Combatting the spread of misleading information on LoveShack.org

[Paul]

Greetings all,

LoveShack.org has long been a haven for those seeking out subjective (or opinion-based) discussions on interpersonal relationships through the lens of a multitude of perspectives and life experiences. However, on objective topics (or those with verifiable claims, supported by fact-based evidence, etc.), common in topics revolving around sexual health practices, mental health, and physical health and well-being, including staying safe amidst the current pandemic, we believe it's important to help stop the spread of misinformation.

Moving forward, we're asking for your help in identifying posts that you believe may contain misleading, disputed, or unverifiable claims. We've added an option in the report post box that lets you select this as a reason to alert us. In instances where we find that a claim or source provided in a posting falls under one of these categories, we will either make a notation in the form of an edit or remove the content entirely at our discretion.

We all should be reminded that claims shared anywhere online, including at LoveShack.org, must be scrutinized, and that it is each person's individual responsibility to seek out authoritative sources of information from trusted subject-matter experts. It's simply not possible for us to review each posting. Remember that the postings you encounter on LoveShack.org are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional mental health services or as medical advice.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated and we welcome your feedback.

Best,
Paul

[major_merrick]

I would remind folks that what gets defined as "misinformation" can vary greatly by one's perspective.  Even information from "experts" cannot be taken at face-value simply because of an individual's title.  These days, there is almost no such thing as an unbiased "fact."  Take the hydroxychloroquine as an example.  One set of information says it is basically useless.  Another set of information from folks using it says that it works.  Can't take either position at face value, as sources always have some kind of underlying interest.  I'd rather not see the perspective of the powers-that-be end up being the only perspective presented. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by major_merrick

[Angelle]

On 6/28/2020 at 11:23 PM, major_merrick said:

I would remind folks that what gets defined as "misinformation" can vary greatly by one's perspective.  Even information from "experts" cannot be taken at face-value simply because of an individual's title.  These days, there is almost no such thing as an unbiased "fact."  Take the hydroxychloroquine as an example.  One set of information says it is basically useless.  Another set of information from folks using it says that it works.  Can't take either position at face value, as sources always have some kind of underlying interest.  I'd rather not see the perspective of the powers-that-be end up being the only perspective presented. 

I'd take from that, that it could help some, but not others. There is no guarantee. We're still learning about what we're dealing with, and with as fast as it's spreading, people should take things seriously, when it comes to wearing a mask, and being careful around others, instead of politicizing it.

[carhill]

This quote has resided at the bottom of each page since before I joined in 2008......

"Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice."

Perspectives are shared, sources are quoted and linked, opinions are offered, suggestions are made, ideas are forwarded. Take what one deems useful and leave the rest. Trust but verify

[amaysngrace]

On 6/28/2020 at 11:23 PM, major_merrick said:

 I'd rather not see the perspective of the powers-that-be end up being the only perspective presented. 

But that’s exactly what’s happening lately with posts being deleted when someone offers up a different opinion.

I guess we should just dig a hole big enough to bury our free speech along side our critical thinking skills.  May as well throw tolerance in that hole too as if that even exists in the first place. 

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by amaysngrace

[lana-banana]

There is no place for information that is flat-out false when it comes to a public health emergency. When you have people insisting that a virus is spread by 5G towers or that vaccines cause autism, you can do real harm. I think moderators are well within their rights to say it doesn't belong on the site.

Similarly what's the point of sharing lies, hoaxes and propaganda? It's one thing to have varying opinions, but if a purported news outlet is just flat-out lying, why would you choose to spread misinformation? One America News, for instance, has been involved in promulgating dozens of lies and debunked conspiracy theories in its short existence (just check out the Wikipedia page, which starts with lies about Seth Rich and continues into lies about the ongoing protests).

I can't say I've ever knowingly spread fake news, nor that I consume information that's intentionally misleading or false. I think if there are people whose brains have been eaten by hoaxes, it's the least we can do to make sure everyone else knows better. And if you find yourself reading a site that is regularly associated with conspiracy theories and lies...maybe you should seek out reality-based news instead?

[Angelle]

3 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

But that’s exactly what’s happening lately with posts being deleted when someone offers up a different opinion.

