Live data from Hacker News

The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

ft.com

201–210 of 323 posts

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#201
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gets to decide who is a neo-nazi though? I've heard Jordan Peterson and Steven Pinker called neo-nazis. Maybe you're a neo-nazi. Since neo-nazis always deny being neo-nazis, then your denials are further proof that you are a neo-nazi. B&

> Who gets to decide who is a neo-nazi though? > I’ve heard jordan peterson and steven pinker called neo-nazis. It still isn’t clear to me what this brings to a discussion. It seems like such a strange question. Are any of us under the impression that label misapplication somehow means a label is no longer used? Of course not. After 30 years in the same house, my partners mother still calls the tree in her front yard…

> After 30 years in the same house, my partners mother still calls the tree in her front yard an oak tree despite the fact it has always been and will remain a maple. Her misapplication of the label doesn’t mean oak trees no longer exist.

What if your partners mothers mom was put in charge of a maple tree conservation arboretum, and decided to cull all the oak trees, but she kept confusing maples for oak trees?

I'm not arguing that neo-nazis don't exist. I'm arguing that we shouldn't arbitrarily censor stuff just because some people call it nazi propaganda.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#202
post #187
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, we need a storage capacity breakthrough so that everyone can store everything so that we do not have to relay on what someone else say is acceptable.

What we need is good p2p tech that will enable distributed storage that is impossible to censor while also automatically providing gazillion terabytes of storage distributed over all peers. Problem solved.

I would like that too but the government will make laws and all the peers from the p2p network will get scared

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#203

> But Mr Graham argued that simply removing false information or offensive content isn’t necessarily the answer. Hateful material need not remain publicly available, he said, but certain researchers and politicians should be able to study it. They're planting the seed and seeing how the public reacts. This is ridiculous! Mark something "controversial", "possibly fake", but don't memory-hole us. An archive only archiv…

It reminds me of the famous photo that Stalin had altered to remove a person from, so as to erase them from history entirely. I don't think the practice magically becomes acceptable just because you promise to keep the original copy locked away in a vault somewhere for an elite class of special people to access (who both happen to be members of deep institutional structures with a long history of abusing their power). This idea shouldn't even be entertained. Everything about it is a deeply awful idea.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#204

> But Mr Graham argued that simply removing false information or offensive content isn’t necessarily the answer. Hateful material need not remain publicly available, he said, but certain researchers and politicians should be able to study it. They're planting the seed and seeing how the public reacts. This is ridiculous! Mark something "controversial", "possibly fake", but don't memory-hole us. An archive only archiv…

Now that I think about it, I lost faith in the Internet Archive some years ago. During the rise of ISIS (or whatever we're calling it now) I occasionally came across Internet Archive links for their English publications. But whenever I clicked, I found that stuff had been taken down. And I'm pretty sure that the publishers hadn't requested it.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no public-interest benefit in hate screeds. Those are memetic viruses with established body counts and should be studied, if at all, in the manner one studies smallpox.

You do realize you're describing quite a lot of popular books such as the Quran and the Communist Manifesto, right? You want to quarantine them to research labs only? How is the world now so filled with people who are afraid of ideas? Have you run out of real problems to worry about? Or are you just too young and naive to realize that ideas aren't simply good and evil and that, alone, they don't cause people to do th…

>How is the world now so filled with people who are afraid of ideas?

Catholics used to attack Evangelicals. You see the Evangelicals had dangerous ideas that had to be eliminate lest the common folk would be lead astray.

People have always been afraid of ideas. This nonreligious religiosity is novel but we've seen this play before.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#207
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning Nazi content is easily the most obvious way to create real Nazis amongst the youth, who being young are attracted to anything taboo, or who may believe that there's some big conspiracy to cover something up so "it must be true, they don't want us to know". This is a dark line of thinking.

Ahh yes, of course, the large monolithic monoculture called "the youth" is naturally stupid enough to be "attracted to anything taboo" without thinking or questioning it. That's why they sure are attracted to other taboo things like incest and necrophilia. No. Banning Nazi content won't suddenly make it appealing to young people. Things are a lot more nuanced than "banning bad, because kids dumb".

