Live data from Hacker News

Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

bombthrower.com

191–200 of 264 posts

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a playful jab at a category of people I am part of too, although I do not share that belief. The statement I made is wrong on purpose regardless (for light comedic effect): not only engineers hold that belief, nor are they the only ones who do. There is a significant overlap (higher than a random person's picked from the population) between engineers and what I would call "fundamentalist rationalists". That is,…

I'd honestly consider your take as lacking nuance. Or lacking a dimension. Accepting uncertainty doesn't mean abandoning objectivity. On the contrary - difficulties in objectively measuring things or falsifying hypotheses are best handled with mathematical tools, which absolutely can work with uncertain quantities (that's what probability theory is for). Throwing hands in the air and saying "it's too difficult theref…

I don't disagree with that notion actually. I personally do not believe in objective truth, philosophically speaking. I do believe in creating ever more useful incarnations of a relative truth, and that so far the methods which you mentioned have been the most useful.

There is no golden hammer however. To give a concrete example, I believe our understanding of mental issues using a scientific framework is woefully inadequate. In the future, we may posses enough information to be able to apply scientific principles. In the present, we have managed to control some mental illnesses to a degree using pharmaceutics.

Talking with various people who have had the misfortune of being born with troublesome minds and experiencing my own mind has led me to believe that a large amount of mental illnesses, especially depression and anxiety, are misidentified due to our infatuation to treat the mental plane as analog to the physical body, so as to be able to apply our scientific knowledge to it. The body is hardware, hard and physical, the mind is software, it is changeable. Many are born into this world however without the necessary tools or aptitude to actually go through this process of change and heal their mind when it gets into a broken state. Their frustrations pile up, making them ever more ineffective, all while they are blind to the fact that they could wake up the next day and.. feel completely fine.

It is none of their own fault in a way, as these skills are barely ever taught, and not too many people seem even aware that it's something just as possible as moving your arm. They treat it as if the only way they can "get fixed" is external, as if their car broke down.

Humanity did and still has ways of undergoing these processes. Rituals of progression from one stage of life to another, as well as yearly/monthly etc. rituals affirming one's position in life were more important than they are nowadays. As much as "they do nothing", the mental effect was most definitely not nothing. The human brain always seeks meaning, and lack of stimulus is its greatest enemy.

That is not to suggest that the world was an idyllic paradise full of meaning before. Unlikely. But it's hard to deny God did die somehow.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did censor the original New York Post story. The media chose to ignore it, but the social media companies were censoring any links to the story, actively encouraged by Democratic Party operatives such as Schiff who were falsely labelling it as Russian disinformation and encouraging a blackout. This has potentially election moving consequences, so coercive Democratic influence over social media is absolutely a re…

And then they reversed their censorship. It's hard to make perfect decisions in real time. The information got out there, it was bogus, and they faced criticism for doing it in the first place. So they chose to eliminate its effect on the election based (I would assume) on the bogus stuff about Hillary's email server four years earlier. And if this is the end of October surprises I can only say good riddance, but it…

If Twitter's moderation team made that decision because they genuinely thought it was Russia disinfo, then I have no problem with it. But the waters are so muddied when we have a chorus of policymakers applying pressure and encouraging that decision, both through the rhetoric in that moment and leading up to it. It's that kind of behavior/rhetoric (similar to Trump's anti-trust threats) which is the threat to democracy, not the decision itself in the abstract which may have been perfectly defensible.

I can only conclude that Schiff et al were being intentionally dishonest about the Russian disinfo line in an attempt to apply the maximum amount of influence at the most critical time before the election. It was a cynical attempt by elected officials to sway an election through censorship. They knew it wasn't Russian disinfo at the time. Joe Biden's own comments revealed that knowledge about a day into the saga.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#193

Not sure if there's a more eloquent name for these kinds of "throw enough shit and hope some of it sticks" arguments but the article is very confused, from claiming ad hominem attacks are as bad as racism, to ranting about millenials and throwing in WMD's in Iraq for good measure. The actual key issue is somewhere in the middle of that article: > "When tech companies take it upon themselves to arbitrate what is or is…

Problem is two fold, one is that part in power can use variety of methods to coerce platforms to do their bidding. This is not a supposition this has been going on all over the world for a while. For all practical purposes FB and twitter act as an arm of US government when it comes to COVID, remember when you would get insta banned for suggesting that maybe maybe virus that arose 10 mins away from a lab where they used to work on viruses like that might, could maybe somehow be related to the said lab?

Second is that platforms themselves now have massive political power. Twitter or FB can easily suppress any fact or opinion it does not like(see Twitter and Biden's crackhead of a son), it can also easily trade ability to suppress for political favours.

In a society as divided as US is right now it is inevitable that they take the 51% side to suppress the 49% side. Result will be a bloody a mess.

There is no solution to it either, shit is in full flight towards the proverbial fan.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All evidence shows it to be the other way around, the vaccinated are far more dangerous to the unvaccinated than vice versa, it isn't even close. Leaky vaccines create more virulent and deadlier viruses in the unvaccinated.