I guess we should just dig a hole big enough to bury our free speech along side our critical thinking skills.  May as well throw tolerance in that hole too as if that even exists in the first place. 

 

I find myself wondering why the smart people I know, who spread conspiracy theories, rarely question the videos that go against the advice of experts. I use herbal supplements, I'm not the best with my diet, but I can be, I don't completely rely on things like medication - but when it comes to something like this, where we're still learning about what we're dealing with, and it spreads so fast, I think we need to do the very basic things that are recommended, and that don't actually hurt anyone, unless they're like a woman dealing with trauma, who said that putting on a mask takes her back to her assault, and she can't do it. 

[amaysngrace]

The experts at WHO have backtracked on their findings so are they the experts we should be listening to?  Or should we listen to the experts in California, MDs well educated and practiced in immunology whose video was taken down due to their opinion that healthy people should not be quarantined, only sick people should be quarantined as is usually practiced, because quarantining healthy people lowers their immune response?

Why is one side presented as factual even though some findings have been backtracked and the other train of thought is labeled a conspiracy theory?  Shouldn’t we be allowed access to all the expert opinions available and be able to judge for ourselves or is free thinking a freedom we should lose too?

Edited July 1, 2020 by amaysngrace

[thefooloftheyear]

People don't bother posting links because the delay is a pain in the ass...

[Ellener]

6 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

Shouldn’t we be allowed access to all the expert opinions available and be able to judge for ourselves

Public Health Policy is about certain health goals, so we saw the WHO advice shift with regard to face covering for example. 

The United States is a highly diverse and complicated society. Many groups "weigh in" on significant health policy issues. America's expansive range of policymaking bodies and groups seeking to influence policy render it impossible to offer a systematic and comprehensive analysis of health policy formulation. To make an examination of policy development manageable, I will work from the following assumption, which is partly, but not wholly, valid. I will assume that formal development of health policy is the primary preserve of the three branches of government-the executive, legislature, and judiciary-at the state and federal levels. In practice, many other bodies make policy (such as professional associations or ethics groups through guidelines...)

This is from a 1995 essay ( The Formulation of Health Policy by the Three Branches of Government ) by Lawrence Gostin, Director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. The pdf is online, it's a description of how good public health policy evolves and the obstacles.

With the pandemic policy is still evolving, such as recognising the benefit of face covering whilst distinguishing it from medical use of one-time-use protective gear for example. Even then, as Professor Gostin put it 25 years ago:

Despite the significant potential for the executive branch to develop health policy with all the benefits of the best research and rigorous assessments, it has frequently failed to follow sound scientific recommendations. This has resulted in administrations ignoring or rejecting the advice of scientific and policy commissions. It has also resulted in substantial swings in health policy from one administration to the next. The probable reason for discounting the objective advice of its agencies and commissions is that the executive, perhaps more than any other branch of government, is ideologically driven.

Many illustrations can be found to demonstrate the fragility of the commitment of administrations to neutral scientific assessments of health policy.

[amaysngrace]

5 hours ago, Ellener said:

we saw the WHO advice shift with regard to face covering for example. 

They also backpedaled on how long it can be transmitted on surfaces. And they backtracked on the severity of spread by those who test positive but are asymptomatic.   

So in knowing these things, doesn’t that make any WHO link posted up claiming these assertions as factual prior to their most recent findings misinformation?   Because that’s exactly what it was. 

In keeping with the thread topic, who decides what is a reliable source and the information being presented accurate?  

I know I wouldn’t want to be the one deciding that because what if I were wrong? 

Instead I’d allow people to post up links they see as informative free of any judgment from me otherwise a bias is created and what I see as truth may be very incorrect.  

Also worth noting is the shrinkage of our media outlets through massive merging endeavors.  We can mistake something as factual because it’s coming from fourteen different sources all the while failing to recognize that those fourteen sources all hail from the same place. 

 

 

 

 

[elaine567]

If we are to remain factual then links need to be posted so we can make our own assessment of the veracity of any opinion or stance posted.
Links provide "proof".
Links are a big problem  here on this forum as the delay makes actual discussion difficult.
Many therefore do not bother posting links or say "Google it", or produce screeds of copied text, which may or may not be helpful.
A quick perusal of the page linked may be enough to prove veracity or not, or be a focus to stimulate relevant discussion.