[deleted]

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#208

> But Mr Graham argued that simply removing false information or offensive content isn’t necessarily the answer. Hateful material need not remain publicly available, he said, but certain researchers and politicians should be able to study it. They're planting the seed and seeing how the public reacts. This is ridiculous! Mark something "controversial", "possibly fake", but don't memory-hole us. An archive only archiv…

Archives are reflections of the societies that build and curate them, and the Internet Archive is no exception. Over the curse of centuries, every society is undergoing cultural changes and archives do adapt to those. The Internet Archive's practice of immediately and almost indiscriminately publishing everything they just archived on the internet very much reflects the spirit of the early internet of making everything accessible to everyone everywhere but it has become too radical in an US that is increasingly pro-censorship. It's only a matter of time before they implement means to at least hide content that is offending select incredibly powerful groups. Had the archive existed 100 years ago, it would have had to bow before the National Legion of Decency. Now it has to bow to others. Bowing to different kings as their rules sprout, blossom and wither is just the business archives are in.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people completely forget history... there were several popular variants of totalitarian socialism in europe. Russia in particular had civil-war like conflicts between the main 3 factions (iirc, red, green, white) and facism was definitely in the mix, but after WWII fell out and for some weird reason no longer considered socialist. After WWII, there were definite anti-communist movements, though McCarthyism took t…

Fascism was pretty much never considered socialist by much of anyone outside of the Nazi flavor trying to coopt the label, and the American Right engaging in revisionism in the last couple decades.

Well, it's "socialist" in the sense that the society (OK, the state, but whatever) matters far more than the individual. But I do agree that they used the term to confuse people.

Amusing factoid: Hitler honed his public speaking skills while working as a government mole in the socialist party.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#210
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who gets to decide who is a neo-nazi though? > I’ve heard jordan peterson and steven pinker called neo-nazis. It still isn’t clear to me what this brings to a discussion. It seems like such a strange question. Are any of us under the impression that label misapplication somehow means a label is no longer used? Of course not. After 30 years in the same house, my partners mother still calls the tree in her front yard…

> After 30 years in the same house, my partners mother still calls the tree in her front yard an oak tree despite the fact it has always been and will remain a maple. Her misapplication of the label doesn’t mean oak trees no longer exist. What if your partners mothers mom was put in charge of a maple tree conservation arboretum, and decided to cull all the oak trees, but she kept confusing maples for oak trees? I'm n…

> What if your partners mothers mom was put in charge of a maple tree conservation arboretum, and decided to cull all the oak trees, but she kept confusing maples for oak trees?

> I'm not arguing that neo-nazis don't exist. I'm arguing that we shouldn't arbitrarily censor stuff just because some people call it nazi propaganda.

She’s not in charge of any arboretum, that’s the point I’m attempting to get across.

We have reached a point where the collective We are treating random people having random casual conversations as if these random casuals have the same weight as experts in their fields. We have collectively started to treat what used to be completely understood as casual forum discussions and casual opinion pieces as if these hold the same weight as an authority in their field publishing a well documented, far more rigorous, and well cited paper. We’ve allowed a fogging in the ability to distinguish between casual people and rigorous experts and this is the outcome. An intelligent collective should never hold these two opinions at the same weight.

My idiot cousin by marriage, who has a very real lack of critical thinking, who has a degree in “google research” from “the school of hard knocks” however, she does have a knack for writing in such a way which absolutely resonates with uneducated mothers. She writes as if she’s an authority in child vaccinations, she regularly goes into her closed facebook group and convinces other mothers why they should ignore their doctors and not vaccinate their children. Her words have more weight than medical research and medical professionals.

She seems to pull the card which almost always seems to work on a certain segment of the population – the “narrative” card. The target of this “narrative” charge is for some reason automatically assumed to be nefarious and the person who spotted this so-called “narrative”, their words now hold more weight than the actual expert in their field who had a “narrative.

We need to get back to a point where my words regarding the best methods to pick coffee beans mean little when compared to an actual coffee bean farmer, because my field of expertise lies elsewhere. I can read an article or three on coffee beans, but there is no rational universe where my words should hold the same weight as actual experts in coffee bean farming.

Until the collective We are able to say, “I don’t know.” or “I can give you my opinion, but you’d be far better off listening to Jill, she has far more knowledge on the subject.” until we get back to a rational discourse, we’re going to continue to find someone who is outraged because some idiot on a forum or some idiot made a video, used the wrong term and falsely labeled someone.

We need to get back to a point where the smartest people in the room are the people who say “I’m not sure. I’m not an expert. I don’t know. I don’t know the nuances of that vast field. I don’t know.”

Post reply on HN