Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation • Hacker News Board

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#61

Post by iguy » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

skh wrote: post #59

jamieson-becker wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > We is you, me, and society at large. But that is not who would be passing judgment in this brave new world of customer service reps and AI. Do we just ban everything mildly controversial? > Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion. Are you a qualified, cited exper…

Of course people are free to practice medicine on themselves. They are free to make up their own minds on what they think is right/wrong. They ought not be free, in my opinion, to unduly influence others. At least not necessarily free to spout off whatever ideas they think are correct. Of course this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. It’s OK for go…

> For instance we don’t allow peddlers of snake oil to make whatever claims they desire

The important word here is “peddlers”. We regulate the sale of medical products. (And advertising related to such a sale.)

But we do not regulate who may join in the argument about (say) whether stress causes ulcers, or low-fat diets prevent heart attacks. The self-proclaimed experts have at various points in time been quite sure about these things. But thankfully their self-confidence did not result in a ban on people questioning the data.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#62

Post by jdietrich » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #56

jdietrich wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>TERF is most definitely a slur Really? What else should we call self-professed radical feminists whose definition of a woman excludes trans women?

Radfem. You wouldn’t go around calling pro-choice and pro-life people “anti-life” and “anti-choice” would you?

Not all radical feminists are trans-exclusionary, hence the need for the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism#Views_on_tran...

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#63

Post by skh » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #61

skh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course people are free to practice medicine on themselves. They are free to make up their own minds on what they think is right/wrong. They ought not be free, in my opinion, to unduly influence others. At least not necessarily free to spout off whatever ideas they think are correct. Of course this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. It’s OK for go…

> For instance we don’t allow peddlers of snake oil to make whatever claims they desire The important word here is “peddlers”. We regulate the sale of medical products. (And advertising related to such a sale.) But we do not regulate who may join in the argument about (say) whether stress causes ulcers, or low-fat diets prevent heart attacks. The self-proclaimed experts have at various points in time been quite sure…

We don’t allow people selling certain homeopathic remedies to make certain medical claims while selling the product. So we do regulate speech.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#64

Post by skh » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

jamieson-becker wrote: post #60

skh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course people are free to practice medicine on themselves. They are free to make up their own minds on what they think is right/wrong. They ought not be free, in my opinion, to unduly influence others. At least not necessarily free to spout off whatever ideas they think are correct. Of course this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. It’s OK for go…

> .. this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. "Suppression of ideas" is a grey area ? I have no words.

I should have said speech instead of ideas. I think it’s clear from what I wrote what I was getting at. All societies regulate speech. I don’t know anyone who thinks speech should never be regulated.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#65

Post by lordCarbonFiber » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #56

jdietrich wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>TERF is most definitely a slur Really? What else should we call self-professed radical feminists whose definition of a woman excludes trans women?

Radfem. You wouldn’t go around calling pro-choice and pro-life people “anti-life” and “anti-choice” would you?

I think the need for distinction arises from the fact that nothing in the foundations of radfem that presupposes trans exclusionary ideology (especially considering the evolution of the science of gender).

Trans exclusionary groups are pretty proud of the exclusion in and how it differentiates them from other feminists (or radfeminists for that matter) grouts. So TERF seems pretty apt to me.

Granted Im pretty naturally biased given they'd say I don't exist but the point stands.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#66

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #33

pjc50 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to AI, it's possible to algorithmically generate almost unlimited amounts of false or meaningless speech to drown out accurate information.

Thanks to AI can't we also do the opposite? E.g. detect conspiracy theory speech and automatically provide relevant links/warnings to relevant curated sources?

"We" the public can't, but Google might. But that would require them acknowledging the problem. And once they've done that the easier solution seems to be to not recommend (which implies endorsement!) these things.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#67

Post by aeternus » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

skh wrote: post #48

jamieson-becker wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There will always be some probability of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong. But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. Is that really the best we can do? How many times in history has consensus expert opinion been found later to be dangerous and wrong ? Should we…

We is you, me, and society at large. Yes, it really is the best we can do. If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. Clearly if a large majority of the experts in an area of science agree on something then it suggests that if a person were to educate themself in that area t…

Society should be following reasoning from first principles rather than relying on opinions of anyone.

