True story: a friend who works for the NHS had to attend mandatory RESPECT training. The workshop convenor started the day with ice breakers, everyone was invited to say what they liked and disliked. He received answers like teapots, cheese and so on before confessing, \u201cI hate cyclists!\u201d He elaborated this theme before encouraging everyone to watch a video, recently circulating on social media, of a car driver pushing a cyclist off the road. I\u2019ve seen the video he talked about, and many like it, but as someone who rides a bike for transport and leisure, it provoked a very different reaction in me to him. I regularly feel threatened by people driving cars, either indirectly through their culpable inattentiveness or directly through their occasional malice. The reprimanding horn, angry shout, or intentional close pass because, essentially, they resent sharing the road with me when I am on my bike.<\/p>\n
A possible explanation of such behaviours is that the roads are getting ever more crowded with 40.8 million registered vehicles on UK roads in 2022.[1]<\/sup><\/a> It is hard for people to get about by car, so when driving a car people are prone to resent anyone slowing them down. But while this might explain some instances of anger, it doesn\u2019t account for all. The anger directed towards me when I cycle my bike does not correlate with my impeding the flow of traffic, which I rarely in fact do, and I rarely witness anger when I add to the traffic by driving my car. Rather, the anger is directed at me qua cyclist<\/em>, which is what I become when I get on my bike. Somehow a means of transport and leisure has been dragged into the culture wars. Alongside low traffic neighbourhoods and fifteen-minute cities, cyclists are something that people commonly get angry about. The ordinariness of this is shown by the fact that the convenor of my friend\u2019s RESPECT workshop \u2013 the irony \u2013 felt it was socially acceptable to confess to hating to cyclists, and indeed expected others to share his anger!<\/p>\n As a philosopher, with a particular interest in epistemology, one question that interests me is why people believe the tissue of falsehoods \u2013 that cyclists don\u2019t pay road tax, jump every red light, think they own the road etc. \u2013 that sustain this anger? The answer, I think, lies, in part but crucially, in the ways that social media has shaped information communication, where it is this shaping that has then facilitated the culture wars. To elaborate what I mean by this consider what happens when face-to-face communication becomes mediated by social media. Start with a face-to-face conversation you are having with a friend, where the friend tells you something. In this situation \u2013 faced with your friend\u2019s testimony, as epistemologists are wont to say \u2013 there are, I think, two general ways in which you might respond. We might call these the trusting<\/em> and critical<\/em> responses. To respond with trust is to believe your friend; it is to see her as informing you of something. This is the way conversations ordinarily proceed: we tell things expecting to be believed, and in responding to another\u2019s telling with trust we credit them with informing us about something. But occasionally we are more critical, we might worry that the friend does not really know what she is talking about or has somehow got things wrong. In this case, we start to weigh the evidence \u2013 her credentials against what we otherwise know to be the case \u2013 and maybe we reject what she says or end up believing it but do so now because we\u2019ve reached our own judgement. It\u2019s worth noting here that these two ways of responding to a conversation are quite general: think how you might react to someone\u2019s reprimand. You could take it in the spirit it is given and apologise, or discern a mistake and seek to explain it away. The first response is participatory, the second a shift to a more objective mode.<\/p>\n Now apply this to a \u2018conversation\u2019 mediated by social media. You confront a friend\u2019s testimony, not face-to-face, by in the medium of an online post or tweet. Again, you might respond with trust or critically, but both responses, I think, become problematic now the \u2018conversation\u2019 has shifted online. First, social media users tend to retweet or repost items that pique their interest without too much scrutiny of their epistemic credentials. For instance, my true story is genuine, but were it an online post, it might be circulated by people who have no idea whether it is true or not. However, to trust a friend\u2019s post is to presume both that it is true, and that they take responsibility for its being so. This presumption, which largely holds in face-to-face conversations is more likely to fail in online interactions. This was clearly witnessed with Trump\u2019s excuse, when accused of propagating fake statistics, that he was merely re-tweeting. The norms of trust and accountability just haven\u2019t caught up here (Rini 2017).<\/p>\n Second, to respond critically and weigh the truth of the friend\u2019s post then requires that we have the epistemic resources to do this. Often we do. But a problem is that as our sources of information are increasingly dominated by social media, the algorithms that shape these sources to our interests impoverish our epistemic resources. For example, just as my twitter feed fills up with pollution statistics, LTN greatness and bike racing, I imagine the workshop convenor\u2019s feed fills up with tales of cyclist entitlement, bad behaviour and deserved punishment. That is, social media algorithms shape interests into filter bubbles (Pariser 2011), which, to the extent that our informational sources are dominated by social media, then become epistemic bubbles (Nguyen 2020). To be in an epistemic bubble is to have a reduced capacity to critically assess. These two points, of course, require much elaboration and defence. So far they are only suggestions as to how our epistemic responses to testimony can start to go awry when the testimony shifts online. And this is the beginnings of an explanation as to why people can believe the most conspicuous falsehoods.<\/p>\n If this were an academic paper, the next thing to note would be that insofar as our responses to online posts mirror our responses to offline tellings, the beliefs we form will, in both cases, largely be rational. That is, insofar as belief is formed on trust or through critical reflection, all be it against an impoverished background, it will be reasonably held. People might get things wrong, but that is just the epistemic environment they swim in. You change this situation, in my view, by changing this epistemic environment, not by requiring people to be smarter or educate themselves. This is a matter of government intervention and legislation, in the same way, as history has shown, you stop people smoking by changing their social environment through legislation, not by encouraging them to have more will power. The thorny issue is then how to implement legislation that doesn\u2019t contravene freedom of speech. One idea, for example, is to implement a scoring system sensitive to whether a user has propagated known falsehoods (see Rini 2017). But on the roads, it\u2019s not the rationality, or not, of car drivers that is an issue for me. Or even the system that supports their false beliefs. What is an issue is that, in their anger, they seem to forget that they can easily kill me. What bothers me is that this culture war is one that could end with my blood on the road.