Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by teddyh » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

protonfish wrote: post #185

pfortuny wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that even mean? Did I agree to that?

You seem to want us to fight them with one arm behind our back. I, however, don't care whatever it is you think "we" decided. I believe we should fight fascist propaganda with all the the tools we can grab. Lord knows they are. Current authoritarian disinformation campaigns are a massive and immediate threat to all humanity. If you think so too, then stop bringing knives to this gunfight.

> we should fight fascist propaganda with all the the tools we can grab.

“What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

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

#352

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:25 PM UTC

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."

For me, a good start would be to provide evidence that people have had their minds changed because information gets discussed more. E.g. you could demonstrate that the qanon phenomenon became less popular, not more, after it began getting wide media attention. (Unfortunately in this instance the opposite is the case. You have an uphill battle ahead trying to demonstrate your position empirically.)

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

#353

Post by shakezula » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #256

shakezula wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is there's a non-trivial amount of people who consider their ignorance equal to your research, your facts, your studies, your anything.

That isn't a problem unless you're discussing something where anonymity is key - or it wouldn't be if the internet didn't make anonymity the rule by default. Anonymity is really great for private citizens, but people trying to spread information need to be held to a higher standard since their words shouldn't be preemptively censored but must be held to account after the fact. Oh also, taking away anonymity is quite…

I'm not sure I'm convinced that taking away anonymity fixes the problem. We have very prominent politicians who are driving entire political campaigns around this strategy of ignoring all fact.

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

#354

Post by Vaslo » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

cool_dude85 wrote: post #112

njharman wrote: post #35

Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people. Never the hands of authorities whether those be government or corporate. Why must fight all censorship. Because once you allow "a thing" to be censored, it becomes possible to censor "any thing". Things in the past which were labeled misinformation and would have been suppressed for even longer (or forever) under current social attit…

Hard disagree. We can censor, for example, child pornography, bomb-building tutorials, and revenge porn. I'm not going to fight against censoring them on the grounds that allowing them to be censored will allow anything else to be censored too.

Except the items you cite are done on a fringe. Almost half of America is conservative, hardly some fringe.

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

#355

Post by ardy42 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #347

ardy42 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe it is reasonable to speculate that QAnon members are generally trapped in extreme, right-wing echo chambers. Echo chambers enable people to retain undeserved credibility. That's not true, for instance: https://www.startribune.com/conspiracy-theories-of-qanon-fin... > Conspiracy theories of QAnon find fertile ground in an unexpected place – the yoga world > QAnon's conspiracy theories have taken root among…

I'm not sure how that demonstrates QAnon members are not generally trapped in right-wing echo chambers. Are yoga practitioners exempt from right-wing echo chambers?

> I'm not sure how that demonstrates QAnon members are not generally trapped in right-wing echo chambers. Are yoga practitioners exempt from right-wing echo chambers?

I suppose a significant number of yoga teachers/influencers could be secret dittoheads, but the idea kind of beggars belief.

One of the interesting things about QAnon is that it offered on-ramps to groups outside the stereotype of people would go for such a theory (e.g. "save the children"). People in right-wing echo chambers were definitely more susceptible, but it's a mistake to be reassured by that.

Also, particular echo chambers aren't some kind of primordial entity. They start all the time and they often grow. So even if something like QAnon requires one, that just means there's one more step.

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

#356

Post by minikites » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

skynet-9000 wrote: post #214

minikites wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the current strain of Conservative "thought" is to attack all forms of authority in order to muddle the truth and introduce doubt that any subject is knowable or provable. Allowing misinformation to spread serves that goal nicely and all they have to do is sit back and do nothing. Their entire goal is to create a society where their gut opinions are just as good as knowledge from experts, because experts hur…

This is a strikingly illiberal stance. Attacking free speech is precisely the opposite of what civil liberties has traditionally all been about.

Why is it worth protecting speech that is knowingly false and inflammatory? Think about the paradox of tolerance. True free speech is under threat by the torrent of misinformation and from the constant assault on the very idea of expertise. We as a society have to be active agents to counter misinformation, we can't just sit by and hope it works itself out in "the marketplace of ideas" because that's not how misinformation functions. This is not a new problem, but the internet gives it a new scale which we have yet to reckon with.

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

#357

Post by minikites » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #243

minikites wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't understand the parent post, the Democrats want MORE people to be able to vote, how is that "planning to never lose an election again"? The Republicans are the only ones who ever fight to suppress votes, most recently the attacks on absentee voting in Georgia, which are a direct result of two Democrats winning there and has absolutely nothing to do with "illegal immigrants" or election security on any lev…

The point in question is not whether it is justified or moral single-party rule. It is whether there is a shift towards single-party dominance.

So how does "more people voting" lead to single-party dominance? I only see one party working for that goal, and it isn't the Democratic party.

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

#358

Post by kaibee » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

colpabar wrote: post #274

shakezula wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

> How do you get the other side to listen? Pretend you think like them, and make arguments that go against that thinking. Unfortunately, the way the media exists today this never happens, and both sides just attack strawmen in ways that get people to click their headlines and listen to their talking heads. I think it's disingenuous to paint the entire "other side" as unreasonable, but I may be misinterpreting what yo…

> I think it's disingenuous to paint the entire "other side" as unreasonable, but I may be misinterpreting what you mean by "other side" here. There will always be unreasonable people, and I don't have a solution for them. However, I think _a lot_ of people are very tired of being demonized for disagreeing. Not every republican is a rabid tea partier, and not every democrat supports antifa.

There's a lot of fundamental issues that are just not limited to "rabid tea partiers", global warming and the pandemic/masks just to pick two.

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

#359

Post by shakezula » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #321

shakezula wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I completely agree with these points - but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying what do you do when your partner in debate completely ignores all of those things, but has equal say in the outcomes?

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

#360

Post by shakezula » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #315

shakezula wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Maybe "agreement" isn't what I meant as the goal - only progress. Fair point to address that they're not equal.