Experts should be better at explaining the reasoning behind their opinions from first principles, but we should not trust them until they do so. Experts can make mistakes and have biases, often to new ideas.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#68

Post by skh » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:00 PM UTC

aeternus wrote: post #67

skh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We is you, me, and society at large. Yes, it really is the best we can do. If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. Clearly if a large majority of the experts in an area of science agree on something then it suggests that if a person were to educate themself in that area t…

Society should be following reasoning from first principles rather than relying on opinions of anyone. Experts should be better at explaining the reasoning behind their opinions from first principles, but we should not trust them until they do so. Experts can make mistakes and have biases, often to new ideas.

My area of expertise is mathematics. A number of times I’ve explained to someone that the concept of infinite sets is a well defined one. There is a definition and it allows us to work with such sets. I provided the (from my perspective) simple definition and an explanation but to no avail. My point is that often times people outside of the area just don’t understand it. Personally I don’t care if someone doesn’t understand something but I do care if their misunderstanding becomes normative and endangers others.

Pre-internet nutjobs existed in all communities. Cranks and whatnot. This is nothing new. What is new is the scale at which such people can propagate their nonsense. The cost of convincing others your are right has drastically declined. The speed at which such stupidity can spread has greatly increased.

We have entered an era in which regulation of stupid, crackpot ideas may need to happen. If and when we do decide to crackdown on this it’s best to rely on expert opinion. This is of course just an opinion of mine.

I submit to you that the vast majority of what you believe is due to knowledge you gained form others and not from first principles as you put it.

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#69

Post by iguy » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:31 PM UTC

skh wrote: post #68

aeternus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society should be following reasoning from first principles rather than relying on opinions of anyone. Experts should be better at explaining the reasoning behind their opinions from first principles, but we should not trust them until they do so. Experts can make mistakes and have biases, often to new ideas.

My area of expertise is mathematics. A number of times I’ve explained to someone that the concept of infinite sets is a well defined one. There is a definition and it allows us to work with such sets. I provided the (from my perspective) simple definition and an explanation but to no avail. My point is that often times people outside of the area just don’t understand it. Personally I don’t care if someone doesn’t und…

But in mathematics the experts really do know what they are talking about, for the most part. Many things aren't like this.

Just today there was a thread on mental illness, and the crazy grab-bag of ideas which passes for expert consensus:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19198396

And if that's not crazy enough, look up what they believed 60 years ago. Should those have been locked in, by government force? Or should we be free to mock the shrinks for their delusions of understanding, if we wish?

Re: Pinterest Blocks Vaccination Searches in Move to Control the Conversation

#70

Post by skh » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #69

skh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My area of expertise is mathematics. A number of times I’ve explained to someone that the concept of infinite sets is a well defined one. There is a definition and it allows us to work with such sets. I provided the (from my perspective) simple definition and an explanation but to no avail. My point is that often times people outside of the area just don’t understand it. Personally I don’t care if someone doesn’t und…

But in mathematics the experts really do know what they are talking about, for the most part. Many things aren't like this. Just today there was a thread on mental illness, and the crazy grab-bag of ideas which passes for expert consensus: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19198396 And if that's not crazy enough, look up what they believed 60 years ago. Should those have been locked in, by government force? Or sho…

In an area as concrete and black/white as mathematics it’s still hard to convince some non experts that we really do know what we are talking about. Imagine how much harder it is in trying to convince anti vaxers to vaccinate. When society makes policy it’s best not to treat everyone’s opinion as equal. We are not able to always correctly deduce what is the best course of action on our own when it’s an area we have no expertise in.

I used be a fundamentalist, right wing Christian. Absolutely convinced that evolution was wrong. Eventually I was able to take the blinders off and ask myself, “Why is it that the overwhelming majority of people who study biology at the advanced level agree with evolution?”. It takes a great deal of arrogance to dismiss a conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the experts in a given area agree upon. Of course people get it wrong sometimes but we have to navigate life with imperfect information/knowledge. Who else do we rely upon? Keep in mind I’m not saying believe whatever an expert says. I’m saying that if the overwhelming majority of experts in a given area agree on something then that carries a tremendous amount of weight.

My wife is a psychiatrist. betulaq’s comment in the link you provided is one worth looking at.