CIENCIASMEDICASNEWS: Astroturf: Fake social media consensus harms politics

lunes, 4 de enero de 2016

Astroturf: Fake social media consensus harms politics

MONDAY, 4 JANUARY 2016

Astroturf: Fake social media consensus
harms politics

BY DENYSE O'LEARY

Happy New Year! Last time out, we were looking at politically-driven
censorship on Facebook, and I promised to say something about “astroturf”
(fake grassroots) as well.

Astroturf is to politics and social change what fake likes and profiles are to
Facebook and fake product reviewsare to Amazon. A surge of popularity or
concern may in reality be manufactured at a few terminals for pay or promotion.

The Urban Dictionary tells us "astroturfing" means

Creating the impression of public support by paying people in the public to
pretend to be supportive.

The false support can take the form of letters to the editor, postings on
message boards in response to criticism, and writing to politicians in support
of the cause.

As noted in earlier posts, the internet doesn’t give us the typical cues we get
from our real life environment about what to believe.

Broadcast journalist Sharyl Atkisson offers a tip:

The language of astroturfers and propagandists includes trademark
inflammatory terms such as: anti, nutty, quack, crank, pseudo-science,
debunking, conspiracy theory, deniers and junk science. Sometimes
astroturfers claim to “debunk myths” that aren’t myths at all. They declare
debates over that aren’t over. They claim that “everybody agrees” when
everyone doesn’t agree. They aim to make you think you’re an outlier
when you’re not.

Many areas of science today, nutrition for example, are controversial because
present study methods are not giving clear answers. So we should be suspicious
if we hear one side of a controversy over salt, sugar, or dietary fat loudly
denigrated online as “pseudo-science.” If only life were so simple…

Political journalist Adam Bienkov writes,

New forms of software enable any organisation with the funds and the
know-how to conduct astroturfing on a far bigger scale than even the
Kremlin could hope for. As reported by the Guardian, some big companies
now use sophisticated "persona management software" to create armies of
virtual astroturfers, complete with fake IP addresses, non-political interests
and online histories. Authentic-looking profiles are generated automatically
and developed for months or years before being brought into use for a
political or corporate campaign. As the software improves, these astroturf
armies will become increasingly difficult to spot, and the future of open
debate online could become increasingly perilous. More.

In the long run, astroturfing does not force us to believe that masses of our
neighbours support some dangerous, morally wrong, or ridiculous proposal.
But it does challenge us to stay involved with our communities and listen
carefully, ignoring the sheer public noise that threatens to drown them out.

See also: Fake news is coming to your town. And mine. Big time. And we are talking genuine fakes here.

and

Fake disaster from Russia’s troll house

Denyse O’Leary is a Canadian journalist, author, and blogger.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/connecting/view/astroturf-fake-social-media-consensus-harms-politics/17387#sthash.KTtxYRWZ.dpuf

Archbishop forces showdown over Belgian euthanasia law

SUNDAY, 3 JANUARY 2016

Archbishop forces showdown over Belgian euthanasia law

BY PAUL RUSSELL

Over recent weeks the issue of conscientious objection, or the “conscience clause” in the Belgian euthanasia law has been brought into the spotlight by the assertion by the new Catholic Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, Jozef De Kesel, that he has the right to refuse Catholic hospitals and aged care facilities to co-operate with euthanasia.

Euthanasia advocates both in academia and in the medical profession have bristled at the suggestion that institutions could say “Non” with many displaying a distinct and disturbing lack of understanding about the status of the 14 year old statute that allows doctors to kill their patients.

The Belgian law clearly provides a conscientious “out” for doctors and others assisting in a euthanasia but it is silent about institutions. Some suggest that the extension of a right of conscientious objection to institutions such as churches is implied while others suggest, dubiously to my thinking, that silence suggests otherwise.

The unexpected intransigence has brought to light a subtle, but important, distinction in the euthanasia law. In spite of the rhetoric, euthanasia is not legal in Belgium. The 2002 statute simply creates a defence in law for doctors who commit an act of euthanasia when they fulfil certain conditions. Fernand Keuleneer, a lawyer and alternate member of the Euthanasia Evaluation Commission for 10 years agrees, He told the media: "It is wrong to argue that the law requires Catholic hospitals to apply euthanasia. The law does not create a subjective, let alone fundamental right to euthanasia, but is limited to non-criminalization of doctors who perform euthanasia in legal terms.”

Initially all this seemed like like an academic exercise with no one expecting the new bishop to force a showdown. But a showdown was already in the making.

Belgian news outlets have reported that a Catholic nursing home has refused to allow a doctor onto its premises to perform euthanasia. According to reports, his 74-year-old female patient was terminally ill with metastatic cancer and was living in the St. Augustine residential care centre in Diest.

The process of requesting euthanasia began in 2011 and progressed for six months before St. Augustine’s management refused access, supposedly only days before the euthanasia was to take place. The various stories do not say whether or not the facility was formally aware of the process. However the family says that, after initially believing that the matter was simply a misunderstanding, they arranged for the woman to be transported to a private residence where the death took place. The family are claiming that the facility caused additional psychological and physical suffering for their mother.

The matter is listed to be heard in a civic court in Leuven in April – more than four years after the woman’s death and after the matter had already been postponed twice before -- why, we are not told.

I smell a rat.

This issue precedes the current controversy over the Archbishop’s refusal to allow euthanasia to take place in Catholic nursing homes. It does not take a cynic to ask why a matter that has twice been suspended over a death that took place over four years ago where the woman got what she wanted, is suddenly before the media and the courts?

If that were not enough for conspiracy theorists, the lawyer for the woman’s family, Sylvie Tack, has a longstanding professional relationship with Belgium’s euthanasia supremo, Dr Wim Distelmans, and his Life Ending Information Network (LEIF) as a lecturer, speaker and member of their peer review panel.

It may be that Archbishop De Kesel was aware of this pending case when he made his pre-Christmas declaration. If so, full marks to him! As we observed earlier, it seems likely now that the courts may well determine the interpretation of Article 14 of Belgium’s euthanasia law.

It does not seem likely that the complaint by the woman’s family is principally about her treatment or any recompense or restitution for “suffering or loss”. As their lawyer told De Morgen: "The new Act states that doctors and staff who are involved in the euthanasia, can have conscientious objection. But the health care institution itself should not interfere with it themselves."

Make no mistake: if ever there was going to be a test case, this is it. Rightly or wrongly, Belgian’s euthanasia supremos have always seen the Catholic Church and its influence as the last bulwark standing against them. I have heard them say as much personally. Perhaps, ironically, they also see Catholicism as the last voice of conscience – to which they clearly object.

Paul Russell is director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide, which is based in Australia. This article has been republished from his blog with permission.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/careful/view/catholic-archbishop-forces-showdown-over-belgian-euthanasia-law/17390#sthash.90UQiSWV.dpuf

Happy New Year! We are slowly coming to grips with the idea that the Christmas holiday is over. We will be bringing you lots of great reading throughout the year. Make it one of your New Year's resolutions to introduce five friends to MercatorNet. We hope that 2016 will be a year of expansion!