541–550 of 645 posts
Of my past 10 posts on HN 6 have been flagged and removed by users. Of those, many made it to the front page with 10+ votes. I contacted Dang and he was clear it was users censoring it, further that some users were also "vouching" for my posts. It's to the point, people don't want to know. I feel I'm fairly even handed in my discussion. Here's a couple of my posts (who knows if I'll get flagged): - Public Safety Anno…
The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Why can't I ask someone at the government directly exactly what their policy is on blocking websites, which sites are blocked, and what the legal basis for blocking is? And get a real, detailed, authoritative answer? And contest that answer if it does not meet legal s…
The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Why can't I ask someone at the government directly exactly what their policy is on blocking websites, which sites are blocked, and what the legal basis for blocking is? And get a real, detailed, authoritative answer? And contest that answer if it does not meet legal s…
I don't get what any government has to do with it. Almost all information now is consumed via Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. These are private companies that has their own censorship rules and push their own agenda aggressively. Government has no control over this, even USA government as was seen recently when Facebook blocked links to NYT articles and Twitter was censoring Trump twits. All other countries (exce…
The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Why can't I ask someone at the government directly exactly what their policy is on blocking websites, which sites are blocked, and what the legal basis for blocking is? And get a real, detailed, authoritative answer? And contest that answer if it does not meet legal s…
I don't get what any government has to do with it. Almost all information now is consumed via Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. These are private companies that has their own censorship rules and push their own agenda aggressively. Government has no control over this, even USA government as was seen recently when Facebook blocked links to NYT articles and Twitter was censoring Trump twits. All other countries (exce…
The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Why can't I ask someone at the government directly exactly what their policy is on blocking websites, which sites are blocked, and what the legal basis for blocking is? And get a real, detailed, authoritative answer? And contest that answer if it does not meet legal s…
> but that works only in horribly egregious cases like NSA spying revealed by Snowden
Did it really work though?
If government just would have people have a crazy talk on the internet and subject them to paranoia that has been validated, it could have been a nicer situation than what we are currently dealing with.
Of my past 10 posts on HN 6 have been flagged and removed by users. Of those, many made it to the front page with 10+ votes. I contacted Dang and he was clear it was users censoring it, further that some users were also "vouching" for my posts. It's to the point, people don't want to know. I feel I'm fairly even handed in my discussion. Here's a couple of my posts (who knows if I'll get flagged): - Public Safety Anno…
[flagged]
If you haven't in a bit, please re-read the guidelines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that, for many topics, there just isn't a reliable source to go to. Sure, if you want information on scientific topics, you have very good options - go to one of the celebrated journals and read some papers, or at least the press releases from those same journals. When it comes to current domestic affairs (has there been massive election fraud in the US? is ANTIFA terrorizing the US?) then the mainstre…
The mainstream media is a trustworthy source regarding election fraud and Antifa's terrorist activities? And "Breitbart are a disgusting organization whose aim is misinformation"? It's not so much that the main stream media outlets lie about facts. They misrepresent them because they have a bias and a specific opinion on matters that it's so obvious to anyone that isn't on the left. Which is why people flock to other…
I stand by my characterization of Breitbart though - they absolutely knowingly lie about facts. I would also add that you know that your political view is extreme far right when you start calling The Economist "left-leaning".
And I don't think that journalism, especially in the mainstream, has ever been more than an opinion & public relations (propaganda) piece. News organizations are usually owned by rich owners and financed by rich corporations through ads, and so can't stray too far from the mainstream capitalist right-wing/centrist view on most issues of consequence for their sponsors. It happens that lately, corporate America and the rich have generally become much more open on social issues, so you see that reflected in the press.
But you'll be hard pressed to find a mainstream journal or news organization that shares the left's more extreme beliefs on economic issues (e.g. pro unionization, shorter work week), and extremely hard pressed to find any news organization that is against armed support for Israel, that is against the coup attempt in Venezuela, that is against US support for Saudi Arabia, that is for US nuclear disarmament, that is against escalation of the conflict with Russia etc.
Note: if you want to see left-leaning media, look at The Jacobin for example - you'll probably be shocked at how vastly they differ from the NYT. Here is an example: https://jacobinmag.com/2015/05/the-new-york-times-goes-to-wa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that, for many topics, there just isn't a reliable source to go to. Sure, if you want information on scientific topics, you have very good options - go to one of the celebrated journals and read some papers, or at least the press releases from those same journals. When it comes to current domestic affairs (has there been massive election fraud in the US? is ANTIFA terrorizing the US?) then the mainstre…
I really agree with your point that you need to have a way to know what to believe and that there are serious blind spots. But I think a small, un-elite media is exactly where the problem is right now. All these blogs and YouTube channels that wants to spread the truth, then discover you can make money pushing conspiracy, have actually been crowding out actual journalistic organizations that have actual reporters. To…
> To me, they are the spiritual successors of the small journals which would have great original reporting on local labor or environmental issues and would also casually report on medical myths and other pet causes of the authors.
These are very good points, that I'll have to think about more.
The problem is that we didn't teach people about manipulation techniques because that was governments' favourite tool to control the masses. Now that anybody can reach anyone with any information, bad actors use these techniques to control people to their advantage. Governments' are now in an awkward position - ramp up education in these areas and forever give up a tool that worked for ages, or censor the information…
Did you or the responders read the article? This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation. It's not. The part about the United States says this: > While the United States saw a small uptick in blocking, mostly driven by individual companies or internet service providers filtering content, the study did not uncover widesp…
Tech companies were stupid, but so were the users. And not only those that believed in more esoteric conspiracies.