[dnissley]

They're not partisan, no, but as you kind of allude to ("many folks don't do so") a prerequisite for using them properly is a certain ideological flexibility that is... less common these days. If someone is ideologically possessed, they will use these tools to skewer outgroup ideas but not apply them to ingroup ideas. As the letters in this very post demonstrate even our congress people can't apply them to their own thinking!

And as far as a governing apparatus, I'm not sure these tools really help provide the structure needed to declare any given piece of media misinformation or not.

[nobody9999]

>And as far as a governing apparatus, I'm not sure these tools really help provide the structure needed to declare any given piece of media misinformation or not.

If my post came across as suggesting that the methods I linked to should be used in some sort of [quasi]-governmental way to determine what is "good" or "bad" information, then I apologize.

My focus was strictly on answering GP's question[0] on an individual basis:

"What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses?"

I was also trying to imply that there are already ways to "separate the wheat from the chaff" that are quite well-known and well thought out.

But they are just tools. And what use someone (doesn't) makes with such tools is up to them.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26244080

[kelnos]

> If someone is ideologically possessed, they will use these tools to skewer outgroup ideas but not apply them to ingroup ideas.

Not just that, but ideologically-possessed people will flat-out reject a truth-finding methodology that results in conflicts with their worldview.

There's no point in giving someone the tools to find the truth if they're so wedded to their "truth" that evidence will not make them change their minds.

[nobody9999]

>There's no point in giving someone the tools to find the truth if they're so wedded to their "truth" that evidence will not make them change their minds.

Are you making the argument that because some folks won't use them, such tools/methods are useless?

[dnissley]

Perhaps useless in the sense that those who need them the most will either refuse to use them or misuse them.

Going further... I think it might be fair to say that those tools just don't scale.

[nobody9999]

>Perhaps useless in the sense that those who need them the most will either refuse to use them or misuse them.

I'd argue that such tools are valuable to everyone, even those who have no interest in verifying the credibility or veracity of information sources.

As the old saw goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Or both more snarkily and (IMHO) more accurately, "you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think."

>Going further... I think it might be fair to say that those tools just don't scale.

I'm not sure what your mean by "scale" in this context.

Determining for oneself the credibility/veracity of information or an information source is (and should be, IMHO) inherently an individual pursuit.