One-size-fits-all is a myopic approach. — I like sushi

What does that mean, precisely? One size of what, fits all of whom? Where and by whom was it suggested that this should be the case?

I personally would look to forming several bodies to assess information, if needed, — I like sushi

Which is why I suggested that the authority that knows most about the particular venue - home, school, public library, news-stand, bookstore, movie theater, video game shop, art gallery or museum - respectively, should be in charge of deciding what material they each make available to their clients.

The UN could certainly provide some expertise as it had a history of trying to manage complex cultural and political interactions. — I like sushi

It could, but very few nations would allow it to interfere in their internet communications. That would have to be far too co-operative a project for a great many, of not most governments to undertake, even if they could agree on the principles, and none would want to give up the right to edit its own history.
For fact-checking, I was thinking more about the random postings of bloggers and tweeters and political parties. But I don't see how they can be internationally controlled, either. Childish bullies ... some of the mechanisms mentioned above might work, at least to degree.
I think we'd have a better chance of making the citizens aware of the manipulative methods and more canny about assessing their own reading material.

What they can know about and what they should learn in school are not the same thing. In school, especially elementary school, it makes sense to me that the focus should be on commonalities in understanding and values among the citizens of the country. — T Clark

Rather than what? What is it that would be harmful in a math book that meets the educational standard?
How is a math book, or a short story collection supposed to present 'commonalities' in a deeply divided nation? More interestingly - to me, at least - why should elementary school students have the truth concealed from them? Would they not notice on the street or on the news that everybody isn't the same, and wonder why their school books don't reflect reality?

What is it that would be harmful in a math book that meets the educational standard?
How is a math book, or a short story collection supposed to present 'commonalities' in a deeply divided nation? — Vera Mont

Why would you possibly bring anything political or social into a math textbook. 8 x 4 = 32 is definitely what I would call a commonality. If the train is leaving Station A at 12:00 noon and travelling 126 miles to Station B at 70 miles per hour, and if I want to know at what time it reaches Station B, what difference does it make if the engineer is a man or a woman or gay or straight? The US is not that divided. It's just that people on the left and right ends raise a ruckus and the media plays it up.

why should elementary school students have the truth concealed from them? — Vera Mont

There's a story I always tell about my daughter and me. When she was about 7, in second grade, she and I were in my bedroom lying on the bed. My wife was working. She asked me the stereotypical question - how are babies born. I remember vividly being a bit taken aback, then thinking, well...just tell her. So I told her that the man puts his penis in the woman's vagina and... At that point I looked down and saw a look of complete shock on her face. I immediately realized the mistake I had made. I don't remember how I did it, but I brought the discussion to an end quickly.

It's not "concealing the truth" to only talk about issues with children when they are old enough to deal with them. Sensible liberal and conservative parents don't want their second graders to have to figure out what it means to be transgendered. I remember what it felt like to be in elementary school. We boys didn't think about sex much at all till 6th grade when girls started to have breasts.

Would they not notice on the street or on the news that everybody isn't the same, and wonder why their school books don't reflect reality? — Vera Mont

What would they see on the street? When I was a kid, the elementary schools were segregated. I don't think any of us, the white kids at least, thought about it much. Now schools generally aren't segregated, although I live in a suburb of Boston and there aren't a lot of non-white students. Even so, all three of my children went to school with black, Jewish, Hispanic, and Asian children. Should we be teaching fourth graders about the class struggle and the oppression of blacks and other minorities. How would you feel if you were the only black kid in a class when people were talking about your ancestors being slaves? Do you think other kids might tease you about it?

We don't have to indoctrinate our children into our political persuasions. We shouldn't be indoctrinating, propagandizing, them at all. They're children for God's sake.

It is a very broad question. If you honed in on a particular instance then maybe I could offer up a more precise answer.

Who should be in charge of deciding?

I'm in favour of the UN setting up an international monitoring committee for the internet, assuming no major powers have a veto... and I know that it's about as realistic an expectation as that commercial owners of communications media will fact-check every item they print or broadcast or that politicians dependent on the support of special interests and religious sects would make informed, unbiased choices of topics to promote or suppress in public education. — Vera Mont

It is difficult to say who ought to be in charge/ assume the role of such a monstrously responsible position.

