Protect the Willfully Ignorant by Lily Huang

The author of Huang Lili protects the state of ignorance and ignorance "an increasingly urgent privacy issue or the best way to surround your public space" (474). Most Internet users are familiar with knowing the potential risks. Most people know the possibilities and potential risks of images and information we post on social networks and other websites, and what we see. We all have heard the grammar school warning about the Internet and how to use it. Teachers, parents, librarians and schools are drowning their children everywhere in the school that they use safely.

why? Since encryption is actually a simple matter, politicians who do not know advertise the need for protected communication through backdoors, regardless of police authorities' panic or embarrassment. According to various experts in this field, this choice is a true binary choice. This method can not be changed using strong encryption because malicious users may exploit vulnerabilities introduced in the process. This is not about security and privacy, it concerns security and security, as experts repeatedly explained.

Yes, I came back to those who need to ignore intentional ignorance. But there is a moral problem. This is an act of eliminating their actions from what they are doing and what they are doing to people in every group. When was this moral line intentionally ignorant from 'justified'? The real problem is how to empower people to self-determine, while preventing people not fully understanding the situation through ignorance in order to determine the destructive system of themselves and others. The paradigm change we address is defined by the edge complexity we can understand. What we need to accept is that the only way we go is soon to be dependent on the artificial intelligence system we have built to learn better, earlier than we do. We are now there and 90% of the population makes it impossible to understand the logic and evidence our AI system is using now.

There is selfish ignorance. I deliberately spoof people who make false indications of facts. I do not think Congressional members are misunderstanding because I do not know intentionally and deliberately the facts of reproduction. This is wonderful for their ideological promotion and implementation agenda, and if they are sincere about the fact, it will be a more severe selling point. However, I think there is a possibility that the outcome of anti-selection will reward anti-intellectualism. It will make people appoint and strengthen this agenda. If we do not fight back or fight, we will see more deliberate ignorance. The worst thing we can do is to assume that electoral colleges that led to the election of Donald Trump are tasks. It's not. He did not vote for the majority of people, but Hillary Clinton.