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

Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 495 posts

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#171

Post by Orou »

reillyse wrote: post #150
Orou wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think given the amount of time he's spent working on Coronavirus that he might see the distinction between treating the symptoms and treating the cause, so to speak. I've yet to see anyone provide any kind of evidence that suggests censorship changes people's minds about conspiracies - if anything it seems to be doing exactly the opposite.

I'm not sure there is evidence for or against. The argument I would make is not about censorship but preventing people from spreading lies. Even in the US where people hold free speech as some amazingly virtuous thing there are still curbs on speech, and what I'm saying is these limitations can be enforced in WhatsApp. Maybe you think that is censorship maybe you don't. Also on that point, the freedom of speech in th…

> The argument I would make is not about censorship but preventing people from spreading lies.

Limiting speech is by definition censorship. There's no value judgement required as to the quality or veracity of that speech to determine whether or not restricting it counts as censorship.

> the freedom of speech in the US is strongly correlated with conspiracy theories

...and water is highly correlated with drowning. We don't say 'water bad, less water'. Just because one thing is a prerequisite for something else doesn't mean it is responsible for that other thing. We have to look to, like you point out, the political climate, as well as the lack of trust in institutions, the education system, and many other factors. Taking a complex issue around how information is shared at an unprecedented speed and scale and saying "just ban it" is, I think, a shallow assessment.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#172

Post by throwaway373438 »

brandontreb wrote: post #87
gandutraveler wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microchips have existed for a while now. Even dogs are microchipped for tracking owners.

That's a 'dumb` RFID chip. I don't think folks are too concerned with offline chips that require close proximity scanning (for power). RFID also doesn't 'track' dogs. They contain information about the dog to get them back to their owner. The info is static and contains NO location data.

You may want to re-evaluate your opinion. The "tracking microchip" conspiracies mostly stem from tracking chips (dumb RFID) used to tag wildlife.

These people don't know how the technology works, but they do know that we tag and track animals. They're not wrong that we use microchips in this fashion.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#173

Post by joe_the_user »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #115
mdoms wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates is a public health expert. He has been working on these problems with some of the smartest minds in the field for decades now. How long does someone need to be working on a problem before they're worthy of being a "go to source", in your opinion?

Bill Gates certainly doesn’t have the credentials of a public health expert. His work with health experts has extended to funding and choosing what problems to solve. You’d presume he’s learned a fair amount about it over the years. But I’ve learned a fair amount about accountancy through my years of working with corporate accountants. I’m definitely not an accountancy expert though. What qualifications do you imagin…

There are credentials and there are credentials, right?

The difference between a trained lawyer or accountant and someone with a lot of exposure to such knowledge is very specific skills and procedures. The difference between someone who is a trained manager with a degree and someone who's managed a medium sized organization is more or less nothing just an ability to use jargon.

I've actually looked online courses and documentation on epidemiology and public health. Unlike medicine (which I know nothing of) or advance mathematics (which I know and I know it take specialized skills), epidemiology seems to be a "smattering" sort of fields. A mix of public policy, simple medicine, biology and experimental methods and statistics. I could be wrong but it seems a field that's wide, not deep.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#174

Post by _prototype_ »

popnroll wrote: post #139

I think Gates is right. What is the problem with the government controlling communication? There are clear advantages, like handling illegal things. What are the disadvantages, the nude photo of your ex-girlfriend being analyzed by a machine?

This is one of the most ridiculous statements/questions I've ever read. Just read history. There are ample examples of why we should not give the government control of communication channels. Wow, just wow.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#175

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

reillyse wrote: post #150
Orou wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think given the amount of time he's spent working on Coronavirus that he might see the distinction between treating the symptoms and treating the cause, so to speak. I've yet to see anyone provide any kind of evidence that suggests censorship changes people's minds about conspiracies - if anything it seems to be doing exactly the opposite.

I'm not sure there is evidence for or against. The argument I would make is not about censorship but preventing people from spreading lies. Even in the US where people hold free speech as some amazingly virtuous thing there are still curbs on speech, and what I'm saying is these limitations can be enforced in WhatsApp. Maybe you think that is censorship maybe you don't. Also on that point, the freedom of speech in th…

>censorship but preventing people from spreading lies. Even in the US where people hold free speech as some amazingly virtuous thing there are still curbs on speech

There are relatively few constitutional curbs on speech. For example, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is legal by default but there are a few exceptions. ref: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

>I'm saying is these limitations can be enforced in WhatsApp.