[Paul]

Hi all,

Thanks for your feedback! I'll try and tackle as many of these questions and thoughts at once as I can. Strap in! It'll be a long one.

4 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

In keeping with the thread topic, who decides what is a reliable source and the information being presented accurate?  

There is a diverse spectrum between absolute truth and intentional lie. As we encounter questionable claims that are stated to be true, I'm sure we'll learn a lot as a team on how to best manage that.

20 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

But that’s exactly what’s happening lately with posts being deleted when someone offers up a different opinion.

Most absolutely not.

We remove posts when people fail to be respectful or civil with each other, irrespective of the opinion or position expressed. A very large part of being civil and respectful includes that one will not criticize the person contributing to the discussion and instead will provide criticism of the ideas expressed. Another very large part of being civil and respectful is that one will accept that others hold different beliefs from themselves and that participating in a conversation here implies that you are doing so in a manner in which you are seeking to learn, listen, and understand the perspectives that others hold.

Sometimes people get confused and believe that this is a place to preach the truth they know, are unwilling to hear or accept that others believe differently from themselves, and are not here to grow and learn. Anyone seeing themselves in this category on a particular topic should refrain from participating.

20 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

I guess we should just dig a hole big enough to bury our free speech

LoveShack.org is not a place for unconditional free speech. It is a special purpose community, where we have ground rules and expectations that all participants must follow as a condition for entry and participation.

20 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

May as well throw tolerance in that hole too as if that even exists in the first place. 

Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The willingly intolerant have no business being here.

One of the ways we show tolerance is by being civil and respectful with each other. This means we don't berate groups of people that feel differently than ourselves on topics and opinions that we hold to be personal truths. We accept and respect that others have their own personal truths, their own personal world views, and their own personal contributions to share to the discussions we have.

16 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

Why is one side presented as factual even though some findings have been backtracked and the other train of thought is labeled a conspiracy theory?  Shouldn’t we be allowed access to all the expert opinions available and be able to judge for ourselves or is free thinking a freedom we should lose too?

Another way to say "free thinking" is expression of my opinion. You're free to state your opinion, in a civil and respectful way. This means you state your opinion already accepting that other people will have opinions in radical opposition to your own, and that you are wanting to hear those opinions, and learn from those opinions. Where you disagree, you will address those disagreements on the basis of the ideas expressed and not the person or group expressing them. You will not classify things as being universal truths for a group of people (we are inevitably always wrong whenever we say all people identifying as members of group X believe thing Y), nor will you speak of groups of people in a pejorative way. This also means that you recognize that your opinions are formed by your own personal biases, perspectives, insights, and world view and that while you may feel strongly about them being personal truths for you, others have personal truths that are contrary to your own.

The expectation is that when someone makes an objective claim--in other words, when someone says that this thing I'm about to share is a measurable or observable truth, absent of my own personal beliefs or opinions--that the claim will be backed only with primary sources overwhelmingly considered to be reflective of subject matter experts with authoritative perspectives on the matter. When it comes to things like health and wellness, this means sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles in a recognized publication of repute. When it comes to things like counts of people infected during a pandemic, this means sources that are consolidated by public health officials. When it comes to journalistic reporting, this means established journalistic outlets that are recognized by their peers as operating within the boundaries of journalistic ethics and standards.

The things that subject matter experts recommend or believe to be true will inevitably change as new information becomes available, research is done, and the scientific process is followed. The expectation we have is that the information provided is reflective of current objective measure at the time of posting. We know that there advances in medicine, mental health research, and in the investigation of real world events as new information comes to light.

Conspiracy theories live in a different realm. Rumors, suppositions, and anecdotal evidence typically are the genesis of these things that sound plausible, or even probable, to many. Yet, for the purposes of discussion here and to support our primary directive, those theories need to be labeled as subjective conjecture. They are theories that have not been proven to be true, and therefore may not be stated as facts.

17 hours ago, lana-banana said:

There is no place for information that is flat-out false when it comes to a public health emergency. When you have people insisting that a virus is spread by 5G towers or that vaccines cause autism, you can do real harm. I think moderators are well within their rights to say it doesn't belong on the site.

