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

Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

eshoo.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 602 posts

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#311

Post by whydoibother »

citilife wrote: post #288
cozuya wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lauren Witzke is a Q Anon supporter. Do you think Q Anon supporters should be given a voice here on HN? Also, why does it matter how many people died during the attempt to overthrow our government by far right extremists? How many deaths are acceptable? 1? 7?

> Lauren Witzke is a Q Anon supporter. Do you think Q Anon supporters should be given a voice here on HN? Sure, I believe everyone deserves a voice? Kind of weird to say that. Further, it's the content of the video that matters. There was nothing Q related in the tweet. > Also, why does it matter how many people died during the attempt to overthrow our government by far right extremists? How many deaths are acceptabl…

You are liar.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#312

Post by jesseryoung »

temp8964 wrote: post #280
ardy42 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! The problem with that idea is that it takes more effort to debunk a lie than to tell one. It also takes more effort to absorb a debunking than a lie. That's why disinformation works. Here's an example: JFK ate babies occasionally, and the media hushed it up. Oswald was actually a secret high-level CIA operative, and was so outraged by this that he assassinate…

Your example actually tells something. Nobody would believe your JFK baby eating story. It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story. "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people, not because they are "bullshit" like your example.

Perhaps a better example: Jewish people are telling you the earth is round so that way they can distract you from the fact they're kidnapping children and drinking their blood.

A fantastic video on the topic of difficult to debunk, but easy to produce content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#313

Post by bhupy »

mindslight wrote: post #215
bhupy wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's fallacious to characterize it as just some ad-hoc "group" of individuals joining together to individually exercise their rights. Nobody is arguing that the New York Times is some ad-hoc group of individuals; it certainly has its structure. The argument is that the same principles that afford an ad-hoc group of individuals the freedom of association (and expression) is what also affords a structured corporation…

> At the end of the day, the New York Times doesn't have a mind of its own; the articles it publishes are the output of the individuals that work there, including the journalists and the editors. The Chinese room argument says otherwise, and it behooves us as homo sapiens to pay attention. How many individual reporters at the NYT wanted to give support the Iraq war? And yet that's what the entity itself ended up doin…

> The Chinese room argument says otherwise, and it behooves us as homo sapiens to pay attention.

I'm not sure what this sentence means.

> > How many individual reporters at the NYT wanted to give support the Iraq war? And yet that's what the entity itself ended up doing, using their contributions.

I'm sure that individual NYT reporters disagreed with support for the Iraq War; but as a protected association, they are free to determine how they settle internal disagreements however they see fit. Every organization, group, corporation, and association has their set of internal rules, and the Constitution protects those associations specifically as it relates to speech and expression.

> Hence pointing to Equifax, which explicitly promulgates constraints on our individual behavior, and yet has escaped all sort of democratic accountability.

Not sure how Equifax is relevant. First of all, it isn't in the business of publishing speech; that's what we're talking about here. If Equifax wrote a blog post about how it should be free from legislation, it is well within its rights to do that. Second of all, if you're talking about Equifax's business practices, the user has no control over whether they interact with Equifax or not — THAT is the problem with Equifax. That's simply not true for Fox News or CNN or The New York Times where there's a direct relationship between seller and buyer. I'm not sure what Equifax has to do with any of this...

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#314

Post by CivBase »

ardy42 wrote: post #258
kryogen1c wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things in the past which were labeled misinformation I know that item-level thinking like this is necessary to gain emotional traction with people, but this issue is just so obvious at a systems-level. the idea that we, right now the instant youre reading this, have discovered 100% of what there is to learn and 0% of what we know is wrong is so painfully, horrifically, obviously stupid (we've had computers for thir…

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! The problem with that idea is that it takes more effort to debunk a lie than to tell one. It also takes more effort to absorb a debunking than a lie. That's why disinformation works. Here's an example: JFK ate babies occasionally, and the media hushed it up. Oswald was actually a secret high-level CIA operative, and was so outraged by this that he assassinate…

> It took me two seconds to write that. How much effort would it take you to debunk it?

How long would it take you to establish enough credibility to be able to make an accusation like that and have people actually take your word for it? There might be a few nutters out there who are so predisposed to hate JFK that they'll believe anything negative about him, but most people - even those who dislike him - would rightfully question such an outlandish statement made by someone with no credentials.