1) Are you speaking of constitutional curbs on speech (because there aren't many)? Or are you talking about curbing speech that is believed to yield negative outcomes?

2) How, precisely, could these be enforced? I ask because automated moderation at scale is impossible to do responsibly and consistently. This will not change anytime soon.

3) Gates seems to be demonizing encryption. Few options can logically follow that position. Either Gates advocates replacing beneficial (to everyone) encryption with vulnerable (to everyone) encryption or he advocates banning encryption outright. It's difficult to see how either of these outcomes would benefit anyone (other than authoritarian governments and similarly repressive interests).

Even if Gates got his way on #3 (make everyone more vulnerable), #2 remains technically impossible.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#176

Post by breck »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #128
lordofgibbons wrote: post #95

>And when you have [posts] encrypted, there is no way to know what it is. I personally believe government should not allow those types of lies or fraud or child pornography [to be hidden with encryption like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger]. WOW. Why would someone in the tech industry like Gates be anti-encryption for the public? The only argument I can think of against it is "You have nothing to worry about if you ha…

Considering encrypted messages have to both be encrypted and decrypted, I don't think his statement is necessarily against encrypted. I assumed he meant preventing the sending of known materials like that and / or the opening of it (which wouldn't interfere with end-to-end encryption at all).

How would such a thing work though?

Would it be a map of unacceptable things, or an on device model like GPT3? Would you allow someone to type the offending thing and just disable the send button, or would you block it at the keyup event?

I don't see any way this could be implemented without kissing freedom goodbye.

I like the other commenter's take that this idea was just a bit out of exasperation.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#177

Post by partyboat1586 »

devcpp wrote: post #113
partyboat1586 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's thinking from a pragmatic, utilitarian mindset. He has no principles surrounding privacy. If it has to be sacrificed to get the job done that's fine in his mind as long as it's a net positive.

You can be pragmatic and utilitarian and support privacy and free use of encryption. I would instead qualify his mindset of shortsighted.

His view is both utilitarian and short sighted. They don't always go together but they often do since there isn't time enough to work everything out from first principles.

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#178

Post by popnroll »

_prototype_ wrote: post #174
popnroll wrote: post #139

I think Gates is right. What is the problem with the government controlling communication? There are clear advantages, like handling illegal things. What are the disadvantages, the nude photo of your ex-girlfriend being analyzed by a machine?

This is one of the most ridiculous statements/questions I've ever read. Just read history. There are ample examples of why we should not give the government control of communication channels. Wow, just wow.

Wow, just wow, I have a different opinion and you call it stupid. That's news!, wow

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#179

Post by EarthIsHome »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #67
ralph84 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The charitable take is he's still a socially awkward nerd. The uncharitable take is he's still as ruthless as he was during the embrace, extend, extinguish days and since the pandemic has been great business for him why shouldn't he be happy.

What are you taking about? The man devotes his time and considerable resources to public health and solving the tough to solve issues instead of spending his time owning sports teams and racing yachts. Yet...you still look for the negatives in his motives? “Great Business?” The man is literally giving away his money, all this pandemic is doing is taking more of his precious time up than normal.

I would not call it "giving away money."

This is what giving away money is and what really makes a difference in people's lives: John Oliver buys and forgives $15m worth of medical debt [0].

Now, just imagine what a billionaire like Bill Gates could do. Actual material change in people's lives.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/john-oliver-...

Re: Interview with Bill Gates on Covid, social media

#180

Post by breck »

djsumdog wrote: post #138

Why the hell does everyone now see Gates as some kind of superhero?! He was, and still is, a notorious, power hungry, anti-competitive slime ball. He has all the money in the world, so the only thing left is power. His foundation seeks to create "viable markets" for vaccines and the original name for his foundation was "The Bill and Melinda Gates Institute for Population Control." I don't trust anything that piece of…

Very interesting to see the subtle spread of misinformation here. You actually got me to look it up. So kudos to you.

For everyone else, it is not and never was called "The Bill and Melinda Gates Institute for Population Control."

There does exist the "Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health", which has a fantastic mission.

Sources: - https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=%22The%20Bill%20and... - https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=%22The%20Bill%20and...

Post reply on HN