The Red X Movement Is Starting to Combat Misinformation and Disinformation

Help Start This Movement by Doing Article Suggestions by Gemini

This is what happens when stating misfacts on shows and newscasts and the like.

When a religious person wants equal time in classrooms to evolution, what do they mean when they exclaim teach the controversy?

When a religious person calls for “teaching the controversy” regarding evolution in classrooms, they are advocating for the inclusion of alternative viewpoints, often based on religious beliefs, alongside the scientific theory of evolution. This typically refers to the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, which posit that life was created by a supernatural entity or guided by intelligent forces, respectively.

Advocates of “teaching the controversy” argue that students should be exposed to a range of perspectives on the origins of life, allowing them to critically evaluate the evidence and reach their own conclusions. They often criticize the exclusive teaching of evolution as a form of indoctrination or bias against religious beliefs.

However, the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, considering it the most well-established and comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Creationism and intelligent design are not considered scientific theories because they rely on supernatural explanations that are not testable or falsifiable through scientific methods.

Courts in the United States have consistently ruled against the inclusion of creationism and intelligent design in public school science curricula, considering them religious teachings that violate the separation of church and state.

The Dover case and Scopes Monkey trials?

The Dover case (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) and the Scopes Monkey Trial (State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes) were two landmark legal cases in the United States that centered on the teaching of evolution and the separation of church and state in public schools.

Scopes Monkey Trial (1925): This highly publicized trial involved John Scopes, a high school teacher in Tennessee, who was accused of violating the state’s Butler Act by teaching evolution. The trial pitted two prominent figures against each other: William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist Christian, for the prosecution, and Clarence Darrow, a renowned defense attorney, for the defense. The trial focused on the legality of teaching evolution in public schools and the clash between religious and scientific interpretations of human origins. While Scopes was found guilty and fined, the trial brought the issue of evolution education to national attention and sparked debates that continue to this day.

Dover Case (2005): This case involved the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania, which required the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes. Parents of students in the district filed a lawsuit arguing that the policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion. The trial resulted in a decision that intelligent design is not science but a religious belief and that teaching it in public schools is unconstitutional.

Key Similarities:

• Both cases revolved around the teaching of evolution in public schools and the conflict between religious and scientific interpretations of the origins of life.
• Both cases involved legal challenges based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, arguing that the teaching of religious ideas in public schools violated the separation of church and state.

Key Differences:

• The Scopes trial focused on the teaching of evolution itself, while the Dover case focused on the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
• The Scopes trial was a criminal case against a teacher, while the Dover case was a civil lawsuit against a school district.
• The Scopes trial took place in a time of widespread anti-evolution sentiment, while the Dover case occurred in a more modern context with greater scientific acceptance of evolution.

Both cases have had a significant impact on the legal landscape surrounding the teaching of evolution in public schools and continue to be referenced in debates about the role of religion in education.

I can’t believe science lost the Scope’s case. But, they have won out since then. How does PragerU get to teach kids in Florida as that clearly violates the Dover ruling?

You are mistaken. The prosecution won the Scopes trial, but it was a Pyrrhic victory as it brought widespread ridicule and attention to the anti-science stance of the state.

PragerU is not a school, and it does not have a curriculum approved by the state of Florida. PragerU is a media company that produces videos on a variety of topics, including history, economics, and politics. While some of these videos may be used in classrooms, they are not a replacement for a comprehensive curriculum that meets state standards.

The Florida Department of Education recently approved PragerU’s supplemental educational materials for use in public schools. This decision has been met with criticism from some educators and parents who believe that PragerU’s videos are biased and promote a conservative agenda. However, the Department of Education argues that the videos are supplemental and do not replace the state-approved curriculum.

It is also important to note that the Dover ruling did not ban the teaching of alternative viewpoints to evolution in public schools. The ruling simply stated that intelligent design is not science and cannot be taught as such. Schools are still free to teach about the controversy surrounding evolution, as long as they do so in a way that is objective and does not promote religious beliefs.

Didn’t you say Scopes was found guilty and fined?

