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

Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 150 posts

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#121

Post by basurihn »

smacktoward wrote: post #71
harshreality wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda from deep-pocketed individuals and organizations is a problem, but the current cure is worse than the disease, particularly when the censorship itself is biased. It takes more to be labelled fringe and justify censorship for left-leaning speech, than it takes for right-leaning speech. The root problem with modern discourse and social media is subtle, unforced siloing of communication within subgroups, so t…

> the current cure is worse than the disease This comment is the text version of that cartoon where the dog sits in the room where everything is on fire thinking "this is fine."

Assuming that the "cure" refers to some form of blasphemy law, then it is actually apropos, although devoid of explanation, sure.

I'm assuming you are liberal. Go read Popehat's views on blasphemy laws. He's liberal.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#122

Post by TeMPOraL »

platz wrote: post #113
TeMPOraL wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody cares because they're more interested in their team winning, by whatever means necessary, than being charitable. I'd say that few people have a reason to care about the truth at all at this level. Take natural world: people will believe whatever bullshit someone sells to them, because unless you're a scientist or engineer in a field that requires you to be right, the lie has zero first-order impact on your l…

> has little first-order impact on their lives I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. But I wonder why/how the group feels so passionate about these first order impacts and coordinate acts and values, if the individuals see little first-order impacts on their lives (and are just acting socially as you describe) Somehow the group is perceiving effects differently than individuals then

> Somehow the group is perceiving effects differently than individuals then

But are they?

I believe they aren't experiencing them at all either. There may be some thought leaders (possibly leading more formal organizations) that benefit directly, e.g. through getting rules changed to what they like, or getting sales of their books up. But the larger group is created out of voluntary, ad-hoc associations, and has an associated group with opposite goals, with which it jockeys for position.

I increasingly think most of politics these days is ingroup/outgroup behaviour that's allowed to grow (Internet in particular is a very good growth medium), amplify, and is exploited by various individuals for fame/money (take a side, sell books) and power (take a side, get votes). Nowhere present is a factor pressuring groups or individuals to be correct.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#123

Post by basurihn »

pjc50 wrote: post #86
harshreality wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda from deep-pocketed individuals and organizations is a problem, but the current cure is worse than the disease, particularly when the censorship itself is biased. It takes more to be labelled fringe and justify censorship for left-leaning speech, than it takes for right-leaning speech. The root problem with modern discourse and social media is subtle, unforced siloing of communication within subgroups, so t…

> It takes more to be labelled fringe and justify censorship for left-leaning speech, than it takes for right-leaning speech. That's because there's more harm-promoting speech, and more incoherent lies, from the right? Saying there should be equal treatment of left and right speech regardless of the content is nonsense.

I come from a very right-leaning area. I was quite surprised to find that everyone I knew supported the daily killing and torture of Jews... because that is what Nazis do, right?

I was also quite surprised to hear that my community wants to take away rights from black people, which I heard in a radio ad not so long ago.

The left has its equal share of hobgoblins.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#124

Post by platz »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #122
platz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has little first-order impact on their lives I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. But I wonder why/how the group feels so passionate about these first order impacts and coordinate acts and values, if the individuals see little first-order impacts on their lives (and are just acting socially as you describe) Somehow the group is perceiving effects differently than individuals then

> Somehow the group is perceiving effects differently than individuals then But are they? I believe they aren't experiencing them at all either. There may be some thought leaders (possibly leading more formal organizations) that benefit directly, e.g. through getting rules changed to what they like, or getting sales of their books up. But the larger group is created out of voluntary, ad-hoc associations, and has an a…

I'm less sure of this, but although correctness may not be a goal but I think in jockeying for position they are expressing an understanding of what will hurt or help them. I'm not sure I'm ready to say it is for position alone they are fighting for in the truest postmodern sense (sorry for using that word). I would like to think values and cultures have actual meaning instead of being completely content-free; and even if it was so our actions in accordance with those beliefs pretend they are real even if we may doubt them.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#125

Post by someguydave »

0x445442 wrote: post #47
ThomPete wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being educated does not shield you from misinformation, unfortunately. I fact I wouldn't be surprised that the well educated is part of the problem when they get into politics because they abstract things and start to think too much in statistics and lose a feeling for what it means to be most people in this world. The end up creating their own misinformation filter. The current political climate has no shortage of w…

Yes this and Joeri’s post are on point. Unless you’re in the realm of mathematics or the physical sciences the more the education the stronger the disputes over “facts”. It’s hubris to think any group can be the objective gatekeeper of truth unless they’re just reporting demonstrable facts like ball scores or weather.

