Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

on.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 606 posts

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#581

Post by Nursie »

water8 wrote: post #339
Nursie wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you site claims of 100% effectiveness? Did they come from medical authorities? As far as I'm aware, even early on in the cycle, realistic claims of effectiveness were being made, with some quibbling over data transparency that were resolved. As we now have variants to contend with, that effectiveness in preventing infection has dropped precipitously. However the effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation and dea…

The general assumption at first was that vaccinated people couldn't spread the virus which turned out to be false. We still vilify the unvaccinated when both are susceptible to transmission.

>> We still vilify the unvaccinated when both are susceptible to transmission.

They are still more likely to be infectious for longer, they are still more likely to clog up the hospital system, occupy ICU beds, and indirectly harm others who would usually be able to be treated but now can't.

And they're still dumbasses.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#582

Post by vannevar »

giantg2 wrote: post #547
vannevar wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 'system' is talking about incremental risks, whether they are across time or across individuals. The point is that these incremental risks are not great in themselves, but when accumulated, they become substantial. If climate change contributes to increasing disease, as is projected, the cumulation of diseases over time become a substantial risk even to the individual, even if they aren't directly affected by floo…

Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population. The infectious diseases they talk about are from expansion of the disease carrier range (mosquitoes and ticks). These have mitigating factors to avoid the infections. There's very little cumulative risk and it's still largely location based. So this is a far cry from your example of cigarettes and ending up in a PSA. The risk i…

> Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population.

You're looking at it through the individual lens again. The chances of an individual winning the lottery in any year are near zero, but the chances of there being some lottery winner in any year are near 100%. The chance of any one car trip resulting in an accident are extremely low, yet we still wear a seat belt consistently because the long term chances of an accident are high even if we are careful drivers---we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint. And the cigarette example, which is only a "far cry" if you grossly underestimate all the cumulative risks associated with climate change.

Simply handwaving away the death toll from insect-borne infection because they don't affect you personally doesn't make them any less real. And of course those aren't the only climate related risks. Drought, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are all correlated with increasing thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere. Something we should rationally fear and actively work to mitigate.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#583

Post by Nasrudith »

rapnie wrote: post #358
dools wrote: post #240

The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…

Wondering to what extent the growing "left vs. right" divide is mostly artificially created as a distractionary strategy to keep attention away from the very real and growing divide of the Have's and Have-not's. And prolong the unfettered capitalism that nowadays is best-served with flawed democracies or even outright autocracy.

Your distinction is just as artificial as left vs right. Fanatics and fundamentalists also always think everything they aren't obsessed in is a distraction deliberately engineered to undermine their oh so important cause.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#584

Post by Nasrudith »

dools wrote: post #240

The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…

Personally I have major dystopian rhetoric fatigue and think thr answer is that they need to collectively shut the hell up about authoritarian nightmares. Not in a censorship way but a "You people are being paniced dumbasses again in a way completely unhelpful even if you were right, and the sooner this stupid zeitgeist ends just like the 'terrorists planning on hitting the remote Iowa small town petting zoo' the better!" way.

The construct has become a worse than useless intellectual trap in multiple ways.

1. It immediately catastrophizes with the favorite of bird cage liners everywhere, bad extrapolations taken uncritically as gospel.

2. Instead of clarifying as a common touchstone frame of reference it becomes dystopia definition creep that undermines the very notion of bad outcomes as things to be avoided. Satirically succicently summed up as "Oh no, having to get a job by applying online is being enslaved by technology! Having to buy groceries? Enslaved by corporations!" "Abundance of food supply? Oh no! Overpopulation and obesity!"

3. It leads to the uber-dumbness of accelerationism and being so stubbornly married to being right about bad outcomes they outright seek to cause the "inevitable" as twisted vindication. It is doomsday prognostication but even stupider. Notably accelerationists have always been wrong about their "inevitable". The Manson family's "Helter Skelter" and dumbass idea of an apocalyptic race war.

What should be done instead of dystopianizing? Point out the actual non-remote hypothetical bad effects and the situation for why it is likely. "Counter situations" exist to many solid ideas. Levies when they hold and are overrun turn the "protected" area into a reservoir instead of letting the water potentially wash away. Conversly below sea level the natural tendency is towards flooding as waters will go towards you instead of away when they are unbound.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#585

Post by double_nan »

throwawaygh wrote: post #574
double_nan wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got your point, but what is the hill we should die on? I'd say censorship is the one.

> what is the hill we should die on? Substack's incentives are even worse than YouTube or Facebook. If you think YT and FB were good for western democracy, then I guess you can die on that hill. Otherwise, die on the hill of "fuck those profiteers and the very specific capitalists very much among us right now in this exact setting that enable them, who should probably know better by now"

There is a difference between fighting censorship and supporting a platform of the day. So fight censorship, don't support substack, YT, FB or anything else. On the side note: having many competing platforms help to fight censorship. So if you are serious about that I don't see how you can't support and promote diversity. Any road will start with the first steps anyway and having 5,10,50 platforms is better than having 3 platforms and seems like a good first step.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#586

Post by Robotbeat »

naasking wrote: post #465
MagnumOpus wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trick question, they will not have empathy for you either way. The paradox of tolerance is not a novel idea, and people from Plato to Popper have chewed through it, and it is pretty much incontrovertible by now that the only way that a society can remain open and tolerant is to not tolerate intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> and it is pretty much incontrovertible by now that the only way that a society can remain open and tolerant is to not tolerate intolerance. That is literally NOT what Popper says. Your own link refutes that point in Popper's own words.

