Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election • Hacker News Board

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#181

Post by slg » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #177

slg wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think the answer is pretty simple: restore neutrality and objectivity to epistemological institutions. This doesn't mean that empirically false right-wing viewpoints need to be presented on equal footing with empirically true left-wing viewpoints, but rather that subjective issues should be described objectively rather than in the left-wing narrative. How does this actually work in practice? What does this look li…

> How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change? I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias). Maybe we could be a bit more aggressive about policing climate alarmism and other kinds of misinformation (the notion that banning plastic straws is going to have a measurable impact on wildlife such that…

>I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias)

Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth?

>Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a protracted effort over time. On the basis of this one event, a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that NYT is genuinely aspiring toward honesty and neutrality, much less someone who tends toward paranoia.

You aren't going to get an argument from me that the mainstream media is perfect on this. However I think it is clear that centrist and left leaning media is much much better about this than right leaning media.

>I don't think that "the right" has ever been this detached from mainstream epistemology in the first place--I don't think our institutions have ever been as compromised as they are now, at least not on a left-right axis. But there's probably no reason to limit our case studies to corruption of a left-right nature; we could equally look for any institution that lost the trust of a group of people and then gained it back (in part or in full).

Fair enough, but the loss of trust needs to be linked primarily to a perceived lack of truthfulness and I can't think of any examples of that either that aren't linked with an overt lack of truthfulness. Right now any bias in reporting, no matter how small, is magnified and even truthful and completely objective reporting is seen as biased. I simply don't know how you regain trust after that when the problem is more exaggerated in people's perception than in reality.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#182

Post by slg » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #178

slg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are taking that quote from Schmidt out of context which removes the nuance. He isn't simply saying, "let's give the vaccine to brown people". But if you are going to use the excuse to stop explaining yourself because we'll never see eye to eye than I might as well stop putting any effort into this conversation too.

It's not out of context, and a great many people have observed the same. Here's Yglesias, not exactly known for right-wing takes: > You’re opting for a strategy that leads to more Black deaths and more white deaths than the “vaccinate seniors first” strategy, but deciding that it’s better for equity and this is what ethics requires. https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccinate-elderly

But this is once again removing context from the initial argument. The goal isn't to minimize Black deaths or even overall deaths. This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning. That is where the essential worker argument comes into play. "Mitigating inequities" is listed as one of three bullet points in one of three categories in the decision making process that favors essential workers. You can't remove that context and pretend it is the overriding factor guiding these decisions.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#183

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

djtriptych wrote: post #141

majormajor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "but what about these stats" question has been asked a million times. Any population-level stats for crime rate, income, education, etc, are affected by unequal starting positions, and in the US those unequal starting positions were enforced by racism in leadership for decades. And in some places still are. You can't punch someone constantly until they're covered in bruises and then say "look, they aren't in pain…

racial comments from throwaway accounts really ought to be disallowed. I recommend well-meaning people just flag and move on.

Despite the account name, that particular user has been here for over three years, and has 3900 karma. They're not just some drive-by troller.

Also, you should judge their comments by the comments, not by the username. Those were some fairly thoughtful comments, even if you don't agree with them.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#184

Post by scarmig » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #182

throwaway894345 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not out of context, and a great many people have observed the same. Here's Yglesias, not exactly known for right-wing takes: > You’re opting for a strategy that leads to more Black deaths and more white deaths than the “vaccinate seniors first” strategy, but deciding that it’s better for equity and this is what ethics requires. https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccinate-elderly

But this is once again removing context from the initial argument. The goal isn't to minimize Black deaths or even overall deaths. This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning. That is where the essential worker argument comes into play. "Miti…

You can view the rubric here:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...

Key slides:

23, Population-Wide Averted Deaths: Targetting the elderly over essential workers averts up to 6.5% additional deaths (~12% compared to ~5%). This accounts for network effects. That's hundreds of deaths per day.

31, ethics scoring rubric: diversity concerns net the essential worker approach two additional points over the elderly approach, not one as you claimed.

33, overall rubric: the elderly approach was favored until ethics was considered, where, driven by diversity concerns, the essential worker approach was granted 3 overall points as opposed to 1 for the elderly approach.

And the craziest thing is, at no point in the rubric is "fewer people will die" considered a pro on the part of the elderly-first approach.

Preventing deaths has been the goal from the very beginning. This abrupt switch from "we have to save as many lives as possible" to "who cares about total deaths?" is exactly the kind of "progressive" political advocacy that you denied existed at the very beginning of this thread.

For the record, I'm on the side of "save as many lives as possible" and have been since the very beginning.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#185

Post by throwaway894345 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #181

throwaway894345 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change? I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias). Maybe we could be a bit more aggressive about policing climate alarmism and other kinds of misinformation (the notion that banning plastic straws is going to have a measurable impact on wildlife such that…

>I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias) Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth? >Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a…

> Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth?

I don't think so. I think the bias in other fields poisons the well of good faith. Specifically the conservative interface to these fields is probably angry people on the Internet who are as likely to bash them for their climate politics as for their opinions on BLM protests. If they were better plugged-in to the sciences, I think they would see that climate science is less problematic than critical studies.

> You aren't going to get an argument from me that the mainstream media is perfect on this. However I think it is clear that centrist and left leaning media is much much better about this than right leaning media.

I agree. I think even when things were good in these institutions, their relationship with the right was already strained.

