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

Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 119 posts

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#11

Post by ramblerman »

ForHackernews wrote: post #10
cm2187 wrote: post #2

Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire and take things at the first degree, particularly if it reinforces their convictions. If it is true, and I think he may have a point, there would be some value in labelling humour or satire as such. It sounds ridiculous, but like it is ridiculous to have a label “not suitable for your pets” on a microwave!

Scott Adams also claimed that women are treated with deference for the same reason children and mentally handicapped people are[0], so you'll have to forgive me for not giving too much credence to his unsourced statistics about the incompetence of a large fraction of humanity. [0] https://jezebel.com/dilbert-creator-deletes-misogynist-rant-...

Go after the argument please. This attempted character assassination is petty and weak.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#12

Post by pfisch »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #7
paxys wrote: post #3

Most of the misinformation and propaganda out there is presented as "opinion" on all networks. The very little actual news on Fox, for example, is always accurate (and actually pretty good), so not being able to call them out on that takes away from the entire effort.

Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do th…

There is a pretty big difference between a lie by omission and just spreading false information.

By your definition any news would always be false because they didn't include the entire history of the world in their story.

You aren't being realistic. There are people and organizations that are just spreading completely false information with the intent of deceiving people.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#13

Post by pjc50 »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #7
paxys wrote: post #3

Most of the misinformation and propaganda out there is presented as "opinion" on all networks. The very little actual news on Fox, for example, is always accurate (and actually pretty good), so not being able to call them out on that takes away from the entire effort.

Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do th…

> The only person who can discern the truth is the individual

We're all postmodernists now.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#14

Post by ForHackernews »

ramblerman wrote: post #11
ForHackernews wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams also claimed that women are treated with deference for the same reason children and mentally handicapped people are[0], so you'll have to forgive me for not giving too much credence to his unsourced statistics about the incompetence of a large fraction of humanity. [0] https://jezebel.com/dilbert-creator-deletes-misogynist-rant-...

Go after the argument please. This attempted character assassination is petty and weak.

An argument only holds if its premises are true. "Scott Adams claims X" is very weak evidence for X. He's a cartoonist with a history of making flimsy, self-flattering pronouncements.

Let's see some actual research supporting the notion that a third of the population reads and interprets satirical content as straight fact.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#15

Post by probably_wrong »

cm2187 wrote: post #2

Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire and take things at the first degree, particularly if it reinforces their convictions. If it is true, and I think he may have a point, there would be some value in labelling humour or satire as such. It sounds ridiculous, but like it is ridiculous to have a label “not suitable for your pets” on a microwave!

I'm glad you brought this specific quote from this specific author, because to me it presents some very interesting questions.

On one hand, I used to follow Scott Adams' blog when he made that assertion and a couple other ones. His point, if I remember correctly, boiled down to "I'm going to present an obviously wrong idea, argue in favor of it, and see where it takes us". In this context, his assertion about people not "getting" humor referred to people taking his hypotheticals for a fact even though he clearly labeled them as "but what if...?". The example that comes to mind is when he argued "What if we assumed that men are rapists by nature, and modeled society around this fact?" and people attacked him for "affirming" that all men are rapists.

On the other hand, he has become one of the stronger Trump supporters I've ever seen (which is not necessarily bad), pointing out how everything he does is a great calculated move to what I consider a delusional extent (which is kind of bad - his POV currently seems to be "by asking Ukraine to investigate his opponent, Trump was doing the country a service"). By reading his blog, I got more and more the feeling that his "what if" questions were not an academic thought exercise, but rather a way to push some toxic beliefs he holds while having the plausible deniability of "it's just a hypotetical".

So my point being: this quote by Scott Adams can go both ways. Maybe he's right and humans are very bad at understanding humor and/or satire, and my two points are in no way related. But I wouldn't rule out the other possibility: that humans are actually very good at spotting what's behind the mask, and that those 30% of people are those who didn't fall for his trick and rightfully called him out for it.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#17

Post by richardwhiuk »

probably_wrong wrote: post #15
cm2187 wrote: post #2

Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire and take things at the first degree, particularly if it reinforces their convictions. If it is true, and I think he may have a point, there would be some value in labelling humour or satire as such. It sounds ridiculous, but like it is ridiculous to have a label “not suitable for your pets” on a microwave!

