Censorship: When a group, or individual, is terrified that the truth shall prevail over lies.

 "The real conflict is between truth and lies. One mark of a deteriorating society is when people cannot discern between truth and lies." — Ann Landers

     I used to firmly believe that, when presented with the truth and presented with a lie, the truth would always prevail (eventually). Ideally, I still think this is true, but with the advent of data silos (self-imposed restriction of information available), I no longer believe this is always so.

     A lie cannot be exposed if people choose to never to listen to the truth.

     Note that there is a huge difference between hearing and listening. Lies repeated over and over do not magically become true. And the truth presented calmly can be heard but never listened to even though it stays the truth.

     When a group, or individual, is afraid that people will believe the truth then their only option is to impose restrictions on the ability to hear/see/read that truth. Data silos are the form that it takes for self-restriction. Censorship is when restrictions are imposed from the outside. Such censorship may be enacted by governments or by local subsets of society.

     I usually do not take part in threads on the net about book banning in schools and libraries because those working to ban books rarely listen. Of late, I tried to interject a bit of rationality into a thread but pulled back quickly because they quickly started “responding” to things that were never said.

     One thread talked about removing pornography and sex from school libraries.

I asked them to name such a book.
          Hundreds of people on the thread — no one could name a book
IF someone had named a book, I would have asked for a page number or a quote
          But not one person had named a book and I have more faith in our
          hard-working librarians than I am in what is literally a mob that
          is just repeating what they hear from someone else and don’t care if it is true.

     I do know of books that contain “hard core” sexuality — though I do not seek them out. One set comes from a very popular author who also writes lesbian romance books. Another is from a New York Times bestselling author who doesn’t hold back an iota of what can be done with heterosexual bodies. But they are not in our school libraries and, frankly, I have never heard of any protests about them.

     So, what books do get banned — and why? In the list of the most-often banned books in the US, there are various reasons mentioned. “The top ten reasons books were challenged and banned included sexual content (92.5% percent of books on the list); offensive language (61.5%); unsuited to age group (49%); religious viewpoint (26%); LGBTQIA+ content (23.5%); violence (19%); racism (16.5%); drugs, alcohol, and smoking (12.5%); "anti-family" content (7%); and political viewpoint (6.5%).” [from referenced Wikipedia article].

     As mentioned above, most people who talk about banning books have not, themselves, read the book — and often don’t even know the title or author of the book (though sometimes it is ONLY the title or author that they know). But there is usually an initiator and, presumably and hopefully, that initiator of trying to ban a book HAS read the book.

     So, given the above “top ten” reasons to ban books, what are the underlying discomforts? For sexual content, it is possible that there are some books that slip past the scrutiny of even the best, eagle-eyed, librarian. And it is possible that there are some books that really should be pulled from a school library. This includes for the other stated reasons. There are books that are not suitable for particular ages — and when they have slipped past the educational guardians there usually is not much difficulty in getting them removed.

     I will also note that, even if banned, people can (and will) still read (or watch or listen to) them — just less easily. It calls out that the primary issue is that some parents want the government to control their children. Parents SHOULD be INVOLVED with their children and learn WITH their children and be PART of their children’s lives.

     But most of the criticisms I have run across are not about specific sexuality in a book but, rather, the idea that sexuality exists. A book about a mother and father raising three children is usually not disapproved of by any. But a family where two men raise three children is very likely to be objected to. Or a family where a “mixed racial” couple are raising three children. Or a family where a mother and father is raising a child who is very uncomfortable being treated as a specific gender or the child is attracted to others who are of the same gender. The root problem is acceptance of a situation different from the societal norm — not any explicit sexuality.

     Another situation is telling the tale of a situation that is not a positive one. Abuse — physical, sexual, or emotional — is not a comfortable subject. The same is true of the abuse of drugs or other substances. But people, including adolescent and younger children, do encounter such situations. Pretending that these situations do not exist is not helping children. They may be encountering such situations at home. How do they know that such situations are not normal and they should not feel terrible because they have been caught up in such situations? What if their parents are divorcing and they don’t understand, their parents cannot calmly explain, and the children may even blame themselves? In such cases, the books may be a literal “lifeline” for the children. The problem is not the book (or movie) but the reality that they feel they have no one to talk with about such problems.