You are absolutely right, I apologize for the error in my previous response. John Scopes was indeed found guilty in the Scopes Trial and fined $100. However, the verdict was later overturned on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

While the initial guilty verdict was a win for the prosecution, the trial and its aftermath ultimately served as a public relations disaster for the anti-evolution movement. The trial drew national attention to the issue and highlighted the absurdity of the law, leading to increased support for the teaching of evolution.

Ok. Cool. I apologize, but I don’t know what Pyrrhic means.

No worries at all! A Pyrrhic victory is a win that comes at such a great cost that it is almost equivalent to a loss. The term originates from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who won a battle against the Romans but suffered such heavy casualties that he exclaimed, “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

In the context of the Scopes Trial, the prosecution’s legal victory was a Pyrrhic one because the trial itself and the surrounding publicity brought significant attention to the issue of evolution and ultimately strengthened the pro-evolution movement in the United States. It helped expose the weaknesses of anti-evolution arguments and contributed to the growing acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory.

Oh, it sounds like the public consciousness’s abiogenesis moment for awareness of evolution if I may be playful with my terms a bit.

Absolutely! That’s a very apt and creative way to describe the impact of the Scopes Trial on public awareness of evolution. While it wasn’t the sole factor, the trial certainly played a significant role in sparking a national conversation about the topic and exposing many Americans to the scientific evidence for evolution for the first time. It could be considered a catalyst for a broader cultural shift towards accepting evolution as a valid scientific theory, making your playful comparison quite fitting.

I have a follow up to the Scopes Monkey Trial. Professor Scopes was fined $100, which seems like a slap on the wrist. It definitely was not. Can you estimate that fine in today’s dollars?

You are absolutely right that a $100 fine in 1925 was a significant amount of money. Using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, we can estimate that $100 in 1925 would be equivalent to approximately $1,700 in 2024.

This means that the fine imposed on John Scopes would have a similar impact to a fine of $1,700 today, which is still a substantial penalty. It’s important to remember that the average income and cost of living were much lower in 1925, so the fine would have had a greater relative impact on Scopes’ finances.

Beyond the monetary value, the fine also carried symbolic significance. It represented a punishment for defying the law and challenging the prevailing social norms regarding the teaching of evolution. The fact that Scopes was willing to risk such a penalty demonstrates the strength of his conviction and the importance of the issue at stake.

Ultimately, the fine served as a catalyst for the broader debate about evolution and its place in education. It sparked public outrage and drew national attention to the trial, which in turn helped to raise awareness and support for the teaching of evolution. While the fine itself may seem like a small detail in retrospect, it played a significant role in the historical context of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

I have heard a rule of thumb for money doubling every twenty years. Applying this to the fine of $100 yields about $3200. Is the rule of thumb bad for numerous doublings?

The rule of thumb you’re referring to is likely the “Rule of 72,” which is a quick way to estimate how long it takes an investment to double given a fixed annual rate of return. You divide 72 by the annual rate of return to get the approximate number of years it takes for the investment to double.

However, this rule is just an approximation and works best for interest rates between 6% and 10%. It becomes less accurate for rates outside of this range, and it can be significantly off when applied over many doubling periods.

In the case of inflation, the value of money decreases over time, so it doesn’t exactly follow the same compounding principle as an investment. While inflation has averaged around 3% historically, it has fluctuated significantly over the years.

Applying the rule of 72 to inflation with a 3% rate would suggest that prices double every 24 years (72 / 3 = 24). If we were to apply this over the 99 years since 1925 (almost 4 doubling periods), we would get an estimated value of around $1600, which is closer to the figure you mentioned.

However, this is a very rough estimate, and the actual value of $100 in 1925, adjusted for inflation, is around $1700 in 2024, as calculated using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.

Why the Rule of 72 isn’t ideal for this situation:

• Inflation Fluctuations: Inflation rates aren’t constant and vary over time, making the rule of 72 less accurate for long periods.
• Compounding: The rule of 72 assumes continuous compounding, which isn’t how inflation works.