The Internet is dangerous and a gift simultaneously. Is it realistic to sway it towards predominantly gift and minimise harm without imposing on freedom of speech?

For me, the only way to protect the vulnerable on the Internet is to impose regulation and thus tell people that their opinions are threatening/ not permitted because they damage other peoples self esteem.

But that denies genuine discourse. I think on a global level this is akin to censorship.
So perhaps harm done in the Internet ought to be taken as a "case-by-case" basis.
Lodge a complaint, have it reviewed by an Internet ethics committee and adjudicate accordingly.

If someone is being bullied, an ethics committee for Internet relations can promptly acknowledge the victims complaint and seek the truth of the situation, implementing measures based on the individual case.

If they try to structure the Internet in a sweeping generalised way, they're likely stifle genuine freedoms to point out flaws. It's impossible to predict all justifications possible on the Internet.

So let it be a case that individual wrongs are corrected in context of how they came about.

Why would you possibly bring anything political or social into a math textbook. — T Clark

I wouldn't. That's why I asked. I have not been able to discover exactly what was meant by a "prohibited topic". Neither have many of the publishers.

8 x 4 = 32 is definitely what I would call a commonality. — T Clark

I don't think there is any controversy over that one. I didn't realize what you meant by commonality. Some facts are just facts, but some facts are disputed and become controversial.

Sensible liberal and conservative parents don't want their second graders to have to figure out what it means to be transgendered. — T Clark

When I was in second grade, no adults would discuss any aspect of sex, which made it so much more confusing when a friend of the family made some lewd advances. (Yes, those kind of people have always existed.) As for reproduction, I was told by a fourth-grader, who was herself woefully uninformed, which resulted in a good deal of unnecessary anxiety - exacerbated by the secrecy and shame with which adults shrouded the subject, so I couldn't ask anyone who actually knew. Thank goodness for the encyclopedia!
Thing is: at six, seven or eight, all children want to know where babies come from: younger siblings appear in their own or their classmates' families. Curiosity about the world and how things work hasn't been killed out of them yet. It's a good idea for parents to be prepared for this, so that when (not if) their children ask, they can probe for exactly what aspect of the process the child is interested in at the moment, and answer specific questions directly and truthfully, without laying out all the biological detail at once. For many parents, the subject is uncomfortable, because it involves them personally. If it's taught in school, they're spared that long, speculative stare. Plus, all the kids of the same age get the same facts and can't misinform one another, that's a bonus. When my children were that age, we went to the library and found a very useful picture-book aimed at their comprehension level.

Another aspect of this is: if adults insist on pretend everything is beautiful, not only does nobody tell them why one kid is being picked-on and bullied, but, as with sex, they tacitly understand that they shouldn't ask. Either they have to figure it out on their own (especially if they're the victim) or accept it as normal and join the bullies.
(This may be why some textbook publishers include comments on thinking and acceptable social behaviour. Obviously, not all children are learning it at home. Just why is bullying such a big issue as I keep hearing about?
Or maybe it isn't and the media exaggerate it?
I honestly don't know, because it wasn't an issue in my schools or the ones my kids went to.)

It is a very broad question. If you honed in on a particular instance then maybe I could offer up a more precise answer. — I like sushi

Yes, it was quite broad, because I was interested in whether people approved of censorship in general, or in some venues and not in others, or on some topics and not others or by some agencies and not others.
Here is a narrower version: Should the state be in charge of deciding what material is available to the public at large? If so, where should it be applied, through what mechanism should their decision be arrived-at and how should be enforced?

So let it be a case that individual wrongs are corrected in context of how they came about. — Benj96

That would be nice, but it doesn't seem to me practical. Some private owners of social media have imposed their own standards of acceptable discourse on their own platforms, and even that is being legally challenged... ironically, by the DeSantis administration, which rejects textbooks for "prohibited subjects"

The law, which is called the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, was proposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in January 2021, shortly after then-President Trump was banned or suspended from multiple social media platforms — most notably Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube — for encouraging the January 6 insurrection of the Capitol building.

