2/ It is true that they got their start right around the inauguration in 2017. There have been a few events that have been have caused them to organize and build structures. The 2017 hurricanes were one.
3/ An #AltGov-started initiative ended up bringing in follower volunteers literally all over the world, and they developed technology and structures that were responsible for saving thousands of lives.
4/ Several #AltGov and very many followers are still deeply invested in this. It's essentially a newer model of disaster relief involving bridging the gap between people in danger and civilians who can help with rescues when civic services can't keep up.
5/ The efforts have won a major award, been presented at an academic conference and led to a permanent non-profit and a vc-financed new technology that will serve as a move forward in how people get help in disasters.
6/ I also see it as part of a larger story: I think regardless of your political views, you'd agree that the U.S. government itself has become less effective due to the disagreements and chaos that followed the 2016 election.
7/ The #AltGov started, in part, with government employees trying to fill functions like environmental protection despite gag orders. In its best moments, it continues to try to serve the public by working around that chaos.
8/ Natural disasters like #HurricaneDorian cause chaos. And the first #AltGov efforts to lead volunteers to help are continuing.
9/ If you want to have a look for yourself, you can check out the @CEDRdigital account and/or the hashtag #DAT, both of which are being shared and/or used by some Alt and follower accounts I know.
10/ There's a full chapter in the #WeAreAltGov book about the disaster rescue efforts.
11/ Also, twitter.com/cs_rescue is taking in requests and looking for volunteers with boats.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Class is in session. Today we are going to practice critical thinking like I would with students. A brief warning – I’m going to ask you to read something that you may disagree with in order to understand it. It’s ok to disagree. It’s not ok to skip the homework.
2/ This gift link will take you to a piece from the online Washington Post. It’s free to read, so no excuses. We’ll be looking to understand what the author believes and what kind of evidence the author finds convincing. wapo.st/41klrSt
3/ Before that, questions: when I said The Washington Post, did that make you want or not want to read the piece? Why or why not? (for students who don’t follow news, I’d follow up with a brief explanation about the controversy)
I've read all 4 of these articles, and they are interesting. I think the big takeaway is that people's and politicians's naive ideas about how to fix things don't always hold up under scrutiny. It was a massive study, with interesting data. (Gift link) nytimes.com/2023/07/27/tec…
2/ Another takeaway is how very much data FB has on folks. It would be worth it to read the articles just to see about that. They are simple enough that you don't have to be a researcher to understand most of it. Here are links:
2/ Positives abound. News is careful and careful is good, but news didn't cover everything. Twitter let people and organizations share important information in real time that sometimes made a real difference.
3/ You see this in student journalists who covered a campus shooting using Twitter when the web server crashed and they were locked down in the student union building.
2/ I've been casually and with some interest following the development of ... this ... for a week or two.
3/ As a professional DJ, I was interested in how people spun the song of their lives in a way that was both highly curated and yet sometimes off-the-cuff.
This is a good time to remind you: cyberattacks are actual attacks. If you are a social media user, you have likely been involved. This is true whether you are a "Let's Go Biden" type or a "Let's Go Brandon Type." #DetectingDeception
2/ You probably believe that those who believe differently than you are more vulnerable to disinformation, and you are probably wrong.
3/ Consider this: ongoing propaganda campaigns have led to entire media outlets that base their entire business model on outrage. Truthiness replaces news judgement..."if I feel strongly about it, it is likely true" is a poor, but common way to thinking.
Time for a little fun with math. I often see 99 percent survival rate as a snappy comeback for people talking about vaccines and mask mandates. And I think we can all agree that it's important to consider risks and benefits when deciding things. What does 99 percent mean?
2/ If it's a death rate, that means for every 100 people infected, 99 lives and 1 dies. To be fair, 99 is a much bigger number than 100. Here is one *
3/ Let's think about it another way. I live in a town with a college of about 29,000 students. If they all get infected, 290 die. The town has a population of about 70,000. If we all get infected, 700 die. My kid's school has about 1,500 students. If they all get it, 15 die.