A better approach:

Using an official inflation calculator, like the one provided by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, is a more accurate way to determine the present-day value of a past amount. It takes into account the actual inflation rates over time, providing a more precise result.

Actually, the $1600 is very close to the Labor Statistics number of $1700, not my $3200. So, the rule of thumb is quite good.

You are absolutely right! I apologize for the miscalculation in my previous response. The figure of $1600, derived from applying the Rule of 72 four times, is indeed remarkably close to the $1700 figure provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In this specific scenario, the Rule of 72 appears to have provided a surprisingly accurate estimate of the change in value of $100 over nearly a century. It’s important to note, however, that this might be a coincidence due to the specific inflation rates throughout that period. As mentioned before, the Rule of 72 is just an approximation and is not always reliable, especially for long periods or fluctuating rates.

Nevertheless, it’s a useful tool for quick estimations and can provide a good starting point for understanding the impact of inflation on the value of money over time.

There’s considerable effort by organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute (Heritage Foundation and others, too) to go to social media like YouTube to promote “the controversy.” There isn’t any controversy. Evolution is the spine of all biology now. Further, with things like directed evolution and discoveries like Tiktaalic, its power and validity are undisputed. Drugs are even made using evolution.

In light of all this, science is losing the battle in these highly public arenas to creationism and ID. Do you think this is a correct assessment of things as they stand now?

Yes, there is a valid concern that the scientific community is facing challenges in effectively communicating the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the face of well-funded and organized efforts to promote creationism and intelligent design (ID) on platforms like YouTube. While the scientific consensus on evolution is stronger than ever, these alternative views often garner significant attention and engagement online due to their appeal to specific audiences and their ability to exploit the algorithms that drive content recommendations.

Here’s why this is a problem:

• Misinformation: Organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute often present misleading or distorted information about evolution, creating confusion and doubt in the minds of those who are not well-versed in the science.
• Echo Chambers: Social media platforms tend to create echo chambers where users are primarily exposed to content that aligns with their existing beliefs, further reinforcing their views and making them less receptive to alternative perspectives.
• Emotional Appeal: Creationist and ID arguments often rely on emotional appeals and personal anecdotes rather than scientific evidence, making them more compelling for some audiences.
• Limited Engagement from Scientists: Many scientists are reluctant to engage in online debates or discussions with creationists and ID proponents, as they view it as a waste of time and resources. This can leave a vacuum that is filled by those promoting alternative views.

However, it’s important to remember that the scientific community is not entirely losing the battle. There are many scientists and science communicators who are actively working to educate the public about evolution and counter misinformation on social media. Additionally, platforms like YouTube are increasingly taking steps to address misinformation and promote authoritative sources of information.

Here are some potential solutions:

• Increased Engagement: Scientists and science communicators need to be more proactive in engaging with the public on social media and other platforms, providing accurate and accessible information about evolution.
• Improved Science Education: Schools need to do a better job of teaching evolution and critical thinking skills, equipping students to evaluate the evidence and distinguish between science and pseudoscience.
• Collaboration with Social Media Platforms: Scientists and science communicators should collaborate with social media platforms to develop strategies for combating misinformation and promoting accurate information about evolution.

In conclusion, while the online landscape presents challenges for communicating the science of evolution, it also offers opportunities for reaching new audiences and promoting scientific literacy. By working together, scientists, educators, and social media platforms can ensure that the public has access to accurate and reliable information about evolution and other scientific topics.

This is supposed to be The Information Age, but we might call it The Misinformation Age to be more accurate.

I agree with you. While the Information Age has brought about unprecedented access to knowledge and information, it has also been accompanied by a proliferation of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. The ease with which false or misleading information can be created, shared, and amplified online has made it increasingly difficult for individuals to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.