So, I can't see North Korea or Sudan or Venezuela going along with whatever rules the UN might set up.

So, I can't see North Korea or Sudan or Venezuela going along with whatever rules the UN might set up. — Vera Mont

The only way people or groups of people (governments) will agree with such intents is if it favours them.

Bad people, or wholly selfish, self serving people don't want censorship of their lies that promote themselves, and likewise, good people don't want censorship of the truth that empowers others.

Who then do we censor and how? How do we know who to believe?

Who then do we censor and how? How do we know who to believe? — Benj96

I think the problem there - as in many other subject areas - is thinking terms of "us" or "we". There is no collective that can make decisions or determine a path forward. Every issue is what a friend of mine calls "an n-dimensional rope-pull". Every issue has a temporary local resolution, yet remains undecided globally. And yet, communication, like economics, takes place on a global scale now. No presently existing entity is equipped to deal with those issues. The UN comes nearest in scope, but still lacks the power.

Individually, we make these decisions every minute, often without even having to think about them, because, as adults, we have each developed our own habits and coping mechanisms. We have learned to trust certain sources of information more than others, on the basis of past experience; we have a personal archive of knowledge by which to measure new data; we disregard some outlets entirely and have our staple references for statistics, charts, timelines, scientific facts, etc.
This is because in our formative years, we were exposed to multiple sources of information. In my case, that was long before the internet: it was school, libraries, periodicals, television and bookstores. Those were far more coherent in their organization than the internet, and so much easier to navigate. I believe young people coming up today are often set adrift on a bewildering ocean of unsorted fact, biased news, partisan jingo, opinion, propaganda, hostility, mis- and disinformation. They're also living in a very much more dangerous world than I did. They need some guidance in discovering and assessing the information they will have to use in difficult decisions in difficult situations. They'll need every erg of critical thought they can muster.

I'm in favour of the UN setting up an international monitoring committee for the internet, assuming no major powers have a veto... and I know that it's about as realistic an expectation as that commercial owners of communications media will fact-check every item they print or broadcast or that politicians dependent on the support of special interests and religious sects would make informed, unbiased choices of topics to promote or suppress in public education. — Vera Mont

If you dont ask you dont get Vera! If there are enough people asking, then asking can quickly become demands and then if the demands are not met. We can start to demand the UN gets an update! OR ELSE......
The unlikely, even the very very very unlikely, is only so until people make it happen :strong:

The unlikely, even the very very very unlikely, is only so until people make it happen — universeness

Power to the people!

No, but historically and into the neat future I cannot see this coming to fruition. Perhaps it is best that we have to fight for freedoms rather than simply having them for free.

I think it makes sense to show particular care when it comes to education for children. For university level EVERYTHING should be on the table.

As for governments, in general, freedom of information should be the norm. In an ideal world there would be no need for any censorship, but obviously the real world is messy. In matter of security there is clearly a good argument for keeping certain pieces of information private.

So, I can't see North Korea or Sudan or Venezuela going along with whatever rules the UN might set up. — Vera Mont

Maybe through a carrot and stick style politics.

Power to the people! — Vera Mont

I hear you sister! (even though I suspect you are being sarky! :smile:)
Do you think 'people power' in the future, could reform the united nations into what it really could be, the conduit to a world government? Are you attracted to the concept of a world government via uniting nations?

Are you attracted to the concept of a world government via uniting nations? — universeness

Absolutely! Always have been an advocate of the universal charter of human rights and would like to see all legal codes based upon those principles. I've also long advocated global disarmament and conflict arbitration under UN auspices. (Think of the money we'd save!!) I'm less sure about uniting the nations and erasing the borders. Ideally, that ought to be done, but people are rather attached to their national identities, so it might be a better approach to adjust the borders in as equitable a territorial division as possible. We'd simply have to accept that some peoples prefer to be ruled by a demagogue... unless the people brought a complaint against their own ruler and the impeachment brought before the international tribunal. All those issues could be decided without nuclear missile. Obviously, law-enforcement and tax collection would be a whole lot easier through international agencies.