     A third category enters the worlds of changed societal norms (acceptable language, behaviors, social strata, environmental or societal environments, etc.). This may be a difference between regions, countries, or periods of history. According to the current, local, set of societal norms a book may be in conflict with them. Many of the criticisms of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” or “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” arise because the completely normal and acceptable language and behaviors of THAT period of time are no longer acceptable today.

     Does rewriting history really help anyone? Does pretending that life has always been as it ideally is today help anyone? This situation keeps arising — and not just for books and movies — but legal and historical cases where today’s standards are expected to have been held by the people of yesterday or some other locale.

     A fourth major category is simply that we don’t like the way the author thinks or the things that they put into print or a movie. They don’t have the same political, religious, moral, environmental, societal, scientific, or whatever viewpoint as someone else. True, and this is yet another case where parents should be INVOLVED with their children and what they are reading and watching and listening to. We have raised children to become adults who are unable to think about subjects, to discuss subjects, to research subjects. Is forcing children to NOT learn such skills really beneficial? Does society benefit from its citizens unable to discern reality from fantasy, facts from fiction, truths from lies?

     There are some books that slip past our hardworking librarians and should not be easily accessible by children. In such cases, all should know exactly what and why something is not appropriate. In other cases, the material may not be enjoyable or positive-in-viewpoint but still reflects something that is real. In such cases, the problem is primarily that the parents are not taking the time and energy to work with their children so that all understand what is going on and the effects of the situations on everyday interactions.

“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” — Voltaire

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Data Silos: circular references within a boundary

     Occasionally, people will talk about “data silos”. More often, there is just a complaint that people don’t listen to enough sources of information to be able to have an accurate view of what is going on. That is a description of the effects of being trapped in a data silo but it isn’t a definition.

     A silo is designed to contain things, to gather them for storage and dispersal. When I was working the summer before going to college, one of my jobs was to help build grain silos back in Kansas near my hometown. It was hot work and I was really itchy by the time I got home but I believe I did my job correctly except for once when a tool malfunctioned. My biggest concern was for my hearing as using a power socket wrench inside the enclosed space caused huge, very loud, echos. Perhaps that experience happened to someone who later thought about how appropriate the name was for what was going on with information — an echo chamber within a data silo.

     A data silo provides a bordered, protected, area within which the data are “safe” from contamination, or influence, from outside sources. But an echo chamber describes how data found, or created, within the data silo will rapidly echo to fill all of the data sources. And, whether false or true, that will become an accepted fact.

     Wouldn’t people worry about the validity of information that they see only in one small area of the possible sources? No, not necessarily. One huge danger signal is when data sources say “don’t trust anything outside of our information sources”. It is very similar to “don’t look behind the curtain” for the Wizard of Oz. If they were truly confident about, and proud of, their data sources no such warning would be needed. The fact that they are saying “trust us and don’t trust anyone else” is a huge “red flag” and everything should be very carefully checked.

     One great example of a well-defined data silo concerns David Duke’s book “The Awakening”. He professes that it is an academic book with references, footnotes, and detailed justification for his views (which, thank goodness, are not mainstream views). But those references point to people who agree with his basic feelings and their references point to others who agree with both of them and THEIR references point back to David Duke; this is an instance of “circular reasoning”. There is never any “grounding” for any of the data or information. It is all self-created with a close group of colleagues all agreeing to support one another.

      This happens with many social media streams also. They refer to another media stream within the same data silo which — eventually — will point back to the first source. To a certain extent, our self-censorship will create a situation where most of the things we read, see, or hear reinforce our general views. Once again, however, when any data source warns against paying attention to other sources — LOOK ELSEWHERE!