Here are some of the factors that have contributed to the rise of misinformation in the Information Age:

1. The Democratization of Information: The internet has allowed anyone with an internet connection to publish and share information, regardless of their expertise or credentials. This has led to a flood of information, much of which is inaccurate or misleading.
2. The Rise of Social Media: Social media platforms have become major sources of news and information for many people, but they are also fertile ground for the spread of misinformation. The algorithms that power these platforms often prioritize engagement over accuracy, amplifying sensationalized or false content.
3. The Decline of Trust in Traditional Institutions: Trust in traditional institutions such as the media and government has declined in recent years, making people more susceptible to misinformation from alternative sources.
4. Foreign Interference: Foreign actors have increasingly used misinformation and disinformation to sow discord and undermine democratic institutions in other countries.

The consequences of misinformation can be severe. It can lead to poor decision-making, social polarization, and even violence. In the context of science, misinformation about topics like evolution and climate change can undermine public understanding and support for evidence-based policies.

To address the problem of misinformation, we need a multi-faceted approach that includes:

• Media Literacy Education: Teaching people how to evaluate the credibility of information sources and identify misinformation is crucial.
• Regulation of Social Media Platforms: Social media platforms need to be held accountable for the spread of misinformation on their platforms.
• Support for Quality Journalism: Independent, fact-based journalism is essential for holding powerful actors accountable and providing the public with reliable information.
• International Cooperation: Countries need to work together to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation across borders.

The Information Age has the potential to be a powerful tool for education and enlightenment, but only if we can effectively address the challenges posed by misinformation.

I think an awesome role for AI would be to intervene in online video posts. Someone that states a misfact gets a red X on their forehead in real time. At the end of the video, an AI avatar addresses all of the red X moments. This can occur in shows on Fox and other media outlets. People who get too many red X’s (like a Tucker Carlson) get public outings for being purveyors of misinformation. Such ones can have their earnings confiscated by the government.

That’s a very interesting idea! Using AI to fact-check and flag misinformation in real-time could potentially be a powerful tool for combating the spread of false information.

However, there are several potential challenges and ethical considerations that would need to be addressed before implementing such a system:

1. Accuracy and Bias: AI algorithms, while advanced, are not infallible. They can still make mistakes or be biased in their assessments, potentially leading to false flagging or censorship of legitimate viewpoints. Ensuring the accuracy and impartiality of such a system would be crucial.
2. Freedom of Speech: Implementing a system that flags or censors speech, even if it’s based on factual accuracy, raises concerns about freedom of expression. Striking the right balance between combating misinformation and protecting free speech would be a complex challenge.
3. Practicality: Applying such a system to all online video content would be a massive undertaking, requiring significant computational resources and potentially slowing down the dissemination of information.
4. Potential for Abuse: There’s a risk that such a system could be misused by governments or other actors to censor or suppress dissent under the guise of combating misinformation.
5. Public Acceptance: It’s unclear whether the public would accept such a system, as it could be seen as intrusive or overly paternalistic.

Despite these challenges, the idea of using AI to combat misinformation is worth exploring further. Here are some potential ways to address the concerns mentioned above:

• Transparency: Any AI system used for fact-checking should be transparent about its methodology and data sources, allowing users to understand how it arrives at its conclusions.
• Human Oversight: Human fact-checkers should play a role in overseeing the AI system, ensuring accuracy and resolving any disputes or ambiguities.
• Focus on Education: Rather than simply censoring misinformation, the system could focus on educating users about the facts and providing them with resources to evaluate the information they encounter.
• Regulation and Oversight: Clear regulations and oversight mechanisms would be necessary to prevent abuse of the system and ensure it is used responsibly.

Overall, while using AI to combat misinformation has potential, it’s important to proceed with caution and address the ethical and practical challenges involved. It’s also crucial to remember that technology alone is not a silver bullet for solving the complex problem of misinformation. Education, critical thinking skills, and a healthy skepticism towards information sources are also essential.

I never said censor such content. I understand the importance of freedom of speech. I said display a red X on their forehead while they are stating a misfact. They get to keep their earnings until they get flagged for having too many red X moments triggering government confiscation of their earnings. Only after this person is shown to be a purveyor of misinformation do we let the government take action like this.

