Live data from Hacker News

Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

nytimes.com

201–210 of 311 posts

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#201
post #98
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do other tv/cable news networks print retractions? I can't remember any, but maybe they have a specific webpage you have to go to in order to see it? I doubt any of the non-news programs on those networks do, and those comprise the majority of the programming. So maybe it's just hard to find for the little bit of actual news.

> I doubt any of the non-news programs on those networks do My impression is they only have opinion programs and no news reporting whatsoever.

This is exactly correct.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure since I get most of my news online. I thought they had like 2 hours per day that were non-opinion news.

The HN crowd is not the typical Fox News audience.

In this very thread they are regurgitating talking points from fox punditry.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#203

Ironic that this is from the New York Times, which has (in)famously had several years of poor or biased reporting.

Bias is in every source (although I'd give Reuters an AP a general pass there). Being biased is not a "bad thing" just because it doesn't fit your world view, it expands horizons if you allow other views into your narrow view. And poor? Laughable. NYTimes is a high quality source on-par with WSJ.

I had subscribed to by NY Times and WSJ. I felt that reading high quality articles that has a little bit of left and right bias would be the way to go. I tend to avoid editorials, as those are often sensationalized.

I've since unsubscribed from NY Times based on how I saw them treat Andrew Yang in the mayoral race. Every little thing he did was sensationalized and take down articles were written. The nail in the coffin was their final piece, when he conceded, and on "analyzing" his campaign it was essentially a final take down article.

The overtly negative items from other candidates were ignored (i.e. Eric Adam's tax evasion, and his plans of implementing 300 students per teacher to save money)

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stories online, when altered, are labeled as such with corrections. Several outlets have been caught scrubbing past headlines that were proven false, but that's more an indictment on them.

"Stories online, when altered, are labeled as such with corrections." I get that. But how do the TV news programs do it? I don't remember them starting with, or including at all, a corrections segment.

Rarely. Most news isn't "breaking" on TV, even if they do they refer to the online story. So that's where stories are corrected, because that's the official record.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#205
post #4

Ehh, I don't like current state of the Internet In last months I've started wondering why do I even pay my internet bills 60% of the reason I still do it is that I need internet for my job the rest is HN, two or three subreddits, music and some video games, wiki/google/maps and the fact that I still need to learn a lot in order to advance in career. It's insanely hard to avoid that main stream media content (celebrit…

which subreddits?

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#206
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story is about shady companies funded by government propaganda agencies around the world, and which cease operating as soon as you start investigating them. The New York Times has been doing business continuously since 1851, is one of the cornerstones of democracy, a recognized leader in journalism schools across the globe, and to this day regularly fires journalists who are caught lying in a story. Anyone is fr…

They still employ Cade Metz, who doxxed Scott Alexander. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-...

> They still employ Cade Metz, who doxxed Scott Alexander.

Internet norms are only internet norms, they aren't everywhere norms. Cade Metz did not "doxx" Scott Alexander, because doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces. And Alexander even wasn't doxxed by properly-understood internet norms because he doxxed himself long before.

The situation was Scott Alexander was confused to think the norms of his community were controlling in every community, or that he could set arbitrary rules that everyone else would then be obligated to follow, and he has a lot of fans who share those confusions.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this. There is this push, which seems mostly from the right, to say, "do your own research. you can't trust mainstream news media!". Yet they'll then push tweets from random people as facts. Even this example of news reporting doesn't point to a single article/advertisement? Were these articles denying facts about the Uyghurs or were they about the rising popularity of cruises available on the eastern seaboard o…

When Millennials were kids, our parents told us not to trust what we read on the Internet. Then they ended up swallowing whole every nutty article passed around by their Facebook friends.

Its almost like parents are fallible people too and simply provided a cautionary tale

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bias is in every source (although I'd give Reuters an AP a general pass there). Being biased is not a "bad thing" just because it doesn't fit your world view, it expands horizons if you allow other views into your narrow view. And poor? Laughable. NYTimes is a high quality source on-par with WSJ.

I read both for a while and consider WSJ more reliable and far far less sensationalist than NYT (as of maybe 5 years ago).

I still read both and consider them two of the most reliable sources of domestic journalism. Their non editorial sections are of very similar qualities. Their editorial sections are both political hackery.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#209
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pot, kettle, etc. Most defense and intelligence agencies have been, for the past two decades, calling the internet the most important conflict space of the 21st century. Why no one took them seriously is beyond me. What this didn’t touch on was the availability of likes/interactions for money. This seems to be the much more pernicious attack vector, because you don’t need to write fake content and risk exposure to…

It's not incredibly hard to imagine that no one would take it seriously if some nebulous phrasing like the "most important conflict space of the 21st century" is the content of our warning. Even less difficult to imagine if this is being espoused by an already untrustworthy three letter agency(ies). As a partial aside, the tension with the current bureaucratic classification system is that it limits what these organi…

"It's not incredibly hard to imagine that no one would take it seriously if some nebulous phrasing like the "most important conflict space of the 21st century" is the content of our warning. Even less difficult to imagine if this is being espoused by an already untrustworthy three letter agency(ies)."

These agencies have huge conflicts of interest in that their funding depends on how afraid the government is of the threats they're tasked with defending. So the more afraid they can make politicians, the more funding they'll get.

What makes their claims even less credible is that they're basically professional liars. They're trained in deception and have a long, sordid history of deceiving the public: often quite consciously and deliberately.

"the tension with the current bureaucratic classification system is that it limits what these organizations can actually tell us"

Even if they did tell us we could never know if they were telling the truth, as the public has absolutely no access to their internal records. They tell us what they want us to believe.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Stories online, when altered, are labeled as such with corrections." I get that. But how do the TV news programs do it? I don't remember them starting with, or including at all, a corrections segment.

Rarely. Most news isn't "breaking" on TV, even if they do they refer to the online story. So that's where stories are corrected, because that's the official record.

Do they actually refer people to the online story, or do you just mean they are using that story to regurgitate to the viewers? I highly doubt most of the viewers are recieving the corrections if they're only given online.

Yeah, when there is breaking news it seems there's a ton of speculation and bad information given.

Post reply on HN