And also, just as obviously, communications media could be regulated much better than they are. I'm sure a central megavac computer program could fact-check and classify packets of information passing through its web. It might be set up to filter out incitement to violence type posts and let everything else pass through labelled as F(act), E(ditorial) S(peculative), S(tatistical) H(istorical) Sc(ientific) O(pinion) P(olitical) R(eligious) Pr(ivate) and so forth.

Do you think 'people power' in the future, could reform the united nations into what it really could be, the conduit to a world government?

That's a much more difficult question. In principle, yes. Realistically, no. Pessimistically, I don't see a future for humanity as we have known it.

I wonder if it will take something like a catastrophic event such as climate change payback to unite us as a single species that currently exists on a single pale blue dot of a planet?
I hope not, I hope we can do better than that, as the cost in human lives could be very extreme indeed.
It seems I share many of your political viewpoints Vera, but I don't share your level of pessimism. I can only hope I never do. But then, I haven't walked your life path.
I am back to Rabbie Burns again.
I think I have now posted this 3 times on TPF, so my apologies but:
Wad some power the gift ti gie us.
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us.

I wonder if it will take something like a catastrophic event such as climate change payback to unite us as a single species that currently exists on a single pale blue dot of a planet? — universeness

I believe so. (Well, I have to believe it; I wrote it.) But it would take a very long recovery, even with the excellent provisions some of our long-sighted people are making to preserve knowledge, seeds and DNA.

Wad some power the gift ti gie us.
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us. — universeness

Please, gods, no! The mirror is quite frightening enough.

seeds and DNA. — Vera Mont

:lol: is that all that will be left of us in your scenario?
Now you are looking through that mirror you mentioned, too darkly!
Did you write a dystopian sci-fi book?

I don't think there is any controversy over that one. I didn't realize what you meant by commonality. Some facts are just facts, but some facts are disputed and become controversial. — Vera Mont

I was picking out math because it is probably the most social value-free subject. When I was talking about commonality, I wasn't just talking about facts, I meant values too. As far as I can see, I share a lot of common values with most Americans, including those who voted for Donald Trump.

When I was in second grade, no adults would discuss any aspect of sex, which made it so much more confusing when a friend of the family made some lewd advances. (Yes, those kind of people have always existed.) As for reproduction, I was told by a fourth-grader, who was herself woefully uninformed, which resulted in a good deal of unnecessary anxiety - exacerbated by the secrecy and shame with which adults shrouded the subject, so I couldn't ask anyone who actually knew. Thank goodness for the encyclopedia! — Vera Mont

It's not the schools job to teach children everything they need or want to know. That's especially true for value-laden topics such as sex and religion.

Curiosity about the world and how things work hasn't been killed out of them yet. It's a good idea for parents to be prepared for this, so that when (not if) their children ask, they can probe for exactly what aspect of the process the child is interested in at the moment, and answer specific questions directly and truthfully, without laying out all the biological detail at once. For many parents, the subject is uncomfortable, because it involves them personally. If it's taught in school, they're spared that long, speculative stare. Plus, all the kids of the same age get the same facts and can't misinform one another, that's a bonus. When my children were that age, we went to the library and found a very useful picture-book aimed at their comprehension level. — Vera Mont

As ham-handed as my first efforts into sex education for my daughter were, I still think it was good we had that conversation. It makes a good story now and it was evidence that I respect her curiosity and intelligence. I'll say it again - not everything children need to know has to be taught in school.

is that all that will be left of us in your scenario?
Now you are looking through that mirror you mentioned, too darkly! — universeness

No. Those seed banks libraries, archives and DNA repository are being prepared for the people who will restore biodiversity and agriculture after the climate crisis has passed. These are very optimistic and ambitious projects undertaken by dedicated specialists.

Did you write a dystopian sci-fi book? — universeness

The exact opposite. I wrote a utopian one. That/s why I dislike the disparagement of utopian ideology.