> Fair enough, but the loss of trust needs to be linked primarily to a perceived lack of truthfulness and I can't think of any examples of that either that aren't linked with an overt lack of truthfulness.

I'm having a hard time thinking of examples too. I think that the 'perceived vs overt' consideration is just a reflection on how bad things have gotten--if you abuse the trust of someone for a long time, eventually their perception of affairs will become exaggerated. That's basically the whole thesis. Note that it's possible that we can't regain the trust of some people who have such a distorted view, but even still it's worth being honest if only to keep more people from crossing the threshold (and insodoing, those who have already crossed will become more marginalized and constitute a decreasing percentage of the population).

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#186

Post by slim » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

travisoneill1 wrote: post #61

slim wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is related to US elections. because dictators in Africa can point to USA when they get criticized. Why should Facebook have the power to police speech during elections in Uganda and not the state of Uganda ?

Why should the state have power to police speech during elections? (FB shouldn't either)

to ensure election is fair. one candidate could be a media mogul, other candidates won't have a chance against him. it's the same reason why tv debates are timed and have to be balanced

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#187

Post by throwaway894345 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #182

throwaway894345 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not out of context, and a great many people have observed the same. Here's Yglesias, not exactly known for right-wing takes: > You’re opting for a strategy that leads to more Black deaths and more white deaths than the “vaccinate seniors first” strategy, but deciding that it’s better for equity and this is what ethics requires. https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccinate-elderly

But this is once again removing context from the initial argument. The goal isn't to minimize Black deaths or even overall deaths. This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning. That is where the essential worker argument comes into play. "Miti…

> This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning.

I agree with you so far...

> That is where the essential worker argument comes into play.

This is where you lose me. As I understand it, essential workers can continue working whether or not they're vaccinated (yes, some will get seriously sick, but it won't significantly impact the economy). Rather, we want to vaccinate them earlier than non-essential workers because they're more vulnerable by the riskier nature of their work. However, they're not more vulnerable than the elderly and yet the CDC recommends prioritizing them over the elderly because the elderly are disproportionately white while essential workers are disproportionately non-white. At least, this is how I understand the argument.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#188

Post by slg » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #185

slg wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias) Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth? >Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a…

> Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth? I don't think so. I think the bias in other fields poisons the well of good faith. Specifically the conservative interface to these fields is probably angry people on the Internet who are as likely to bash th…

I think the well that is poisoned is not individual fields or institutions but the idea of institutions in general. It isn't that conservatives have any reason to distrust the National Weather Service or the Center for Disease Control specifically, it is that they distrust all institutions. I don't think there is much the NWS or CDC can do to change that while still remaining objective and truthful.

Like you said, some people may already be gone for good. My main concern is not necessarily bringing those people back. It is preventing them from corrupting the perception of more people who are still open to discussion. That brings us back to the original topic of social media censorship. Sometimes it isn't enough to constantly argue down these dangerous ideas. We likely need to start banning people who are actively doing harm.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#189

Post by andybak » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

travisoneill1 wrote: post #84

pjc50 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the right asks, “how do we know that racism and not crime rates belies police shooting disparities?” This question isn't asked in good faith. Besides, it's actually irrelevant; those deaths are statistics. What was demanded was prosecutions of specific police for specific shootings of specific, named people such as Breonna Taylor. It's up to the white community to decide if police shootings of white people are…

Prosecutions aren't something that should be done by mob demand. In the case of Breona Taylor the police were returning fire. You can question whether they should have served that warrant, but you will never in a million years convict someone of murder when they were returning fire.

> but you will never in a million years convict someone of murder when they were returning fire.

The USA seems to have got itself in a very peculiar place with regards to discharge of firearms by representatives of authority. Certainly in the UK and I think on most other western countries, you don't just shoot wildly into a property because someone inside has discharged a firearm.

It just wouldn't have happened in anything like this way in most other developed countries.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#190

Post by slg » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #187

slg wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is once again removing context from the initial argument. The goal isn't to minimize Black deaths or even overall deaths. This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning. That is where the essential worker argument comes into play. "Miti…

> This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning. I agree with you so far... > That is where the essential worker argument comes into play. This is where you lose me. As I understand it, essential workers can continue working whether or not they…

>This is where you lose me. As I understand it, essential workers can continue working whether or not they're vaccinated (yes, some will get seriously sick, but it won't significantly impact the economy). Rather, we want to vaccinate them earlier than non-essential workers because they're more vulnerable by the riskier nature of their work. However, they're not more vulnerable than the elderly

The key point here is that essential workers have a much greater exposure to COVID and much less control over the degree to which they are exposed to COVID. Most elderly people don't work. Those that do (and don't qualify as essential workers) can work from home. It is much easier for these people to minimize exposure. None of this logic has anything to do with race or any other form of diversity. None of this logic is questioning the fact that COVID is more dangerous to the elderly if they contract it. It is simply recognizing that from an ethical perspective it is likely fairer to prioritize the vaccine for people who are least able to minimize their own risk of exposure.

>and yet the CDC recommends prioritizing them over the elderly because the elderly are disproportionately white while essential workers are disproportionately non-white. At least, this is how I understand the argument.

Diversity factored into 1 of 3 subcategories in 1 of 3 top level categories. It isn't fair to say the "CDC recommends prioritizing [essential workers] over the elderly because the elderly are disproportionately white" when it is just one piece of a much larger and more nuanced discussion.