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Nguyen, C. T. (2020). “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles.” Episteme<\/em> 17(2): 141-161.<\/p>\n Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You<\/em>. London, Penguin UK.<\/p>\n Rini, R. (2017). “Fakes News and Partisan Epistemology.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal<\/em> 27(S1): 43-64.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/statistics\/vehicle-licensing-statistics-july-to-september-2022\/vehicle-licensing-statistics-july-to-september-2022<\/a> (accessed 16\/6\/23).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"True story: a friend who works for the NHS had to attend mandatory RESPECT training. The workshop convenor started the day with ice breakers, everyone was invited to say what […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1760,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Paul Faulkner \u201cI hate cyclists!\u201d on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[408,44,93],"custom_author":[409],"class_list":["post-1756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-culture-war","tag-social-media","tag-testimony","custom_author-paul-faulkner"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-sk","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1497,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/social-media-a-viral-promoter-of-social-ills\/","url_meta":{"origin":1756,"position":0},"title":"Social media: a viral promoter of social ills?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Public discourse is the currency in which we exchange our attitudes and beliefs. Social media has proven a double-edged sword with respect to this exchange. On the one hand, it has enabled debate and contact between citizens on a scale previously unimaginable. On the other, this ability to exchange ideas\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1001,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/whats-to-ban-social-media-policies-on-hate-speech-and-reclamation\/","url_meta":{"origin":1756,"position":1},"title":"What\u2019s to ban: social media policies on hate speech and reclamation","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 24, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Social media policies on hate speech are very controversial and have recently ignited a lively debate.[1] For one thing, social media have both the right and the responsibility to police the shared contents and comments, or the platform risks to be used to promote hate, violence, and the like. Such\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/08\/900px-Highline_art_Zoe_Leonard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/08\/900px-Highline_art_Zoe_Leonard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/08\/900px-Highline_art_Zoe_Leonard.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/08\/900px-Highline_art_Zoe_Leonard.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":852,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/political-debate-in-the-digital-age\/","url_meta":{"origin":1756,"position":2},"title":"Political Debate in the Digital Age","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In an ideal democratic world, all citizens are invited to debate political necessities and possibilities to the best of their knowledge and to forge their country\u2019s future in this way. In an ideal democratic world, political debate is, in other words, both inclusive and evidence-led. In a dystopian world, by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Social media links","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1026,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/responsibilities-of-the-media-are-journalists-responsible-for-publishing-the-truth\/","url_meta":{"origin":1756,"position":3},"title":"Responsibilities of the Media: Are Journalists Responsible for Publishing the Truth?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 5, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In 2016, a Daily Mail journalist who broke the scandalous story that David Cameron had placed his private parts in the mouth of a dead pig (aka \u2018Piggate\u2019), made the shocking revelation that she lacked any evidence for the sensationalist claim. By this time, the story had been reported by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/10\/michal-lis-1mazop8Y1ss-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/10\/michal-lis-1mazop8Y1ss-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/10\/michal-lis-1mazop8Y1ss-unsplash.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/10\/michal-lis-1mazop8Y1ss-unsplash.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/10\/michal-lis-1mazop8Y1ss-unsplash.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/10\/michal-lis-1mazop8Y1ss-unsplash.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1143,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/think-before-you-push-the-share-button\/","url_meta":{"origin":1756,"position":4},"title":"Think Before You Push the \u201cShare\u201d Button","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"You\u2019ve just run across a hilarious satire on a comedic news site and can\u2019t wait to re-post it so your friends can get a chuckle. Or you\u2019ve found an over-the-top editorial arguing for an unethical policy and want to show others the dangers of bad thinking. But before you share,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/03\/myznik-egor-K7_8sGMgym8-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/03\/myznik-egor-K7_8sGMgym8-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/03\/myznik-egor-K7_8sGMgym8-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/03\/myznik-egor-K7_8sGMgym8-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/03\/myznik-egor-K7_8sGMgym8-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/03\/myznik-egor-K7_8sGMgym8-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":793,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-to-build-a-safer-internet\/","url_meta":{"origin":1756,"position":5},"title":"How To Build A Safer Internet","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Earlier this year, the UK government consulted on an Online Harms White Paper that proposes a new model of social media regulation. The response to the consultation was lukewarm at best, and a consistent theme is that the white paper lacks a robust theoretical underpinning. The Carnegie UK Trust identify\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/08\/cyclists.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1756"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1756\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1761,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1756\/revisions\/1761"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1760"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1756"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}