The radicals will try to paint any government action as unfair oppression, so it's important that the reactions do not overreach, or you get the dynamic I described above.