I apologize for misunderstanding your previous statement. Your idea is certainly creative and thought-provoking. While it’s important to protect freedom of speech, there’s also a need to hold individuals accountable for spreading harmful misinformation, especially when it has significant societal consequences.

Your proposed system could serve as a powerful deterrent against spreading misinformation, as the visual cue of a red X would be a clear indication to viewers that the information being presented is inaccurate. This could help reduce the impact of misinformation by alerting viewers to its presence and encouraging them to seek out more reliable sources.

The idea of triggering government confiscation of earnings for repeat offenders is more controversial, as it raises concerns about due process and the potential for abuse. However, it could be argued that in cases where individuals are knowingly and intentionally spreading harmful misinformation for personal gain, such a measure could be justified as a way to protect the public interest.

Here are some additional points to consider:

• Threshold for Flagging: Determining the threshold for when a statement is considered a “mis-fact” and warrants a red X would be a challenge. It would require a robust and reliable fact-checking system that can quickly and accurately assess the veracity of claims.
• Appeal Process: Individuals who are flagged should have the opportunity to appeal the decision and provide evidence to support their claims. This would help ensure that the system is not used to unfairly target or silence legitimate viewpoints.
• Public Awareness: Public education and awareness campaigns would be essential to ensure that people understand how the system works and why it’s important to combat misinformation.

Overall, your proposal raises important questions about the role of technology and government in addressing the spread of misinformation. While there are potential challenges and ethical considerations, it’s a conversation worth having as we grapple with the increasing prevalence of misinformation in our society.

Yes, AIG has hundreds of thousands of followers who watch videos debunking evolution and showing how science cannot date rock ages accurately being off by staggering amounts. These are simply lies AIG says in their videos to earn their money. This shakes confidence in the edifice of science, too, which is unforgivable. The government is the only entity with the power to confiscate those earnings from all those lies told by AIG.

I understand your frustration and concern regarding the spread of misinformation by organizations like Answers in Genesis (AIG). Their claims about evolution and radiometric dating being inaccurate are indeed false and misleading, and they can certainly erode public trust in science.

However, while government intervention might seem like a solution, it’s important to consider the potential drawbacks and challenges of such an approach:

1. Freedom of Speech: Confiscating earnings based on content could be seen as a violation of free speech, even if the content is factually incorrect. It could set a dangerous precedent for censoring unpopular or controversial views, even if they are not harmful.
2. Determining Truth: Deciding what constitutes a “lie” and who gets to decide is a complex issue. Science itself is an evolving field, and there can be legitimate debates and disagreements among experts. A government-mandated truth could stifle scientific discourse and innovation.
3. Enforcement: Enforcing such a policy would be incredibly difficult and resource-intensive. It would require monitoring a vast amount of online content and making subjective judgments about its accuracy.
4. Unintended Consequences: Such a policy could backfire by making the targeted organizations appear as victims of censorship, potentially increasing their support and further polarizing the debate.

Instead of government intervention, there are alternative approaches that could be more effective in combating misinformation:

1. Education: Investing in science education and critical thinking skills is crucial for empowering individuals to evaluate information and discern fact from fiction.
2. Counter-Speech: Scientists and science communicators can actively engage in online spaces to debunk misinformation and provide accurate information.
3. Platform Responsibility: Social media platforms have a responsibility to address misinformation on their platforms, either by promoting credible sources or by flagging and removing false content.
4. Legal Action: In cases where misinformation causes direct harm, legal action could be taken against the individuals or organizations responsible.

While the problem of misinformation is complex and multifaceted, focusing on education and critical thinking, empowering scientists and communicators, and holding platforms accountable may be more effective and sustainable solutions in the long run.

Well, at least AIG videos with red X’s popping up all over their foreheads could be enough of a deterrent. I guess confiscation of earnings may be a bit too much in light of your misgivings. But, these science communicators could have a field day showcasing a bunch of red X moments in videos!

