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

Twitter to ban political advertising

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#961

Post by dotancohen »

SkyBelow wrote: post #952
TeMPOraL wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we need to start teaching people to habitually attach provenance and confidence information to every fact (really: belief) they report, at least as much as practically possible? "Iraq had WMDs in 2000s" != "I strongly believe Iraq had WMDs in 2000s" != "I find it plausible that Iraq might have had WMDs in 2000s" != "According to that UN report, Iraq had WMDs in 2000s" != "According to NYT, which quotes that UN…

I generally speak like this and find it causes problems with others because they view this as a weak form of speech. It makes you appear uncertain, which should be a good thing, but our society seems to value undeserved confidence far above cautious uncertainty.

This is my experience 100%. Blatant lies, told confidently, are far more convincing than the truth with a source.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#962

Post by Nasrudith »

tripzilch wrote: post #877
TeMPOraL wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so a centralized system is as smart as the people working in the Ministry of Truth, but also creates a highly contested point of control. It's not guaranteed that it'll be smart, but ideally it can get as smart as possible for human beings. A decentralized system is not controllable directly, but can only be as smart as the mean of the population[0]. Also, it also has a mechanism of control - propaganda. It's not…

Regarding your [0], in my experience larger groups of people tend to behave somewhat less smart than their mean intelligence ...

The issue is that influence matters more than the average or median in themselves - although oversimplified and "catchy" ideas tend to be favored more. This doesn't neccessarily mean dumb is favored per se - promoting say eating criminals would be an overwhelmingly unpopular idea even without constitutional limits.

They aren't guaranteed to be smart or just (sadly there probably isn't anything which qualifies) but they are are stable in a "not likely to piss off everyone into an insurrection" way.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#963

Post by nidificate »

akie wrote: post #739
ralusek wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lowest level of truth telling is stating facts, but even stating facts can be extremely manipulative. If I were to say: "2x as many white Americans were killed by police as black Americans in 2018." This a true fact. If I take note of the fact that black Americans only constitute 13% of the population, then I can say "A black American is 2.3x as likely as a white American to be killed by police." This is also a t…

> In America, we understand that there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than an entity that feels entitled to control what is true. It might make things easier, and it might actually produce better results so long as the entity doing so is competent and benevolent, but nearly every structure in America is meant to serve as a bulwark for the cases in which the entity in power is precisely the sort that you do not…

Is it easier to corrupt one institution or five?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#964

Post by buboard »

YarickR2 wrote: post #960
buboard wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world s autocratic countries (russia china turkey etc) don’t rely on fabricated news, they rely on hiding the truth and placing a biased spin on it. They know that outright lies will actually harm their image.

Any evidence to your words ? Or this is just a lie you made up to spread your FUD ?

What FUD?

Here s an article about typical media strategies https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-need-to-know-abo...

Such countries will usually fabricate stories by implanting evidence or killing witnesses, not just by repeating them

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#965

Post by golemotron »

jaimeyap wrote: post #827
yoavm wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But these really aren't the type of lies that people consider fake news. Yeah, all the things you've written are facts, and their interpretations are what we call opinions. I agree with you that all of these statements, since they're true, should be allowed without a question. People still need to think and be critical. I just took a look at a long list of lies by your current President. It has nothing to do with fac…

This. The march to authoritarianism accelerates when people accept the meme that the truth is unknowable. So they simply accept the reality put forth by the autocrat. The most basic kind of truths are facts. We at least need to agree on those as best we can first. And then apply critical thinking on the the squishier stuff on top.

> This. The march to authoritarianism accelerates when people accept the meme that the truth is unknowable.

How do you know?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#966

Post by siruncledrew »

yoavm wrote: post #784
ralusek wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lowest level of truth telling is stating facts, but even stating facts can be extremely manipulative. If I were to say: "2x as many white Americans were killed by police as black Americans in 2018." This a true fact. If I take note of the fact that black Americans only constitute 13% of the population, then I can say "A black American is 2.3x as likely as a white American to be killed by police." This is also a t…

But these really aren't the type of lies that people consider fake news. Yeah, all the things you've written are facts, and their interpretations are what we call opinions. I agree with you that all of these statements, since they're true, should be allowed without a question. People still need to think and be critical. I just took a look at a long list of lies by your current President. It has nothing to do with fac…

> People still need to think and be critical.

