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

Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 282 posts

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#81

Post by softsound »

eloff wrote: post #64
edent wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I wanted people to clean up misinformation from the web. That certainly wasn't my intent. Perhaps you and I move in different social circles - but I get a lot of forwarded "claims" on WhatsApp and Twitter. Well-meaning people who see an image with some text on it and send it to their friends & family. My blog post is mostly aimed at them - showing how easy it can be to c…

Searching and (mostly) debunking the things my mom forwards me has been a long time hobby of mine. Snopes has made my job so much easier, now I can just hit reply and paste the Snopes link back to her. The internet is filled with so much easily accessible information, it's incredible, but you need the basic skills to determine what claims to believe in order to make any sense of it.

Now if only my family could believe Snopes. They are too set in their thoughts to believe not everything is some conspiracy theory.

Now when I debunk stuff off Facebook they continue to disagree with me because I don't have "all the facts", not like they do either.

Sometimes a simple thing is just too simple for them, those coin shortages really are some sort of mass government takeover and not just caused by people not paying with coins as much & places being shutdown and less likely to redistribute coins back into the economy. sigh

... Now for my actual rant.. While I feel pointless I like to show for contrast.

Now if I actually bring up the attorney general for the US state of Oregon suing the Feds for actually kidnapping people eh... That's apparently not an interesting story and protesters or rioters in their eyes deserve it. I understand I don't know the whole story, but I think there is something there to follow.

As someone said to me recently, this is basically Vietnam story wise. Extremes on both sides.

Lol, my URL links, despite not thinking it helps much because I start off with the bias thinking this is wrong, because of the many different videos across the country showing protesters are not all rioters. And the freedom to protest is a right in my eyes. Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence.

And yes, I know Obama signed this into law so legally the Feds have the right to randomly nap you but I still think it's a very questionable law.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-in...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6997452-Markpettibon...

https://twitter.com/stoggrd/status/1282432033533210625?s=20

https://twitter.com/TrumpIsApandemc/status/12847377794239037...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53460495

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#82

Post by im3w1l »

Legogris wrote: post #68
duxup wrote: post #59

I hate URL fights. I give little extra value to people providing links with their clams. I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Discussion on the internet is broken in most places (HN is less broken than most). I find little value providing URLs. Much of the time I provide them, few folks seem to read it, fewer actually want to read it in an intellectually…

I think it’s very worthwhile; it allows readers to judge the legitimacy and relevance of sources for claims made.

A big gripe I have about youtube links: I can't learn anything about the video from the link. Once in a blue moon a youtube source is actually good. But the odds are so low that I often wont even bother clicking.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#83

Post by adsjhdashkj »

Legogris wrote: post #68
duxup wrote: post #59

I hate URL fights. I give little extra value to people providing links with their clams. I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Discussion on the internet is broken in most places (HN is less broken than most). I find little value providing URLs. Much of the time I provide them, few folks seem to read it, fewer actually want to read it in an intellectually…

I think it’s very worthwhile; it allows readers to judge the legitimacy and relevance of sources for claims made.

Good point. I derive a lot of value as a reader from the ability to verify someones claims.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#84

Post by SkyBelow »

jermier wrote: post #11

Very soon everything will exist cryptographically on some uncensorable blockchain, and websites & files will exist on the Interplanetary Filesystem[0] and will be impossible to take down. And 'things' will all be categorized and have their own QR code which when scanned, will reveal the context (or even price!) of the item. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System

Any system that is that resistant to censorship will have to deal with it being used for files that the government most works to censor. That sort of relation will drive other people away and you'll find government increasing their power to be able to take it down (or at least identifying those who access it and take them down). Until society is willing to tolerate such material as the cost of a system that cannot be censored, the majority will continue to go for systems that give government the ability to censor what the people cannot tolerate, under the pinky promise that government won't use their powers for evil.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#85

Post by crazygringo »

Not a URI -- a citation, which may or may not include a URI.

Not all academic literature has been digitized, you know. (As someone who hunts down a lot of citations, you can trust me on that.)

Also URI's break, while citations include enough information (publisher, title, author, etc.) that the source can be found regardless.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#86

Post by scoutt »

duxup wrote: post #59

I hate URL fights. I give little extra value to people providing links with their clams. I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Discussion on the internet is broken in most places (HN is less broken than most). I find little value providing URLs. Much of the time I provide them, few folks seem to read it, fewer actually want to read it in an intellectually…

> providing links ... when called out

People got so used to seeing links up to the point a fight might end in a "URL request": you have to sustain your claims by bringing a link to the discussion, and if you fail to do so, you are wrong. Like if every research and every paper, study or whatever is publicly accessible and indexed.

If am I wrong, please provide a link to a study which demonstrates it.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#87

Post by AnHonestComment »

SkyBelow wrote: post #78
duxup wrote: post #59

I hate URL fights. I give little extra value to people providing links with their clams. I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Discussion on the internet is broken in most places (HN is less broken than most). I find little value providing URLs. Much of the time I provide them, few folks seem to read it, fewer actually want to read it in an intellectually…

>I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Demanding citations you don't plan to read, to either waste a person's time or to make them look unreliable, is a tactic I've seen used so often I normally don't care to provide links. Instead, I'll just point out some 'so you agree with my argument but doubt data backs it up?' at which point, if they respond, it'll b…

As someone who gets censored for wrongthink routinely, I’ve taken up having GitHub repos of links so it’s easy to support my point.

Case in point: I’m “banned” on HN because @dang thinks my genuine view, calmly stated is inherently a flame war and I shouldn’t be allowed to join the conversation.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#88

Post by carapace »

Can we "pin" this to HN front page in perpetuity?

I'm joking but I'm also serious. It's (IMO) basic hygiene at this point.

The Internet used to be like Burning Man, today it's more like Bangkok.

Flipping it around what this really means is that taking any particular assertion made online seriously without some "certificate" (same root as "certain") as to who stands by it, is wildly, childishly, naive. (Including that one, and this one.)

The real question (as alluded to in TFA) is, "Whom do you trust?"

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#89

Post by awinter-py »

moultano wrote: post #76
duxup wrote: post #59

I hate URL fights. I give little extra value to people providing links with their clams. I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Discussion on the internet is broken in most places (HN is less broken than most). I find little value providing URLs. Much of the time I provide them, few folks seem to read it, fewer actually want to read it in an intellectually…

Arguments are for the spectators.

online arguments are for spectators now because we don't have effective moderation and because our formats don't promote this kind of exchange

philip tetlock claims that constructive arguments happen in relatively small high-trust communities where people are incentivized to get the truth, accountable for being wrong, and don't know the alignment of their audience.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#90

Post by donarb »

softsound wrote: post #81
eloff wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Searching and (mostly) debunking the things my mom forwards me has been a long time hobby of mine. Snopes has made my job so much easier, now I can just hit reply and paste the Snopes link back to her. The internet is filled with so much easily accessible information, it's incredible, but you need the basic skills to determine what claims to believe in order to make any sense of it.

Now if only my family could believe Snopes. They are too set in their thoughts to believe not everything is some conspiracy theory. Now when I debunk stuff off Facebook they continue to disagree with me because I don't have "all the facts", not like they do either. Sometimes a simple thing is just too simple for them, those coin shortages really are some sort of mass government takeover and not just caused by people…

They need to understand that Snopes is not an authoritative source on its own. It provides links to other sources that provide information about the claim.
Post reply on HN