Not only is it hubris in the sense that nobody has all the answers, it is also hubris in the sense that it is a naked power grab. Whoever decides what is true also rules.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#126

Post by justapassenger »

Rjevski wrote: post #99
basurihn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly did connect less educated. This is a only part of the picture - the misinformation crisis also involves the miseducated. The quality of our collegiate has been much displaced by the rise of the true-believing college administrator with authority to suppress unorthodox curriculum and research. Facebook ALSO gives this cancer a platform.

Facebook does not give the cancer a platform. Facebook is the cancer.

So if Facebook is gone we’ll all reconnect in a kumbaya?

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#127

Post by chrisseaton »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #78
chrisseaton wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is ‘less educated’ code for people with views different to yours?

Does everything have to be a code for something else? Half of this problem comes from people seeing "dog whistles" everywhere. There should be a rule for discussion: take what people say at face value, or don't participate. Nothing good comes from "reading between the lines", it's just an exercise in projecting your own issues on other people.

> Does everything have to be a code for something else?

No I don’t think it does have to be - plain speaking is generally better.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#128

Post by TeMPOraL »

platz wrote: post #124
TeMPOraL wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somehow the group is perceiving effects differently than individuals then But are they? I believe they aren't experiencing them at all either. There may be some thought leaders (possibly leading more formal organizations) that benefit directly, e.g. through getting rules changed to what they like, or getting sales of their books up. But the larger group is created out of voluntary, ad-hoc associations, and has an a…

I'm less sure of this, but although correctness may not be a goal but I think in jockeying for position they are expressing an understanding of what will hurt or help them. I'm not sure I'm ready to say it is for position alone they are fighting for in the truest postmodern sense (sorry for using that word). I would like to think values and cultures have actual meaning instead of being completely content-free; and ev…

Maybe I'm a bit too cynical about this. I'm not ready to state that values in public discourse are always completely content-free. But they also aren't treated as content-full either. Some reasons I observed:

1) Some people have a very simplistic view of their values. "More of value $V good, less value $V bad. $controversial-option-X increases $V, therefore good." They do not think through it enough to realize when the option they're supporting is actually detrimental to $V long-term, or to other values they hold dear. Or the option may even be detrimental to value $V directly, but in an non-obvious way (e.g. via second-order effects).

2) Groups can and do behave in self-destructive ways. Scott Alexander discussed at length[0] the cases where groups have to choose between being either ineffective, or so annoying that they create their own opposition.

3) There are cases where group's thought leaders only ostensibly profess some honourable value, but in reality use it as a cover to pursue different goals, often causing damage to the value they hide behind.

(Yes, I have particular examples for all those points from recent controversies, but I won't name them here to avoid completely derailing this thread.)

--

[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#129

Post by ThomPete »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #103
ThomPete wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being educated does not shield you from misinformation, unfortunately. I fact I wouldn't be surprised that the well educated is part of the problem when they get into politics because they abstract things and start to think too much in statistics and lose a feeling for what it means to be most people in this world. The end up creating their own misinformation filter. The current political climate has no shortage of w…

There's a management anti-pattern called "management by aggregate statistic" It goes something like this: take a large human population doing something, like working at Division X. Take a multivariate problem. Abstract out an aggregate statistic along one variable. Report that one data point, generalize, then assume some correlation-causation magic. Manage to make that number better. This causes a lot of the pain and…

Yeah, it always reminds me of the observation that humans on average have one testicle :)

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#130

Post by oliwarner »

noetic_techy wrote: post #38

Oh please. The headline might as well have been: We need to protect people from information and ideas we don't agree with. Freedom of speech is not just about speech, its about ideas. Nobody should ever be deemed the arbiter of truth. Not Facebook, not the government, not anyone. Decentralize the social networks. Let everyone speak, even the bad people. Realize that you actually make the problem worse by suppressing…

Nah. This conflagratory term "fake news" deliberately muddles "things that aren't very important" with "lies told by officials".

I think the second needs to be a condition of public office. You deliberately lie, or show a pattern of not giving a shit about the truth, pack your bags and get a private sector job.

Conversely and perversely, the varied institutions of public office seem to protect politicians' speech. This seems deeply wrong.

And obviously this seems partisan at the moment because there's currrently a 200lb orangutan as POTUS who can't keep his story straight about anything... But this is a standard we should all want, for all out politicians, worldwide.

Just to be clear, I think you have to be allowed to say this stuff, I just think that ends at the point where you're a public official. You can still say it, but you'll lose your job.

Post reply on HN