Plus, like, empathy does not mean you tolerate bad behavior. Just means you don’t kill or expel them.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#587

Post by giantg2 »

vannevar wrote: post #582
giantg2 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population. The infectious diseases they talk about are from expansion of the disease carrier range (mosquitoes and ticks). These have mitigating factors to avoid the infections. There's very little cumulative risk and it's still largely location based. So this is a far cry from your example of cigarettes and ending up in a PSA. The risk i…

> Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population. You're looking at it through the individual lens again. The chances of an individual winning the lottery in any year are near zero, but the chances of there being some lottery winner in any year are near 100%. The chance of any one car trip resulting in an accident are extremely low, yet we still wear a seat belt consistently…

"You're looking at it through the individual lens again."

The entire point of this thread - that individuals shouldn't fear these things. Fear is at the individual level.

"we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint."

Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear. Even then, the occurrence of an accident when being careful is low enough that there is not fear when driving down the road. If there was substantial fear, then we wouldn't drive (like people I know who have a panic attack when driving).

"if you grossly underestimate all the cumulative risks associated with climate change."

They have yet to be fully disclosed/known and materialize. It's reasonable to not be afraid of something that does not yet exist.

"Simply handwaving away the death toll from insect-borne infection because they don't affect you personally doesn't make them any less real."

It's not hand waving. There are mitigating steps to be taken. It's certainly nothing to be afraid of for many people. Again, the component of the comment we are discussing.

"Drought, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are all correlated with increasing thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere. Something we should rationally fear and actively work to mitigate."

It's not rational to fear something that doesn't affect you. These things do not affect all areas. You can work to mitigate things without being afraid of them. I'm not afraid of those events as they largely don't affect my area, and I take steps to mitigate any damage from the ones rest do occur.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#588

Post by vannevar »

giantg2 wrote: post #587
vannevar wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population. You're looking at it through the individual lens again. The chances of an individual winning the lottery in any year are near zero, but the chances of there being some lottery winner in any year are near 100%. The chance of any one car trip resulting in an accident are extremely low, yet we still wear a seat belt consistently…

"You're looking at it through the individual lens again." The entire point of this thread - that individuals shouldn't fear these things. Fear is at the individual level. "we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint." Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear. Even then, the occurrence of an accident when being careful is low…

I think the basic problem here is that you attach strong negative connotations to the word "fear". But fear is useful to us, as in the seatbelt example:

> Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear.

My point was that we wear the seat belt because we fear having an accident without it. Just as we take mitigating actions against disease because we fear facing the disease without them.

> It's not rational to fear something that doesn't affect you.

Sure, if it truly does not and could not affect you. But global warming can affect every person on the planet. There is virtually nowhere that is immune to all of the direct and indirect effects. And even if there were such a place, human beings are interconnected economically and socially, so that if something negatively impacts people in one place, it can indirectly and negatively affect people elsewhere.

> You can work to mitigate things without being afraid of them.

Why would you work to mitigate something that was completely benign? You do it because you fear the possible consequences of not mitigating, the same reason you wear a seat belt. It is exactly this entirely rational fear that public officials use to justify mitigating global warming, the well-founded fear that if we don't, it will potentially cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#589

Post by Chymor »

vannevar wrote: post #588
giantg2 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're looking at it through the individual lens again." The entire point of this thread - that individuals shouldn't fear these things. Fear is at the individual level. "we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint." Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear. Even then, the occurrence of an accident when being careful is low…

I think the basic problem here is that you attach strong negative connotations to the word "fear". But fear is useful to us, as in the seatbelt example: > Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear. My point was that we wear the seat belt because we fear having an accident without it. Just as we take mitigating actions against disease because we fear…

Fear is an emotional motivation, and can be a cause for taking on the seatbelt. There are also logical motivations, such as the realization that I will be less injured if I have a seatbelt and an accident happens.

It’s not that the action of using a seatbelt is different, but my reason for doing that can be very different. This can also apply to Covid and other risk mitigation. And emotional motivations usually affects us humans more strongly than logical ones, so using them is good when you want to motivate more drastic actions. So most overreaches are motivated by emotional arguments, such as fear. Because of that it’s good to be skeptical about such arguments.

Re: Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse

#590

Post by vannevar »

vannevar wrote: post #588
giantg2 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're looking at it through the individual lens again." The entire point of this thread - that individuals shouldn't fear these things. Fear is at the individual level. "we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint." Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear. Even then, the occurrence of an accident when being careful is low…

I think the basic problem here is that you attach strong negative connotations to the word "fear". But fear is useful to us, as in the seatbelt example: > Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear. My point was that we wear the seat belt because we fear having an accident without it. Just as we take mitigating actions against disease because we fear…

People don't wear seat belts because they've thought to themselves, "I could be injured and therefore less capable if I don't wear a seat belt." They wear a seat belt because they (very rationally) fear death or serious injury. It's interesting that some folks have such a stigma about admitting fear, though. It's like the people who insist that advertising has no effect on them, just all those other weaklings.
Post reply on HN