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

531–540 of 602 posts

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

#531

Post by nobody9999 »

dnissley wrote: post #518
nobody9999 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's no point in giving someone the tools to find the truth if they're so wedded to their "truth" that evidence will not make them change their minds. Are you making the argument that because some folks won't use them, such tools/methods are useless?

Perhaps useless in the sense that those who need them the most will either refuse to use them or misuse them. Going further... I think it might be fair to say that those tools just don't scale.

>Perhaps useless in the sense that those who need them the most will either refuse to use them or misuse them.

I'd argue that such tools are valuable to everyone, even those who have no interest in verifying the credibility or veracity of information sources.

As the old saw goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Or both more snarkily and (IMHO) more accurately, "you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think."

>Going further... I think it might be fair to say that those tools just don't scale.

I'm not sure what your mean by "scale" in this context.

Determining for oneself the credibility/veracity of information or an information source is (and should be, IMHO) inherently an individual pursuit.

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

#532

Post by _yoqn »

srswtf123 wrote: post #487
commandlinefan wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And thank god for it.

We should probably thank the _humans_ that wrote it.

Per Thomas Jefferson the "unalienable rights" guaranteed by the US Constitution are God-given, and cannot be suspended or set aside by other humans.

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

#533

Post by [deleted] »

dnissley wrote: post #384
dragonwriter wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is precisely the wrong way to tackle it though. We cannot ever allow government to control what can or cannot be said Can you please point me to a proposal for government to control what can or cannot be said? Not a speculation about what might , in the future, be proposed based on what some people fear based on the questions in these letters, but an actual concrete proposal? Otherwise, I don't see how “This i…

Are you not able to see the implicit threat in this letter?

[deleted]

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

#534

Post by scrollaway »

noxer wrote: post #440
Spivak wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don’t have them. Having lie checkers on the internet is a moronic idea. This rule is to stop organized coordinated disinformation campaigns. It’s to take down sites who’s whole purpose is to literally make up news stories, present them as fact, and spread them on social media.

It was mean sarcastic. In case you haven't figured out how awful the fact-checkers are. An no, if you ban "disinformation" you ban free speech. There is no way to figure out if a flat earther publishes something for disinformation purpose or if he really believes what he writes. Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it, not by removing it. Most people have heard form the flat earth but most dont believe it. Be…

> Disinformation is best frighted by debunking it

I used to believe that as well. Then we did real world practical experiments over the last decade. It's clear most people don't give a shit about informing themselves and will readily believe just about anything.

Not saying the solution is regulating what can / cannot be said, but this idea that free speech is the ultimate thing isn't working when you have groups that can spend troves of cash making their disinformation legitimate enough for the masses.

Both you and i probably believe at least one, maybe more of those things, by the way. It's not all outlandish nonsense, sometimes it's reasonable enough to believe at first glance and you don't bother looking it up afterwards.

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

#535

Post by AlexandrB »

_yoqn wrote: post #532
srswtf123 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should probably thank the _humans_ that wrote it.

Per Thomas Jefferson the "unalienable rights" guaranteed by the US Constitution are God-given, and cannot be suspended or set aside by other humans.

But they can be added to? Either it's a human document you can amend or it's an immutable religious text.

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

#536

Post by elihu »

dnissley wrote: post #433
Retric wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any other options? I don’t care who solves it, but when a company is run for the intent to produce propaganda it’s pointless to ask them to self regulate.

There is always the option to let the issue sort itself out. To allow space and time for a solution to emerge. We should be careful not to fall into action bias. E.g. the thought that we need to do something, anything, since that can lead to counterproductive solutions. I've begun to look at information problems like this not too differently than viruses of thought. Right now these viruses are running rampant because…

> Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses?

Well, if stopping disinformation is too hard for various reasons, maybe we can focus on the problem from the other direction: we need to find ways for accurate information to be easier to find and to verify.

If you think of misinformation more like a bacteria, then one of the common causes of bacterial infections is that the regular good bacteria have been wiped out for one reason or another. Antibiotics might help, or they might make the problem worse.

I do think we have some serious institutional problems that are preventing the usual sources of accurate information from operating effectively. News that's become overtly partisan, and an economic model that selects for the most sensational headlines. Scientific research findings that aren't reproducible. Universities becoming increasingly run like profit-focused corporations, and too expensive for many to attend due to lack of public funding. Misinformation is always a problem even in the best of times, but it can also fill the void when there's a lack of accurate information.

I don't know what the solution is. I tend towards more distributed models of information sharing that have fewer institutional gatekeepers declaring who the experts are, but I don't know exactly what that looks like, or how to do that in a way that tends towards more credibility rather than less.

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

#537

Post by rayiner »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #497
tarboreus wrote: post #16

Is anyone finding this terrifying? When did democrafts, the party I vote for, become the people calling for tight censorship in every sector? Weren't the last people to make this move (more more ineffectively, thankfully) the Christian right? Is there something we can do to stand up for speech?

Long-time democrat here. I am terrified of what my party is becoming! I'm more critical of my own party because I hold them to a higher standard. I'm getting very disillusioned with them at this point. All the behaviors I decried of the right so many years ago are now in full swing on the left side. The difference now is the consolidatation of control and power makes it an even greater threat. I fear a point of no re…

Same boat. People tell me, “but Trump is worse.” I didn’t realize that was the bar.

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

#538

Post by technick »

protonfish wrote: post #88
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…

"The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws. Throwing up our hands because "censorship bad!" i…

Ironically, you were censored (flagged) in following posts while arguing for censorship. Further, in your example, the people are clearly the problem. They need to learn how to fact check and educate themselves. Victim blaming is OKAY when people make themselves the victim by their inaction.

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

#539

Post by technick »

linuxftw wrote: post #326
whydoibother wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't this venturing into Borg territory?

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

#540

Post by scrollaway »

jimbob45 wrote: post #528
noahtallen wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may find the Mueller report enlightening, then. [1] The claims are hardly nonsense: it’s a bipartisan fact that Russians made a big effort to influence at least the 2016 election, and succeeded. [2] Rather than taking a hard stance against Russia because of this, Trump officials have been convicted related to their lies about the situation. [3] Alleging or assuming that trump knew about this and/or encouraged it…

The problem is that it wasn’t evidence enough to convict Trump. It’s fine if you want to insist that Trump did in fact commit a crime (I might even agree with you) but then you can’t criticize the people saying Trump actually won the election because you’re also promoting a conspiracy without evidence.

You're calling the Mueller report a conspiracy without evidence...? Surely I misunderstood your post because that sounds way off.
Post reply on HN