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

321–330 of 602 posts

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

#321

Post by s1artibartfast »

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."

Assume good intentions, respect them as individuals, and listen to what they have to say even if you disagree.

These are basic tenants of productive debate.

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

#322

Post by ardy42 »

CivBase wrote: post #314
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…

> 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 right…

> 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?

Keep this in mind: Q is literally some dude on 4chan/8chan with a tripcode.

> 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.

I make no claim that my example lie is a good example of misinformation/disinformation. It was only meant to show the asymmetry of effort implicit in "more discussion."

The key thing about getting a lie to stick is to hitting the right emotional buttons with it. And it's so easy broadcast lies nowadays that you can even discover those buttons stochastically, by just throwing random lies out there and seeing what sticks.

Furthermore, if your goal is not to convince anyone of anything in particular, but to just to gum up a society (which is the goal of disinformation, properly understood), you don't event need to find particular lies with a broad appeal across society. You just need enough lies that enough people fall for one or two.

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

#323

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

Clubber wrote: post #270
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article doesn't disprove much. Being "pro-trump" doesn't make the death not count. 3 of the five died because of the protests - it doesn't matter which side. You can argue that a stroke/heart attack may not have happened in a non-high pressure environment. We don't need any more evidence than the mountains of video of people storming the capital. It's bad enough as is, it could have been far, far worse.

The difference between someone dying because of a stroke and someone dying because they were bludgeoned to death with a blunt object over the course of several minutes while thousands of people stood idly by is stark.

Of course - but that just makes a bad thing worse.

The capital riots were bad. No amount of far right-wing sugar coating is going to change that.

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

#324

Post by cozuya »

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…

Everyone deserves a voice? A group of people (QAnons) who believe their prominent political opponents should be murdered deserves a voice?

What is "weird" about thinking that they should not be given a voice here on Hacker News?

Wow.

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

#326

Post by linuxftw »

whydoibother wrote: post #298
linuxftw wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is 'we'? I don't wish to be included in 'we' and I prefer that the group of 'we' not be in charge of much of anything.

Does the concept of a collective confuse you?

As long as someone can adequately explain who the collective is, and what they perceive legitimizes their ability to make decisions for others.

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

#328

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

skynet-9000 wrote: post #260
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~75 million people voted for Donald Trump - it is hardly socially unacceptable to vote for a republican and you have a secret vote anyway.

> it is hardly socially unacceptable to vote for a republican and you have a secret vote anyway. Those two things are not in conflict with each other: a sizable percentage of Trump voters may have been counting on the fact that they could secretly vote in order to protect themselves and even their jobs. It seems that, today, some vocal people arguing for censorship immediately assume that anyone on the side of free s…

> Those two things are not in conflict with each other: a sizable percentage of Trump voters may have been counting on the fact that they could secretly vote in order to protect themselves and even their jobs.

Black people have lost their jobs for years for being black (See, Kaepernick.) many mad about this post didn't care then. It's all fake, using free speech to coverup blatantly partisan items.

They can't actually be on the side of free speech and be a Trump apologist. He was extremely anti-media, one of the most anti-press presidents we have had.

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

#329

Post by randmeerkat »

You can’t swear on television, you can’t yell fire in a theater, you can’t criticise your company on your device after hours on Twitter, a gay couple can’t have a cake baked, a woman can’t even show her nipples, but that kind of censorship isn’t on the front page of hacker news...

Because what people really care about is that the media outlets that participated in a violent insurrection can continue to spew their hate and lies without consequence.

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

#330

Post by buildbot »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #269
buildbot wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading these threads has been very depressing lately, Democrats ask OANN and other _extremely_ conservative networks for information, and that's somehow an attack on the First Amendment, where as 4 years of Trump - and the rest of the Republican party - attacking anything he disagreed with as Fake News was totally cool. Either Hacker news is being heavily astroturfed (there are many throwaway accounts participating…

Respectfully, I don't really see anyone saying that false accusations of fake news were cool. I'm concerned that you might be stuck in a mindset of partisan battle, where anyone who expresses concerns about this letter is declaring themselves to be on the other team from the people who wrote it.

Expressing concerns is great, and I support those comments. Reflecting on what you said, it’s true that pointing out an issue here does not imply political affiliation to either side, but it’s sorta funny how much more volume there is about this?

In terms of supporting racism, Specifically what I'm referring to are attempts to paint 1/6 as overblown or somehow was an acceptable event. Framing is really important - people here are claiming the only "real" death was "an unarmed protestor", ignoring that the person was shot attempting to break down the door to where the members of the House were actively evacuating from; and that somehow the suicides after the event or the deaths from the stress during the event don't count as real deaths.

Post reply on HN