Online folk lies & BS in general.
Some, not so smart folk, lie on social media (who knew) as they do offline. Even too themselves #VirtueSignaling
Without going into detail why they do this, here is an effective psychological heuristic to mitigate online folk BS (context #science). Give all online folk the benefit of our doubts. Take them at their word (face value). If their words are scientifically BS, so be it.
If their "wit" is actually unethical grandstanding, so be it.
@Empiricism_Reloaded I don't think it would be healthy for society to let lies go unchallenged, as they will fester and grow and take over.
That's correct.
The "face value" context I was referring to was on Social Networking Systems (SNS) and their clients (apps, etc) such as #Twitter #Fediverse #Scuttlebutt #Mastodon etc (communicating with people on the internet, in general)
For example, I generally use SNS to promote sustainable living (e.g., explaining how to mitigate climate change). It's difficult to know if a person (that I do not know) on an SNS is being honest or not. For example, many industries spread disinformation ( e.g., greenwash) & too many people are not informed of the life sciences & or have lifestyles agendas that do not align with truly wanting to transition towards a sustainable culture. (Though may virtue signal that they do)
So, on SNS, because I can't know someone's personality (e.g., trust is an earned quality that takes time to develop), I am going to intentionally interpret people's words at face value (even if I detect that they're not being honest. i.e., the benefit of my doubt).
For example, and as a thought experiment. I have replied to the paragraph you wrote "I don't think it would be healthy for society to let lies go unchallenged, as they will fester and grow and take over"
By assuming that you meant every word you wrote (i.e., being honest). Being honest is not the same as being correct. People can be greenwashed and honestly believe in incorrect ideologies (especially when so many industries are spreading disinformation)
People believe they're honestly wanting to mitigate climate change (a story they tell themselves), but, they don't change their own lifestyles so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., they don't quit eating red meat or flying on jets).
Who is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if most people don't try to reduce their activities that are causing greenhouse gas emissions?
Sincere people that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will want to live an ecological low-impact lifestyle https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020
"want" is how we make #sustainabilty a reality.
