Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of a Moral Panic

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#171

Post by Iv »

notahacker wrote: post #151
Iv wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because barring the entrance of one of these as-yet-unimagined alternatives, it seems we'll need to lean on regulation...but then we get into messiness of regulating free speech. OK. I'm on break, I'll make it a big longer to translate and sum up what I think has been the most underrated video of the 2016 french presidential election discussing how to «fix» political press. (reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch…

It's possible this is covered in the talk (as I don't speak French), but how exactly is "information" defined other than being non-commercial? I mean, on the one hand it's certain that there are people who will happily spend their days writing conspiracy theories or lies about certain minority groups without any financial incentive to do so, and I'd rather this didn't get money from my taxes and a government stamp of…

A guy like Alex Jones would still qualify as journalist (assuming he really is independent, I am not sure about that) and yes, crazy conspiracy theorist would get the "information" label too.

This is the double-edged sword of plurality. But consider that: if you were pro-transgender rights in the 60s there were no way to sort you from the crazies: you would have been advocating as a choice what was officially a mental disease. They still existed and in 2017 their voices seem much more acceptable.

Finding the voice of 2040's progressives comes at the cost of letting the conspiracy theorist and the lizxardmen spotters have a say too.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#172

Post by forapurpose »

dang wrote: post #93
forapurpose wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying is that you are leaving your part for someone else to do; thanks. If you were involved you would know that the number one reason that bad things - and many are obviously bad - happen is that so many people don't pay attention. They let the sharks and con artists run rampant over them, use them like suckers, and of course they complain later.

> What you are saying is that you are leaving your part for someone else to do; thanks. Please don't post acerbic personal swipes to HN. They violate the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

Sure, but I see plenty of it on HN, especially far-right trolling. Is that so common that it's just normalized and overlooked? For example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15297953

EDIT: Or maybe mods just can't realistically every comment.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#173

Post by danielam »

vonnik wrote: post #167
notzorbo3 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire comment is a straw man. The article doesn't claim the internet ruined journalism, and I don't even know where your "end of the world" comment is coming from. You're also comparing papers like the New York Sun and other tabloids, while this article is talking about respectable papers such as the New York Times. I'll quote the relevant part of the article: > The real story in this mess is not the threat tha…

Your entire comment misses the point. What I'm saying is that most journalism was always this way. Algorithms don't exacerbate this tendency any more than daily sales did for the Sun. As a former reporter for the NYT, I can say that journalists there are subjected to many of the same pressures, if in a more limited way than reporters at Buzzfeed. And that sales always mattered at the Times, too. Reporters have always…

I agree that journalism (particularly mass media which followed the invention of rail transportation) has been compromised by advertising. However, I'm not quite certain that subscriptions freed newspapers from advertising since subscriptions alone cannot cover the costs of running a newspaper. Furthermore, the problem with advertising isn't just how tighly linked to newspaper sales it is, but how it can constrain what's written in newspapers for fear of having clients pull advertising from the newspaper. So subscriptions may reduce the dependence on advertising and offer more freedom to journalists, but not entirely. Also, the danger of subscriptions is that we can only pay for so many and this limitation can constrain the number of sources we can draw from. The challenges facing newspapers are complex.

A general comment: while it is important to draw attention to the perverse incentives journalism is subject to, it is also important not to fall prey to the fallacy that people must act according to perverse incentives. Nothing justifies publishing unsubstantiated nonsense. Journalists are morally bound not to do so.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#174

Post by dang »

forapurpose wrote: post #172
dang wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you are saying is that you are leaving your part for someone else to do; thanks. Please don't post acerbic personal swipes to HN. They violate the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

Sure, but I see plenty of it on HN, especially far-right trolling. Is that so common that it's just normalized and overlooked? For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15297953 EDIT: Or maybe mods just can't realistically every comment.

We definitely don't see every comment. Though I did reply in that thread.

The way to get us to see the comments is to flag them. To flag a comment, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. Alternatively, email hn@ycombinator.com in egregious cases.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#175

Post by vonnik »

danielam wrote: post #173
vonnik wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire comment misses the point. What I'm saying is that most journalism was always this way. Algorithms don't exacerbate this tendency any more than daily sales did for the Sun. As a former reporter for the NYT, I can say that journalists there are subjected to many of the same pressures, if in a more limited way than reporters at Buzzfeed. And that sales always mattered at the Times, too. Reporters have always…

I agree that journalism (particularly mass media which followed the invention of rail transportation) has been compromised by advertising. However, I'm not quite certain that subscriptions freed newspapers from advertising since subscriptions alone cannot cover the costs of running a newspaper. Furthermore, the problem with advertising isn't just how tighly linked to newspaper sales it is, but how it can constrain wh…

The challenges facing media are complex. The subscription model encourages publications to become luxury goods, just as the pace of the Web pushes print editions to become future-focused and heavy on analysis. Subscriptions can sustain niche products, but the free content on the Internet makes that harder than it used to be.