I'm glad you brought this specific quote from this specific author, because to me it presents some very interesting questions. On one hand, I used to follow Scott Adams' blog when he made that assertion and a couple other ones. His point, if I remember correctly, boiled down to "I'm going to present an obviously wrong idea, argue in favor of it, and see where it takes us". In this context, his assertion about people…

If you want to hold an opinion which is viewed by society as dangerous, presenting as just a hypothetical, might allow you to reduce your criticism, while still openly stating it.

Given all opinions are based around what you would do in a hypothetical circumstance, the limits should be pretty low.

Also, there's a strong difference between satire and hypothetically asserting that rape is innate.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#18

Post by andybak »

chrisseaton wrote: post #9
cm2187 wrote: post #2

Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire and take things at the first degree, particularly if it reinforces their convictions. If it is true, and I think he may have a point, there would be some value in labelling humour or satire as such. It sounds ridiculous, but like it is ridiculous to have a label “not suitable for your pets” on a microwave!

> Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire Satire, snark, and sarcasm have to be least effective way you could possibly choose to communicate. You are absolutely begging to be misunderstood and misquoted, either genuinely or maliciously, and then it's nigh on impossible to explain yourself as all your excuses just sound like like it-was-a-prank-bro . Another huge proble…

Aren't all the reasons you state, reasons why satire, snark, and sarcasm are actually incredibly effective ways to communicate?

Not many people have the fortitude to resist their charms or the self-awareness to police themselves indefinitely. I know I don't.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#19

Post by AmericanChopper »

pfisch wrote: post #12
AmericanChopper wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do th…

There is a pretty big difference between a lie by omission and just spreading false information. By your definition any news would always be false because they didn't include the entire history of the world in their story. You aren't being realistic. There are people and organizations that are just spreading completely false information with the intent of deceiving people.

By my definition it is generally not possible for an entity to be an effective authority on what is or is not false or misleading. You could think of contrived examples which you could get nearly everybody to agree to as false, like claiming the sun revolved around the earth. But that’s not what’s being discussed. What’s being discussed is establishing Facebook (or other entities) as the ministry of truth.

> There is a pretty big difference between a lie by omission and just spreading false information.

I don’t see how there is, and I don’t see how you’d be able to prove one over the other in many cases. Pick any mainstream media outlet, and you’ll find a significant group of people who claim they’re “just spreading false information”. Pick any truth that you personally hold to be unassailable, and chances are you’ll find a significant group of people who will describe it as “just false information”.

Trying to regulate the truth is an incredibly dangerous rabbit hole, which if done effectively, can only possibly end up with a central authority (or group of authorities) imposing their own views on others.

The only reason anybody could think this was a good idea, is if you think that people should not have the right to think for themselves, form their own views, and come to their own conclusions about the truth.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#20

Post by INGELRII »

chrisseaton wrote: post #9
cm2187 wrote: post #2

Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire and take things at the first degree, particularly if it reinforces their convictions. If it is true, and I think he may have a point, there would be some value in labelling humour or satire as such. It sounds ridiculous, but like it is ridiculous to have a label “not suitable for your pets” on a microwave!

> Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire Satire, snark, and sarcasm have to be least effective way you could possibly choose to communicate. You are absolutely begging to be misunderstood and misquoted, either genuinely or maliciously, and then it's nigh on impossible to explain yourself as all your excuses just sound like like it-was-a-prank-bro . Another huge proble…

Satire is effective influencing method. The additional benefit is avoiding the requirement for reliability and responsibility because it's not real journalism.

In the US The Daily Show established satirical ha-ha as effective method to deliver news and discuss politics for younger generations.

It started as pure satire but turned into real institution people used to learn about the world. The spinoffs like The Colbert Report and related shows from people who worked in the show is impressive: The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn , Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, The Break with Michelle Wolf and Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj all continue using similar framework.

In the right the effective satire seems to come mainly in the form of internet trolls. It's more hostile, less intellectual. It's for people who see hostility as funny. Despite being very crude, this kind of satire can have huge influence.

Post reply on HN