Dishonest people retain credibility when their supporters are trapped in echo chambers designed to keep the truth out. Censorship is a powerful tool for establishing and maintaining echo chambers. We need to fight echo chambers, not promote censorship.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#315

Post by lurquer »

shakezula wrote: post #227
kryogen1c wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things in the past which were labeled misinformation I know that item-level thinking like this is necessary to gain emotional traction with people, but this issue is just so obvious at a systems-level. the idea that we, right now the instant youre reading this, have discovered 100% of what there is to learn and 0% of what we know is wrong is so painfully, horrifically, obviously stupid (we've had computers for thir…

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you get the other side to listen? The saying goes something like "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

> I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you get the other side to listen?

Re-education camps seem to be the go-to solution for many totalitarian regimes.

I’m not being a smart-ass... the desire some have for others to agree with them can itself be a pernicious thing.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#316

Post by josephorjoe »

temp8964 wrote: post #280
ardy42 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! The problem with that idea is that it takes more effort to debunk a lie than to tell one. It also takes more effort to absorb a debunking than a lie. That's why disinformation works. Here's an example: JFK ate babies occasionally, and the media hushed it up. Oswald was actually a secret high-level CIA operative, and was so outraged by this that he assassinate…

Your example actually tells something. Nobody would believe your JFK baby eating story. It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story. "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people, not because they are "bullshit" like your example.

I wish you were right, but you are not. It is very easy to have lots of people believe a fake story.

QAnon conspiracy theories are incoherent and absurd yet are embraced by thousands and cause needless harm to many.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#317

Post by parineum »

temp8964 wrote: post #280
ardy42 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! The problem with that idea is that it takes more effort to debunk a lie than to tell one. It also takes more effort to absorb a debunking than a lie. That's why disinformation works. Here's an example: JFK ate babies occasionally, and the media hushed it up. Oswald was actually a secret high-level CIA operative, and was so outraged by this that he assassinate…

Your example actually tells something. Nobody would believe your JFK baby eating story. It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story. "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people, not because they are "bullshit" like your example.

> "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people

Conspiracy theories are only believed by those who already mistrust the target. If there's a lot of conspiracies revolving around something/someone, you have a trust problem.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#318

Post by NortySpock »

rayiner wrote: post #293
ardy42 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! The problem with that idea is that it takes more effort to debunk a lie than to tell one. It also takes more effort to absorb a debunking than a lie. That's why disinformation works. Here's an example: JFK ate babies occasionally, and the media hushed it up. Oswald was actually a secret high-level CIA operative, and was so outraged by this that he assassinate…

> Scientific consensus also not arrived at by publishing literally every crackpot idea, and answering each with "more discussion." Science has several mechanisms for "censoring" bullshit and misinformation (e.g. peer review), and it couldn't function without it. What counts as a "crackpot idea?" We don't have to dabble in hypotheticals about JFK eating babies. We have real examples from current political events that…

And it was damned foolish to say "masks don't work" if what they wanted the public to understand was "please leave surgical and N95 masks for healthcare workers. We are exploring the effectiveness of cloth masks".

THAT would have been honesty, it would have explained the reason they didn't want the general public using masks, and it would have hinted at an alternative while not directly confirming masks work (or don't work).

NOT TO MENTION that the CDC probably could have asked South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, or any other country where mask usage was common, "How well do masks work?" and been pointed at a few relevant studies, right? But no, they make a very fishy statement to the public claiming masks don't work for normal people.

/rant Sorry. You hit a nerve. Pretty frustrated that the CDC would throw away its credibility like that.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#319

Post by jodrellblank »

Alupis wrote: post #248
LanceH wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.

> It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!

That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#320

Post by gist »

rayiner wrote: post #37

The letter complains about Fox and OANN's partisan and inflammatory rhetoric, with supporting citations to sources on the left who trade heavily in partisan and inflammatory rhetoric. Just three citations in you get to Karen Attiah, Washington Post's Global Opinions Editor: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/karen-attia... > “White women are lucky that we are just calling them ‘Karen’s,’ and not calling…

> It's fair to say that Maddow has an opinion show, not a news show.

With many of these shows is they are a bit of 'looks like a duck quacks like a duck'. By that I mean the format and the presentation look as if they are not opinion but possibly fact and/or news. This can be manipulated by both the format, graphics, presentation of 'experts' and so on.

CNN does this as well with some opinion shows, Chris Cuomo, Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, Erin Burnett. Many people will take them as authoritative typically because it's a professional presentation on a 'major' network. Most when I have spot watched do not even present an opposing or counter view a topic being discussed. And they often present a well credentialed person to support the pov they are taking.

Post reply on HN