Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online • Hacker News Board

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#461

Post by bloaf » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:14 AM UTC

data_acquired wrote: post #192

Notable blurb from the report itself --- "However, whilst this approach [content removal] may be effective and essential for illegal content (eg hate speech, terrorist content, child sexual abuse material) there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach for scientific misinformation, and approaches to addressing the amplification of misinformation may be more effective. In addition, demonstrati…

Don't forget the flawed test kits the CDC sent out at first: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/929078678/cdc-report-official...

I agree that the link between online misinformation and real world harms is tough to measure. I've read some studies of radicalization that found meatspace was the primary avenue for radicalizing, even if cyperspace allowed extremist groups to raise more awareness, and I suspect the same is currently true here.

However, I don't think this is some "constant of human nature" and is more likely an accident of our current society. As people grow up with and on the internet, I would expect this to change: I would expect the link between online communication and radicalization to strengthen over time.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#462

Post by AussieWog93 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:15 AM UTC

emilsedgh wrote: post #446

AussieWog93 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP here - I honestly think we're honestly mostly in agreement! It's obviously not a completely worthless institution - there have clearly been some impressive discoveries despite all of the bullshit. I think the main source of distrust comes from the jarring disconnect between the way that the institution is presented to the public vs. the way it actually functions in real life. "Messy" is a beautiful way to describe…

Your comment makes it sound like there's an agenda in some entity consciously misrepresenting how acamedia works. But academia is really accessible to public nowadays. The problem, in my opinion, is how external entities treat science. Some examples: * Media reporting low grade papers as "Science" which constantly contradict each other. "Scientists found out $something causes cancer", then a year after that "Scientis…

>Your comment makes it sound like there's an agenda in some entity consciously misrepresenting how acamedia works.

There absolutely is. Scientists and universities are constantly declaring themselves to be bastions of reason and enlightenment, and their research that they themselves know is shit to be of great significance and rigor.

I'm not even talking about the outright corruption that you mentioned - just the more mundane things like researchers publishing papers with completely useless/misleading information (e.g. testing a ML algorithm on a single dataset and declaring it as a breakthrough in neurosignal decoding) just to get those updoots from your mates.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#463

Post by cletus » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:16 AM UTC

tempf4h8f44f8f wrote: post #271

cletus wrote: post #79

The only positive for me from this misinformation plague is that as soon as the next issue comes along all of the anti-Covid vaccine sentiment will be completely forgotten. Don't believe me? When was the last time you heard about the MMR vaccine causing autism? The "good" part of this is that rejection of science, politicization of science and the use of this issue to manipulate people who somehow claim to be "free"…

> I don't think we should be worried about censorship of misinformation. My parents coming from a communist nation (Yugoslavia) I strongly disagree with this. Who determines what is truth and what is misinformation? One of the major arguments communists used to oppress speech was to prevent panic and the spread of misinformation. (Misinformation being anything that wasn't pro-communist) Imagine that the worst and mos…

The situations aren't comparable because in your case (the former Yugoslavia) you're talking about state censorship and control of information by threat of criminal prosecution. The US specifically has protections against this via the First Amendment.

Instead we have private actors choosing not to be in the misinformation business. Various hate groups and such have been deplatformed by Twitter, Facebook, etc. Those fringe sources still exist. They're just in darker corners of the Internet. They're not entitled to free, mass distribution just to spew lies without recourse.

Lastly, it's worth pointing out that we censor things all the time as it is when there is an overriding interest in doing so. Examples: criminal cases involving minors (ie their names), naming certain victims in court cases, courts sealing records, publishing of military secrets, publishing of dangerous information (eg how to make a biological weapon), information to doxx/swat people and so on.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#464

Post by skissane » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:17 AM UTC

xdennis wrote: post #450

skissane wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people accept that science in past generations was, to a certain degree, corrupted by the prevailing prejudices and societal/cultural/political/ideological beliefs of the time. But, if we acknowledge that was true then – why shouldn't we expect the same to be true now? The prevailing prejudices and ideologies may have changed, but has anything changed about the actual practice of science to make it more immune t…

> Most people accept that science in past generations was, to a certain degree, corrupted by the prevailing prejudices and societal/cultural/political/ideological beliefs of the time. Why say "in the past"? Do you think it's not now?