Absolutely correct, as in the examples provided above on 5G towers as a mode of transmission for COVID-19 and that there exists a causative link between vaccination and autism, subject matter experts are in resound agreement on those two claims being false. We cannot help each other learn and grow by sharing things and claiming them to be true that have been established to be false at the time those claims are made. At the end of the day, this is a place to discuss subjective things (matters of opinion) surrounding interpersonal relationships, so it's very important that when we choose to participate in a conversation, that we make it clear that we're expressing opinions.

You could, for example, say: "It's my personal opinion that 5G cell phone towers are filled with COVID-19 and are part of a massive government cover-up to infect the population by using unicorn magic to beam it straight into your ear through your cell phone. What do other people think about this?" This is perfectly acceptable, because you're stating that it's your opinion. If you were to instead say: "Everyone knows that 5G cell phone towers are filled with COVID-19" that would be removed for being an assertion of fact that contains information known to be untrue.

16 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

The experts at WHO have backtracked on their findings so are they the experts we should be listening to?  Or should we listen to the experts in California, MDs well educated and practiced in immunology whose video was taken down due to their opinion that healthy people should not be quarantined, only sick people should be quarantined as is usually practiced, because quarantining healthy people lowers their immune response?

Great question. Where there is disagreement between subject matter experts and no clear majority opinion has been deemed factual, objective claims should state that disagreement exists. Otherwise, presenting only a cherry-picked slice is misrepresenting what is known to be true. This is an issue that many agenda-based outlets that purport to be news organizations of repute find themselves doing. It is also important to remember that editorialized commentary within the context of fact reporting is not acceptable for the purposes of sharing a link to support a factual claim via secondary sources.

With regard to primary vs. secondary sources, if a news outlet reported on WHO findings, this would be a secondary source. It's not reflective of the organization or person's own statement. If you linked to the page published by WHO directly, this would be a primary source. We prefer and encourage primary sources whenever possible.

12 hours ago, thefooloftheyear said:

People don't bother posting links because the delay is a pain in the ass...

I agree that the delay is less than ideal, and I'm so sorry for it, but please include links and be patient. We are working on a technological solution to this as it is a limitation of the platform we use, and requires customization. I personally check in as frequently as I can (as do the other moderators) and approve links straight away. We are only checking to make sure that spam does not get on, and this feature does a wonderful job of limiting the amount of spam that makes it onto the community.

We're in the process of recruiting additional moderators to help make it quicker, and asking our developers to work on changes that would allow folks that have been here a while to post links without approval. Right now, its an all or nothing switch, and while you can't see it, it has been a very effective way to stop most spammers. Hopefully we can get those changes in very soon!

Remember that we must provide attribution to external sources, and those attributions must be in the form of a link with web-based sources. Please do not post content from other places without a link, and please review our Community Guidelines on external links and fair use.

I hope this helps clarify things, and appreciate all the comments!

Best,
Paul

Edited July 2, 2020 by Paul
Fixed formatting, missed a sentence, missed another sentence. Refilled coffee cup. More coffee.

[gaius]

@serial muse came up with a rather ingenious solution. Making your original post and then including all the links in a second post afterward. 

I think I will steal that idea and use it in the future. 

[Paul]

8 minutes ago, gaius said:

@serial muse came up with a rather ingenious solution. Making your original post and then including all the links in a second post afterward. 

I think I will steal that idea and use it in the future. 

I appreciate the ingenuity, yet please include links in the context of your post and please do not attempt to circumvent the link moderation. Thanks!

[serial muse]

Huh. I certainly didn't view it as trying to circumvent moderation in any way. I was, after all, clearly citing what I was doing and who I was posting from (and as a matter of course I always prefer to post primary sources, myself). Citing sources is a big part of my professional life! And I of course 100% support the idea of link moderation, not only to prevent spam posts but also to minimize posting inaccurate information. I'm completely down with this mission.

I viewed doing it the way I was as maintaining the logical flow of discussion, as the delay - particularly in the US evenings, which is when I tend to have more time to post - can end up being confusing and derailing, since my post might not end up appearing until a page-plus later, and then any readers of the thread might not follow, or might not have a chance to see the data that counters a false assertion in a way that's effective. But I'll stop doing it, if it's against the rules.