This is incorrect. A vaccine is not an antibiotic; the presence of one does not cause virulent strains. Vaccinations trigger the body's immune response to the virus; nothing else. They provide for a more effective response faster, but do not otherwise provide any forcing function. Mutations and variants occur all the time as the virus reproduces. Variants are not a response to any vaccine; they have appeared primaril…

[deleted]

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree: we live in societies and can vote. In my country we decided that trading, joking, lauding, repeating anything nazi can be prosecuted: so we do prosecute it, a judge decides, according to past judgment and his opinion of the law, and done. No need to give everyone the job to be clever - we can actually blacklist any opinion we dont want to see circulated and vote on it.

> we live in societies and can vote A vote is simply not the same thing as a choice. How would you feel if 51% of the people voted to force you to become a Druid?

I think his point was that you don't always get to decide for yourself, and voting was an example. Whether it be a majority, a dictator, or a corporation, someone, to a degree, has the power to tell you what's right and wrong, what's real and not.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All evidence shows it to be the other way around, the vaccinated are far more dangerous to the unvaccinated than vice versa, it isn't even close. Leaky vaccines create more virulent and deadlier viruses in the unvaccinated.

What is a leaky vaccine?

I’m not qualified to really discuss, but here’s a study I recently heard brought up. It would be interesting to hear an unbiased opinion of someone with a medical background

“Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine.”

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#197
post #7

Lately being on the internet is feeling more like Junta era Argentina with content disappearing left and right.

I agree but it’s exceedingly rare that this is because of political reasons - usually, it’s because of music rights issues.

I guess it depends on how you define 'political'. Almost all censorship is related to politics in one way or another. The cycle is X minority is mad and gets a news article written and then there's a new wave of disappearances. Really anything at all controversial. Often it's something not child friendly, which ignores the mass of the internet that is also not taken down for this. If you have kids do you really want their content moderation farmed out to some megacorp?

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#198

I'd take it a step futher and borrow an adage to say platforms and media mainly say they are fighting misinformation to convince you that the rest of their content is meaningful. Base reality is, they all make money on selling your attention to advertisers, and they need for you to believe that your encounters with them are "real," serendipitous, and that you aren't just being managed like an animal in an existential…

I agree with your thesis in general with several nitpicks;

> Sure, there are true believers who think abusing trust and technical power to shape narratives is honest and necessary work

Narrative warfare exists and is not a single agent game. I am not saying this makes narrative shaping defendable, but in the absence of some meaning-making work opportunist opponents will happily fill in the vacuum. This is the slippery slope that escalates to being a true believer of power (ab)use.

In the past, opponent processes of meaning-making was between differing, well-paced journalistic outlets somewhat within consilience distance. Today a) the inter-narrative drift is impossibly larger and b) heavily clustered around partisan dimensions which are themselves pushed away and c) comes out of a 24hr infotainment firehose because finances favor that. We're denial-of-service'd out of thinking for ourselves and the narratives we're given are hopelessly irreconcilable.

> most objectively evil and mendacious organizations in the history of world

There is no such cabal of coordinated evil. In fact, this gnostic belief is part of the narrative that creates ressentiment and nihilism. Emergent foolishness can just be as evil. And it can be countered with emergent, distributed wisdom, not necessarily another billions of dollars worth of a "good" platform.

> Base reality is, they all make money on selling your attention to advertisers,

Selling your attention to advertisers is a relatively minor harm. We are actually pretty good at suppressing noise and get to the signal we want. But the shaping of your attention and emotions that maximize time on site is harmful in a much more durable way. Not only it directly attacks your noise-suppression and relevance-detection heuristics, the more you stay on site the more you're actively trained to be more foolish, reactive and receptive. This bleeds to the rest of your life. It is like an anti-mindfulness training that stupefies you.

The solution is bound to be in the form of a suite of counter-trainings that gives back each individual their agency to realize this is not good for us.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only engineers believe most of the important issues in the world actually have an objective answer to them. Was this really necessary? How many engineers do you know, and how many of them actually ascribe to this belief?

It's a playful jab at a category of people I am part of too, although I do not share that belief. The statement I made is wrong on purpose regardless (for light comedic effect): not only engineers hold that belief, nor are they the only ones who do. There is a significant overlap (higher than a random person's picked from the population) between engineers and what I would call "fundamentalist rationalists". That is,…

> Furthermore, only engineers believe most of the important issues in the world actually have an objective answer to them.

No true engineer believes that. All engineers must make compromises. Anyone that uses black and white thinking simply cannot engineer (unless you are using the term in a strictly legal sense).

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#200
post #186

I'm not going to comment on the author's credibility or overall quality of his arguments. However, I think he brings up a very important point: who gets to decide what's misinformation? * Private organizations are run by fallible humans, chasing money and reduced liability * Governments lie. If you don't believe me, read any history book * Scientists are not a spherical mass floating in a vacuum with a unified opinio…

You're getting mixed up. Good and bad isn't the same as misinformation. The intent is important. Bad faith arguments and presenting misleading conclusions to further an agenda is misinformation.

I think it's a good point, but... what information do we use to determine intent? And aren't they subject to the errors of normal information in addition to possible ill-intended misinformation?
Post reply on HN