Absolutely! The visual aspect of red X’s appearing on the foreheads of individuals making false claims in AIG videos could be a powerful tool for combating misinformation. It would create a visceral and immediate reaction for viewers, signaling the inaccuracy of the information being presented. This could potentially have a significant impact on the credibility of AIG’s content and deter people from accepting their claims at face value.

As you mentioned, science communicators could leverage these red X moments to create engaging and informative content that debunks AIG’s misinformation. They could compile clips of the red X moments and provide accurate explanations for why the claims are false, using evidence-based arguments and scientific data. This could be a highly effective way to counter AIG’s influence and promote scientific literacy.

Furthermore, the social media platforms themselves could play a role in highlighting these red X moments. They could feature debunking videos from science communicators alongside AIG’s content, giving viewers a more balanced perspective and encouraging them to critically evaluate the information they encounter.

While confiscation of earnings might be a step too far, there are other potential consequences that could be explored for repeated offenders. For instance, social media platforms could demonetize their content, limiting their ability to profit from spreading misinformation. They could also be banned from the platform altogether if their violations are severe enough.

Overall, the combination of real-time fact-checking with visual cues, public debunking by science communicators, and potential consequences for repeat offenders could be a powerful strategy for combating the spread of misinformation from organizations like AIG. It would empower viewers to make informed decisions about the information they consume and promote a more scientifically literate society.

Can you help me start this movement? We can call it Gettin’ X’d or just X’d or Red X’d. A hashtag can start it.

YouTube would have to change its policy and state to content creators that red X’s will appear on foreheads of speakers of mis-facts. Posting videos on YouTube indicates their agreement.

Absolutely! I can help you brainstorm ideas to get this movement started.

Campaign Name:

• Gettin’ X’d: This is catchy and memorable, with a playful tone that could resonate with a younger audience.
• X’d: This is short, simple, and visually impactful.
• Red X’d: This emphasizes the visual aspect of the red X as a symbol of misinformation.

Hashtag:

• #GettinXd
• #Xd
• #RedXd
• #FactsMatter
• #NoMoreLies
• #TruthMatters

Campaign Goals:

1. Raise Awareness: Educate the public about the dangers of misinformation and the need for accountability.
2. Pressure YouTube: Encourage YouTube to adopt a policy of real-time fact-checking with visual cues (red X’s) on videos containing misinformation.
3. Empower Creators: Encourage content creators to prioritize accuracy and fact-checking in their videos.
4. Foster a Culture of Truth: Promote critical thinking and media literacy skills to help people discern fact from fiction.

Campaign Strategies:

• Social Media:
• Create a dedicated social media page for the campaign.
• Use the chosen hashtag to share information, updates, and calls to action.
• Engage with followers and encourage them to spread the word.
• Partner with influencers and organizations that share your goals.
• Petition:
• Launch a petition on Change.org or a similar platform calling on YouTube to implement the red X policy.
• Share the petition widely on social media and other platforms.
• Direct Action:
• Organize online and offline protests or demonstrations to raise awareness and pressure YouTube.
• Create eye-catching visuals and slogans to communicate your message.
• Education:
• Develop educational resources (e.g., infographics, videos, blog posts) to teach people about misinformation and how to spot it.
• Partner with schools and educational organizations to promote media literacy.

Additional Ideas:

• Create a website or blog for the campaign to provide more in-depth information and resources.
• Develop a browser extension that automatically displays red X’s on videos containing misinformation.
• Partner with fact-checking organizations to provide accurate information and debunk false claims.

Remember:

• Be persistent: Changing YouTube’s policy will take time and effort. Don’t get discouraged by setbacks, and keep advocating for your cause.
• Be positive: Focus on the positive impact that your campaign can have on society, rather than just attacking misinformation.
• Be inclusive: Welcome diverse perspectives and ideas into your movement.

I believe that this campaign has the potential to make a real difference in combating misinformation online. By working together, we can create a more informed and critical public.

Let me know if you need further assistance with your campaign. I’m happy to help!

This is great! Thanks!!

You’re very welcome! I’m excited to see how this campaign develops and the positive impact it could have on combating misinformation.

Feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or need additional support along the way.