     There may never be a single “truth” — but there can be facts as long as those facts are carefully detailed (I saw this in this context from this angle after having eaten this and so forth). Well-defined facts should remain the same no matter what the point-of-view of others may be. When you are checking out whether or not you are caught within a data silo first ask “is this an interpretation or a fact?”. If it is an interpretation then you should recognize that the more interpretations you can find the more likely you can come up with an analysis that is close to reality.

     But, if it is supposed to be a fact, you must cast your net out. If you encounter a single instance where they disagree with the fact then it is vital you determine which is the one that is true. And for facts, there should be only one correct answer.

     There are information sources that I have repeatedly checked and found their data to be wrong a large percentage of the time. After a bit, I just discard all of the information presented by them. Some may be true but it is so likely to be false that my time and energy can be better used checking other sources.

     Always keep an eye out for “the person behind the curtain” and beware of warnings to not check on reality elsewhere.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Data Silos: not just storage

     Many moons ago, I had a summer part-time job building grain silos in southern Kansas. Grain silos are buildings -- presently usually built with aluminum and concrete -- which allow storage of grain (corn, wheat, barley, oats, ...) such that they are contained, out of the potential rain, and on a dry surface. This allows them to stay good for an extended length of time and not rot.

     I haven't worked on a grain silo now for a long time. But I spend a lot of time trying to break down data silos. Data silos also keep things around for a long time. Some (mis)information within data silos may have been circulating for a decade or more. They also keep the data contained -- the data is circulated amongst the other sites and organizations that are within the data silo.

     The silo is delimited by internal consistency. Stories and sites within the silo refer to each other, repeat what others say, and report or create new information based on the information already being circulated within the silo. If you believe "A" to be true then you will only see information about "A" being true. If you believe "C" to be false, then you will only see information about "C" being false.

     As is true in many areas of life, there are actually a spectrum of truths that are happening. Event A is happening. Event B is happening. G said Y. G also said Q. One silo may report on A and G saying Q -- but nothing about B or G saying Y.  Another silo may report only on B and G saying Y. Thus, at times, multiple data silos can each contain A reality -- but a carefully maintained subset of reality.

     I mention creation of information. In other words -- fantasies, misdirection, lies. Why would a person or site deliberately create false information? I am not talking about someone who has "passed along" something false because they don't have the motivation to check to see if it is true first. I am talking about deliberate creation of false information. Why would a person or site do that?

     One reason is a desire for self-promotion. For an individual, their name gets associated with "information" that is exciting or motivating for others to remain in their data silo. For sites, there are often factors of advertising dollars or political inclination. Some "news" sites have teams of data creators -- very similar to the teams of script writers used for comedy shows or other variety shows that used to be popular. And, of course, there are sites and individuals who are not who they say they are -- international or domestic organizations who desire to maintain and intensify the divisions created by data silos.

     There are tools available to help a person break out of a data silo -- to get a more balanced (and, overall, much more accurate) view of what is going on. There are sites that evaluate general reliability. and bias ("right" or "left") of information such as that published by Ad Fontes Media. There are various "fact checking" organizations such as Politifact, Snopes, and FactCheck. There are two problems about these tools being used to break out of a data silo.

     The first, and most confining one, is that you have to have some degree of trust that the site, itself, isn't biased and deliberately giving a distorted view. Most of the more trusted sites, as listed above, are well liked AND disliked by many points in the spectrum of thought. That is probably a decent yardstick by which to measure. Deliberate information may, however, be more concentrated in certain areas -- the Ad Fontes Media graph can only point this out for well-known public information sites. The private sites that report, or create, information are not evaluated.

     The second, and possibly most difficult to change, reason that people do not try to break out of their data silos is that they don't want to. They are comfortable. The information may comfort them, or make them angry -- but only in the ways that they already are oriented. No confusion -- only yes/no, true/false -- and no spectrum of items.

     I talk about people breaking out of their data silos. Can't an outside person break another person out of their silo? No, I don't think so. Change of a person's ideas, or behaviors, has to be rooted in their own desire. That desire may be based on outside things (a new significant other, something so outrageous and blatantly false that it makes the ground shake, a drastic change of environment, ...) but the desire must be internal.