Almost every publication is beholden to someone, and often to several entities, usually the owners. Bloomberg News treads carefully with Michael Bloomberg, and the same is true for every billionaire-owned outlet. You can't avoid it, and as long as there are enough publications, it doesn't matter. They all make up for the others' blind spots.

While it may be a fallacy that people must act according to perverse incentives, it is not a fallacy to expect that they probably will. Statistically speaking, moral bounds are not strong arguments when confronted with power and wealth. Those who decline on moral grounds are easily replaced.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#176

Post by mikestew »

pjc50 wrote: post #156
mikestew wrote: post #64

As one who has not reloaded ammunition in a number of years, I’m going to guess that the only reason Amazon won’t sell you black powder (or gun powder) outright is due to shipping restrictions. Which means instead of buying the ingredients with a highly-trackable transaction from Amazon, your low-budget terrorist will have to resort to buying the powder pre-made, and anonymously in a cash transaction from the local g…

.. in the US, or the UK? I'm fairly sure you'd need an explosives license for more than the 100g ""personal experimentation"" limit, although I'm still trying to find a good canonical rules summary.

U. S., where there are enough people that reload ammunition that I made a pretty good bit of money back in the 90s selling software for that market. So, yeah, if you want to buy a couple pounds of the stuff, it’s not terribly difficult and no one is likely to think a thing of it (last I bought gun powder was probably ten years ago; take it as the dated information it is).

EDIT: I also forgot that referring to smokeless gunpowder as just “gunpowder” is mostly a U. S. thing. But smokeless gunpowder is what I mean, in contrast to the stuff old school muzzle loaders use (black powder in the U. S.).

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#177

Post by closeparen »

vonnik wrote: post #127

Ironically, the premise of this critique of journalism is as false as the Amazon story it cites. Algorithms and the Internet didn't ruin journalism, and this is not the end of the world. Journalism was corrupted by sensationalism as soon as it moved from subscriptions to ads, which in the US was in the 19th century. Remember when we discovered a colony of aliens on the moon? Yeah, that was the New York Sun way before…

> that was the New York Sun

There have always been crappy tabloid publications. The new development is the fall of the respectable/professional outlets. (Some national papers are hanging on, but most smaller cities' city papers have been decimated).

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#178

Post by notahacker »

Iv wrote: post #171
notahacker wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible this is covered in the talk (as I don't speak French), but how exactly is "information" defined other than being non-commercial? I mean, on the one hand it's certain that there are people who will happily spend their days writing conspiracy theories or lies about certain minority groups without any financial incentive to do so, and I'd rather this didn't get money from my taxes and a government stamp of…

A guy like Alex Jones would still qualify as journalist (assuming he really is independent, I am not sure about that) and yes, crazy conspiracy theorist would get the "information" label too. This is the double-edged sword of plurality. But consider that: if you were pro-transgender rights in the 60s there were no way to sort you from the crazies: you would have been advocating as a choice what was officially a menta…

I'm quite happy for conspiracy theorists to be allowed to "have a say". I'm considerably less happy with the idea that people's taxes should pay to promote their work as "information" inherently more trustworthy Le Monde

And frankly, I'm far less worried about people promoting unfashionable views (who, whether trans activists or "911 truthers" tend to be pretty self-motivated anyway) and far more worried about the amount of people that want to spend their life writing generic rants about whatever has annoyed them most recently who could really use a thin veneer of credibility and government-subsidised libel lawyer...

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#179

Post by cisanti »

qq66 wrote: post #30
cisanti wrote: post #20

Well written piece. I stopped reading news after Trump got into office and I have no shame about it. It feels great and I don't I miss out on anything. When people talk or ask me about politics I just say I don't know because I don't read. They make s surprised face and then continue talking and arguing about absolutely pointless topics and about the upcoming apocalypse. I just hope someone tells me an hour beforehan…

A good service that mails you once a month about things that matter is a subscription to a proper news magazine like _The Atlantic_ or _The Economist_.

The Atlantic is not a newspaper but propaganda for their selected political elite.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#180

Post by vithlani »

Dove wrote: post #136

It boggles my mind that in such a connected age, getting accurate news should be such a hard problem. Never mind influencing the world - if I personally want to know what is really going on, I have no idea where to turn. Surely, surely, there must be a group out there that cares about accurate information and responsible research, to which I can subscribe? I am all for critical thinking, but having to become an exper…

You can turn to the Economist -- pretty much the only news organisation in the world that turns a profit with a major contribution coming from subscriptions and magazine sales.
Post reply on HN