But I sincerely cannot see it working if people don't talk openly about their ideas, convictions, beliefs, misconceptions and prejudices. It seems to me that all official (legislated, legally enforced) censorship tends toward propaganda. Even if with the most benign intentions, the group in power will always legislate in favour of the status quo, however unjust or misguided its world-view. And there is no way that legal standard can be nuanced enough to fair in all cases; a great deal of unjust prosecutions and persecutions get swept up in a general intention to protect the public. (And of course, we can't really depend on all governments to have the best intention.)

. I believe young people coming up today are often set adrift on a bewildering ocean of unsorted fact, biased news, partisan jingo, opinion, propaganda, hostility, mis- and disinformation. They're also living in a very much more dangerous world than I did. They need some guidance in discovering and assessing the information they will have to use in difficult decisions in difficult situations. They'll need every erg of critical thought they can muster. — Vera Mont

I agree Vera. The Internet is a place where every and any belief can be propagated given the right circles/groups to interact with. A worrying and dangerous freedom to become perhaps a fundamentalist/extremist for example amongst other threatening states of mind that can be indoctrinated through misguidance.

So it seems that when faced with a mountain of information both correct and incorrect, to sift through and establish true fact from falsity, children and teens need some form of paradigm or logic to apply to such information to guide them sensibly through the BS towards what is actually the case.

I think that is the responsibility of teachers and parent alike. A failed education leaves one vulnerable to believing whatever they're exposed to. To be gullible and fall in with the wrong crowd.

We must teach young people two things: 1). Reasoning and 2). Ethics. For without either they're helpless and prone to manipulation.

It's good then that people engage in philosophy which trains both skills. If everyone was a humbled and cautious philosopher I think the world would be a better place.

I'll say it again - not everything children need to know has to be taught in school. — T Clark

That's a valid opinion. In the case of religion and politics, I agree. But encouraging basic civility is not out of place in a classroom or a textbook - especially in a world so racked with acrimony. I would prefer parents to teach values, courtesy and empathy, but I don't feel they are always the best source of useful information - especially on subjects of which they are either ignorant or ashamed.
As for biology, I disagree: it is just as factual as any other science, as factual as math. It can be very damaging - in some situations, deadly - for young people to be misinformed about the health and function of their own bodies. Not knowing about reproduction until they're of reproductive age is only inconvenient in a tolerant, supportive society; life-destroying in a repressive, punitive one. And ignorance of sexual predators.... well, let's say, having worked in forensic pathology, I've seen distressing evidence of the results. (also of bad and inadequate parenting)

We must teach young people two things: 1). Reasoning and 2). Ethics. For without either they're helpless and prone to manipulation. — Benj96

That's exactly to purpose of shutting down debate, restricting college courses, hiding (and burning) controversial literature.

As for biology, I disagree: it is just as factual as any other science, as factual as math. It can be very damaging - in some situations, deadly - for young people to be misinformed about the health and function of their own bodies. Not knowing about reproduction until they're of reproductive age is only inconvenient in a tolerant, supportive society; life-destroying in a repressive, punitive one. — Vera Mont

Absolutely. Brava. Biological and sex Ed should "grow" unanimously with the person. In harmony. Children and teens should be exposed to such things as needed to be in harmony with their development.

There is no place for shame/awkwardness and guilt when it comes to empowering youths to take command of their developing body, having the information available to them to make conscious, sensible and informed decisions and not be led astray by myths, gossips and misinformation just because teachers and parents felt it an uncomfortable subject to broach.

We must not deny teens the truth of things just for the sake of trying to prevent them growing up (ascertaining that knowledge regardless - either through unwanted pregnancy, taking drugs etc).

Let's be Frank with them and give them the tools to navigate their expanding world before, not after, it inevitably happens. So they aren't blindsided.

That's exactly to purpose of shutting down debate, restricting college courses, hiding (and burning) controversial literature — Vera Mont

I strongly disagree. Controversy is the place of learning. Conflicting ideals are exactly where we learn to apply reasoning and ethics. If we try to create a utopia (ignoring or hiding controversy, restricting learning, shutting down debate) then how ought we prepare them for the fact that it is indeed not a utopia?