My theory is this is exactly the value proposition various news companies provide - they do it for you. "We give you the Abstract and the Conclusion".

If anything, that -hampers- critical thinking. It removes the need to apply logic and deduction to stuff that happens and just accept provided explanations of outcomes.

Would we trust a Scientist if they only explained background and results of their experiment, and didn't discuss the actual methodology and analysis of what they did and how they did it? How is that much different from being a Magician? Or saying, "Trust me, I know I'm right"?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#967

Post by laughinghan »

toxik wrote: post #792
brigandish wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a supremely American way of looking at the world. It's based in European, and more specifically, British Enlightenment thinking, the apotheosis of which (with regard to freedom of speech) is On Liberty[0] by John Stuart Mill, an Englishman. To quote: > THE TIME, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrann…

This to me seems not far from ayatollahs quoting scripture to justify their positions and policies. Surely thought has progressed in the last two hundred years?

Unlike ayatollahs, not only did your parent not suggest the person they were quoting was right, they actually suggested the person they were quoting was wrong: "It appears his hopes would bring disappointment were he still around."

You're confused about the point your parent was making. Let me try to explain the context to you:

Top of thread: we think this way in Denmark (a country in Europe)

Reply: we think this way in America

Reply: "This is such blatant and obvious nonsense. ... That is a supremely American way of looking at the world."

Your parent: actually this way of thinking comes from Europe

Your parent is not saying this way of thinking is correct, only that your grandparent is silly to call this way of thinking "supremely American" and imply that it's inferior to European thinking.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#968

Post by catalogia »

cloverich wrote: post #949
spunker540 wrote: post #916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know Trump is in a world of his own, but most often the “lies” are not lies to the speaker or the speaker’s fans. For example Obama’s “if you like your plan you can keep it” regarding Obamacare. It turned out not to be 100% true. To Democrats he was well-intentioned and over-optimistic and couldn’t deliver his promise (probably due to Republican obstructionism) while Republicans had always considered that a lie. If…

I have a hard time believing Obama truly believed a plan could be kept. Given how it works, I just can't imagine how you could reform healthcare in any meaningful way without outright terminating some of the plans as they existed. I don't have a particular problem with it. Which is probably true for most -- they care more if their leader is acting ethically and trying to do the right thing, than how (pedantically) ho…

> "Given how it works, I just can't imagine how you could reform healthcare in any meaningful way without outright terminating some of the plans as they existed."

I'm just spitballing here but... grandfather in all existing medical insurance contracts unless the individual chooses to terminate the contract. Let the insurance industry bank on the fact that the number of grandfathered contracts will only trend down over time.

Maybe it would hurt their profit margins, but how much hurt? Probably not enough hurt to knock down the industry is my guess.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#969

Post by [deleted] »

erichocean wrote: post #469
zanny wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to make a slippery slope argument about a private corporations private, for-profit website is hilarious. Twitter will do whatever the hell it wants on its own property and has no obligation to listen to anyone except the voice of 51% of its shareholders. If you don't want your communications to be under the total absolute control of a corporate entity you have no influence over, you might want to pack your bag…

Evergreen: Twitter is a public company. And the grandparent just argued that we should easily be able to regulate companies. You're saying the opposite, now we can't regulate because they're quote-unquote "private"? Well, which is it? Can we regulate for-profit companies for the good of the nation or not? If not, why not?

[deleted]

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#970

Post by airstrike »

erichocean wrote: post #647
airstrike wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter is a public company. Correction: Twitter is a corporation with publicly-traded equity. A "public company" isn't the same as a "public good" or controlled by government and regulated as if it were owned by the entire republic

> Correction: Twitter is a corporation with publicly-traded equity. Is this a joke? Literally The New York Times refers to Twitter as a "public company"[0], as does the rest of the known universe. Educate yourself. [0] https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/live-blog-tracking-t... "Twitter began life as a public company on Thursday..."

No, it's not a joke.

Yes, the term "public company" is used widely, but it doesn't mean what you think it means given the rest of your comment.

Whether a company is publicly traded or not makes no difference on how much the government can regulate it. Educate yourself.

Post reply on HN