It's countries filled with uneducated people who don't understand how to evaluate information that are vulnerable to this kind of propaganda. I think a more fundamental long-term solution is to fix the education and critical thinking problem. After you've done that, you can allow free speech, and democracy for that matter. By default, people aren't competent to safely handle free information because they're so easily manipulated into violence.
For example, see every war ever. In any war, both sides believe they're right, but they can't both be right, so one or more is always wrong. They just can't see it because they can't process information safely.
I would say vanilla education had nothing to do with, if it's that what you mean. Daily, I come across extremely well college educated folks ( including engineers) that are under the sway of Facebook and WhatsApp fake forwards. They were swayed by Radio, TV and Newspapers before, now the medium has changed. The story is the same in the USA or Europe or Myanmar. There are no special critical thinking courses out there where people sign up and learn to "think effectively". People have been swayed by propaganda before and they will continue to be. Saying "education" in this context feels like you are leaning towards saying that only if the people in these "third world uneducated country" learn better, this wouldn't happen. That's not right is it?
And this is where you are lacking critical thinking. Single issue wars and issues with only two sides are rare enough that I'm not sure any have ever existed. Its definitely possible for both sides to be right (and wrong) and its definitely normal that educated people won't agree no matter how long they discuss an issue.
I'll permit myself a moment of extreme cynicism and say that two warring parties can both be right even on a single issue.
"I would be better off with that bloke's resources".
I'm not sold on the idea that wars are fought for ideals. There is a lot of coincidental wealth transfer when countries fight. Why else travel long distances to kill people you don't know?
It's not like there's a big man in the sky telling everyone that wars must only be fought between two opposing sides with identical motives on a logically comparable continuum.
It's not even like wars must even be based on positions that can be meaningfully called right or wrong. Or that most wars can be meaningfully interpreted as "two sides". Even within the allies of world war 2, you would have a variety of factions and motivations, as well as minority players with diametrically opposed views and beliefs.
> I think a more fundamental long-term solution is to fix the education and critical thinking problem.
And who is going to do that? Governments have no incentive to do that because lack of critical thinking in citizens is a major factor to ensure they they can get away with exploitation and prevent them from revolting..
Private companies try to offer primary education in some developing countries. Since the problem is not only lack of resources, but lack of infrastructure to use those resources (no trained teachers etc.) this is a plausible path forward. I have no statistics of the results. Is it just one more scheme to funnel aid money into investors pockets? I have no idea.
Currently all educational system teaches students to respect and obey authority. So right now, in our society, people first obey, then only they ll think to question the authority..The primary education from private companies is probably going to be the same.
Teaching students critical thinking, means they are encouraged and taught to ask questions first, before obeying. Governments like a population that just would work obediently and pay taxes without questioning, than a populace that ask questions at every turn. So they would prevent the kind of education that can lead to such a population...
"Currently all educational system teaches students to respect and obey authority."
Well, all public education is based on the Prussian template so what would you expect :)
But seriously...
I think the tendency of the masses to follow the perceived leader is a facet of the human psychology rather than the result of a nefarious scheme.
From what I can tell of the education of my kids in Finland, the teachers really try to walk a tight rope between having small kids behave in an orderly manner as a group and not to stifle individual creativity and will to learn.
You need some authority and and respect of it in schools. Otherwise it would turn into a lord of the flies remake. I presume your critique is directed towards overbearing, paternalistic unnecessary harsh discipline.
I think the amount of this depends on the country you are discussing and and you need to be more specific. All primary education systems are not alike.
>I think the tendency of the masses to follow the perceived leader is a facet of the human psychology rather than the result of a nefarious scheme.
May be to an extent. But you cannot deny that this is exaggerated by social pressure and training from child hood. For example, in most school, the obedience is seen as a foremost quality of a good student.
Imagine the animals in the wild and how they can be tamed by training them in a specific way. You can see how a small man or woman is able to control a large animal such as an elephant or tiger in this fashion.
When you look at that, and when you see how, if the people put their minds, they can so easily revolt/react against the increasingly oppressive actions from governments, and how they don't, just like a tiger or lion can so easily refuse to obey their trainer, but they don't, only because of their training they have received from their birth, and the thought of not obeying just does not cross their minds..
You see, you have to stop looking at the people individually, and have to look the populace as a single entity. Like a reagent in a test tube. You pour in the obedience and compliance and you get more work and taxes out of it (and less unwanted reactions). You pour things like nationalism and patriotism into it, and you get lives to expend in the name of service of nation. You pour dreams of a better tomorrow, and you get votes...
"You see, you have to stop looking at the people individually, and have to look the populace as a single entity."
I think all revolutions are started by tiny groups of inspired people, and the hoi polloi will follow them, or don't, based on the current general mood and the network effects they instigate.
That's also an inspiring thought. To make a change, you don't need to convince everyone. Just a tiny group will suffice, and if the dice fall correctly, everyone else will just follow along.
This, of course applies to both beneficial and pathological changes as well. The coarse grained group mind of the population is not familiar with ethics. That's why free speech and oppressing complete dick heads such as neonazis live in a delicate balance. A small group can cause harm to a society.
Basically, we need to build a society were each member is inclined to think for themselves, and not inclined to just go with what ever that is "out there"..
The funny thing here is that, since such a society won't lend itself to control easily, the governments does not want this. They want a population that can be controlled easily, but then as you said, they can also be controlled by a small group causing major harm, and the government's solution to that is regulating free speech.
So governments wins on both fronts and people lose on the same.
And even if they try, because there is economic incentive (educated population -> better competition on the global market), people will still accuse them of pushing propaganda and brainwashing, and they'll fight the changes.
Reality is often more insidious than that... Most issues are (sadly) not of a binary nature but created through misunderstanding and different evaluation functions between parties. In general, every position has some „truth“ or „value“ to it that other positions are not able to subsume.
For example, immigration in Europe... some people want to make it easier others want to curb it completely. Who is right? There are arguments for both sides and your individual preferences and experiences determine which one you will find more convincing. There is no binary right or wrong over all cases.
If you are referring to the immigration example, it’s not that easy. By digging into this position you won’t really be able to reach people on the other side who on some level at least - do - have some justifiable grievances with some aspects of immigration. I am staunchly pro immigration but I realize it’s a big challenge for some people and to move forward we should realize that simple heuristics are not going to be the easiest way to the place where we all want to be.
I am from Myanmar. I have many doctor friends and friends with a degree from US having this kind of bias or hatred and trusting all the fake facebook information they want to believe. It is not about education. It is the same in the US. People will believe what they want to believe.
> In any war, both sides believe they're right, but they can't both be right
If you assume that there is an objective, external moral “right” defined in a very particular kind of way, this may be true, but that hidden premise is far from universally aceepted.
> After you've done that, you can allow free speech
Who are you do "allow" or "disallow" free speech?
"Disallowing" free spech is actually a human rights violation. Isn't it? So what you're doing here is you're providing weasel moral grounds for human rights abuse.
Do you mind if I e-mail you some writings? I'd like to get your opinion on them. I agree with what you say, and I'm brainstorming solutions to the lack of education and critical thinking / bs filtering [first at home, eventually abroad]
For example, see every war ever. In any war, both sides believe they're right, but they can't both be right, so one or more is always wrong. They just can't see it because they can't process information safely.