Just to add - I appreciate all the work you've been doing here, Paul, so I don't want to undermine it. It's great.

Edited July 2, 2020 by serial muse

[Angelle]

14 hours ago, thefooloftheyear said:

People don't bother posting links because the delay is a pain in the ass...

Oh, I wondered about that. I thought it was because my account is new, so I kept hitting the report button. 

[Paul]

1 hour ago, Angelle said:

Oh, I wondered about that. I thought it was because my account is new, so I kept hitting the report button. 

I sent you a note on this a while back, but it's okay! There's no need to report those!  I assumed you wanted to be extra sure we saw it.

Check here: https://www.loveshack.org/support/

Edited July 2, 2020 by Paul
Assuming, making a you know what out of myself.

[basil67]

I'm looking forward to the removal of fake news.  For example, the discussions around the banning (not banned) Gone with the Wind just causes people to butt heads over something which didn't happen.   

Those who used the Australian bush fires as an example of how climate change isn't a thing left me reeling:   Apparently climate change isn't real because the most of the fires started were a result of arson (fake news via Murdoch media) and statements such as controlled burning or clearing would have prevented the whole catastrophe.   (without knowing what we actually do and the complexities of doing exactly that).     

Edited July 2, 2020 by basil67

[gaius]

I only brought up what I did because it seemed like the perfect compromise to get people posting links again until the forum software can be upgraded to sort out the good links from the bad. 

Members hate when their posts get auto moderated, to the point almost nobody posts links anymore, but moderation wants more sources quoted. And at the end of the day the actual links, which trigger the moderation in the first place, are still going through moderation.

I never would have guessed that would be against the rules but if that's the final judgement, ok. But I'm guessing a lot of people will still be hesitant to include them in posts as long as the current format remains what it is.

[Angelle]

22 hours ago, Paul said:

I sent you a note on this a while back, but it's okay! There's no need to report those!  I assumed you wanted to be extra sure we saw it.

Check here: https://www.loveshack.org/support/

That's when I stopped reporting my posts.  I saw a blip on the screen. 

[serial muse]

Good luck, all. You're going to need it.

[major_merrick]

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2020 at 9:56 AM, Paul said:

There is a diverse spectrum between absolute truth and intentional lie. As we encounter questionable claims that are stated to be true, I'm sure we'll learn a lot as a team on how to best manage that.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The willingly intolerant have no business being here.

This also means that you recognize that your opinions are formed by your own personal biases, perspectives, insights, and world view and that while you may feel strongly about them being personal truths for you, others have personal truths that are contrary to your own.

The interesting thing about our modern world is that the greatest purveyors of lies tend to be the authorities....  Whatever they say at the moment is considered by the masses to be "truth." 

I also find it interesting how sticking with truth can be twisted to seem willingly intolerant.   And challenging authority ends up getting disapproval because most people are simply uncomfortable with the idea that those they trusted are totally undeserving...and that life was not what they thought it was. 

 

 

[Ellener]

5 hours ago, major_merrick said:

most people are simply uncomfortable with the idea that those they trusted are totally undeserving...and that life was not what they thought it was. 

 

That is true. 

And life is not what any of us thought it was after Covid-19.

But-

5 hours ago, major_merrick said:

sticking with truth can be twisted to seem willingly intolerant. 

Whose truth?

If we cannot accept each other's experiences and realities and simply listen and work out solutions together, or simply coexist, then as a website or a community what's the point?

 

 

[Angelle]

18 hours ago, major_merrick said:

The interesting thing about our modern world is that the greatest purveyors of lies tend to be the authorities....  Whatever they say at the moment is considered by the masses to be "truth." 

I also find it interesting how sticking with truth can be twisted to seem willingly intolerant.   And challenging authority ends up getting disapproval because most people are simply uncomfortable with the idea that those they trusted are totally undeserving...and that life was not what they thought it was. 

 

 

I agree with Ellener, and I'll add that "those we trusted" will probably be different people, going by my own talks with people. I know who I trust, and who I don't, and you and I wouldn't agree on either one. I trust my governor, despite disagreeing with him most of the time. Others disagree with him, people who would usually trust him more than I would.