One must address the lacklustre to highlight the lustre. Otherwise we are simply being biased which leaves teens vulnerable and naive.

The world is both a gorgeous and dirty place. We must get down and dirty to acknowledge the appropriate contrast so that students can make good and informed decisions. We must not be afraid to converse on things that are unpalatable. But it should be age appropriate. The knowledge of such things should be revealed in time, at the right time, to raise responsible well doing adults.

Not an easy task but a neccesary one.

I strongly disagree. — Benj96

I think only because I worded my response ambiguously. I meant that the purpose of not allowing ethics and critical thinking to be taught in schools, including university is to render the young helpless and prone to manipulation.
I've quoted this before

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education,

all of which i strongly support

but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”

while I believe religion has no place in school. Good citizenship, yes - informed citizenship.

Sorry, I left a post that i had thought had been pertinent, but it was not; I talked about the issue of morality vs empathy. Apologies.

But encouraging basic civility is not out of place in a classroom or a textbook — Vera Mont

Schools should encourage basic civility by enforcing it in their facilities. Don't teach it. Do it.

I would prefer parents to teach values, courtesy and empathy, but I don't feel they are always the best source of useful information - especially on subjects of which they are either ignorant or ashamed. — Vera Mont

What you prefer isn't the question. In general, we have to trust that parents and families are the best people to look out for their children. I certainly believe that. Sure, there are bad parents. Human social behavior is not perfect. I still think it's our best bet.

As for biology, I disagree: it is just as factual as any other science, as factual as math. It can be very damaging - in some situations, deadly - for young people to be misinformed about the health and function of their own bodies. — Vera Mont

Teaching biology is fine, although I think there are limits to what should be taught at younger ages. Sex education, on the other hand, is not just biology. It also expresses values and may recommend practices that parents consider inappropriate. Community concerns should be taken into account.

Sex education, on the other hand, is not just biology. It also expresses values and may recommend practices that parents consider inappropriate. — T Clark

Education is just education. Values do not come into DNA replication; it happens in amoeba, earthworms and wombats just the same way it happens in people. Who says any health teacher is recommending any 'practices'? Just tell the kids how it works - not how to do it.

Community concerns should be taken into account. — T Clark

Of course. Some communities are concerned about outbreaks of herpes, hepatitis and AIDS; some trust none of those things will happen.

What you prefer isn't the question. — T Clark

True, I asked what you prefer. And you have been very clear. Thank you.

Sorry, I left a post that i had thought had been pertinent, but it was not; I talked about the issue of morality vs empathy. Apologies. — god must be atheist

I don't know what you have to apologize for! Did you delete it? I must have missed it the first time - and, looking back through the thread just now, I can't find it. Morality and empathy are important issues. Even if I can't exactly see how see how they fit into the problem of state censorship, I would be interested.

No. Those seed banks libraries, archives and DNA repository are being prepared for the people who will restore biodiversity and agriculture after the climate crisis has passed. These are very optimistic and ambitious projects undertaken by dedicated specialists. — Vera Mont

Yes, I have watched a few docs about such human repositories, and I agree the efforts involved are prudent and commendable as a protection against some natural disaster we had no control over or as protection against us causing our own approach towards extinction that we need to rebuild from.

The exact opposite. I wrote a utopian one. That/s why I dislike the disparagement of utopian ideology. — Vera Mont

I think it's good that you are trying to dilute the assumption that anything labelled utopian is not attainable by humans, but I think it's because it is often associated with notions of perfection.

It seems to me that all official (legislated, legally enforced) censorship tends toward propaganda. Even if with the most benign intentions, — Vera Mont

And there is no way that legal standard can be nuanced enough to fair in all cases; a great deal of unjust prosecutions and persecutions get swept up in a general intention to protect the public. (And of course, we can't really depend on all governments to have the best intention.) — Vera Mont

I agree with the level of complexity you cite within the issues you raise but I think the solution may lie in some kind of AI/expert systems, which will help humans deal with such complexity and will indeed allow the kind of nuanced, individualised approach, which will remove the chance of personal human prejudices being applied, which cause unjust and imbalanced actions.