I don't think you've understood me. You sound like you are disagreeing with me, and yet you are saying (more or less) the same thing as I was.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#465

Post by function_seven » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:19 AM UTC

anitil wrote: post #232

nsainsbury wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science does eventually self-correct, but unfortunately it takes far too long to do so. One area I've studied pretty extensively is the history of cancer treatment. In the long story of the history of cancer treatment, it is absolutely scandalous how often the scientific consensus was wrong and persisted for years in spite of the evidence. For example, the radical mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer continu…

The oil drop experiment was a nice example of this same phenomenon - a slow correction over time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment I remember seeing a plot of the values over time, but my google-fu is failing me.

I found this article that has a whisker plot.

https://alexholcombe.medium.com/confirmation-bias-in-science...

It that the one you remember?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#466

Post by AussieWog93 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:20 AM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #113

AussieWog93 wrote: post #87

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

> Most research is flawed or useless, but published anyway because it's expedient for the authors to do so. For the record I now know a professor at one of the premier institutions in the world, who is a total fraud. Their research was fraudulent in grad school. Their lab mates tried to raise concerns and nothing happened. That person graduated, with everyone on the committee knowing the issues. Then they got a premi…

>There are many examples, at the end of the day... the people in the institutions will protect themselves.

This extends well beyond the science itself, for what it's worth. It's an open secret in every department that professors X, Y and Z have the same level of sexual restraint as Harvey Weinstein. It doesn't stop the "woke" institutions doing everything they can to protect these professors' reputations, though.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#467

Post by xdennis » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:25 AM UTC

cgrealy wrote: post #402

BurningFrog wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument pretends that diet is the only cause of death.

No, it doesn't. It acknowledges that a diet for hunter-gatherers that rarely lived to 50 might not be best diet for a people who expend less energy and live far longer.

I don't buy the paleo stuff, but you're not disproving it. We don't live longer lives purely because of our diet.

Also, low life-expectancy in the past was in large part because of child/infant mortality, not croaking at 50.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#468

Post by beerandt » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

emilsedgh wrote: post #446

AussieWog93 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP here - I honestly think we're honestly mostly in agreement! It's obviously not a completely worthless institution - there have clearly been some impressive discoveries despite all of the bullshit. I think the main source of distrust comes from the jarring disconnect between the way that the institution is presented to the public vs. the way it actually functions in real life. "Messy" is a beautiful way to describe…

Your comment makes it sound like there's an agenda in some entity consciously misrepresenting how acamedia works. But academia is really accessible to public nowadays. The problem, in my opinion, is how external entities treat science. Some examples: * Media reporting low grade papers as "Science" which constantly contradict each other. "Scientists found out $something causes cancer", then a year after that "Scientis…

Even when something in academia doesn't have an agenda, it will be interpreted by everyone else as if it does.

Despite all the brilliant minds and appearance of professionalism and pride and campus pageantry...

it's easily a much more insecure, drama-filled, immature, and petty social dynamic and environment than most high schools.

That seems imo to be due to a combination of academia itself and a govt (or govt style) administration apparatus, where everyone is constantly trying convince everyone else of the importance of what it is they do.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#469

Post by svnt » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #383

kortex wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, but no. You want to avoid any systematic bias, which if you reuse tooling/instruments/code, you run the risk of, but source code is also something which can be peer-reviewed. Reproducing the code base from scratch just isn't going to be tractable for large scientific pieces of software (e.g. CERN). Better to have the source code and dig through it carefully as part of the review and replication than insist…

Suppose someone decided to build another LHC, but to save money they would use exactly the same design, constriction crew, and code used to build the first one. Would you consider that a perfectly reasonable choice or would it seem risky? That said I am all for peer reviewing code, but that’s not where this ends up. People are going to reuse code they don’t bother to dig into because people are people. The obvious ne…

I’m going to be upfront and say I don’t understand your position You seem to be making a number of questionable assumptions: 1) That people would blindly reuse code to the harm of science, including on a multi-billion dollar project like an LHC. That’s not likely to ever happen. 2) That rejecting those who plagiarize others’ code in a peer-review process is somehow excessive or problematic.

I can’t begin to understand where you are coming from.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#470

Post by chefandy » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

concinds wrote: post #219

throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time. So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc. We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Be…

I'm skeptical that education is a solution to collapsing societal trust. First, the primary organs that would be capable of this education are the media, who have a profit motive to stoke any and all fears (immigration, radiological warfare, world war, coffee being carcinogenic). Second, I think this distrust goes beyond "the CDC said something wrong once, I don't trust them as much anymore." That could be solved wit…

I'm also skeptical. An unprecedented percentage of Americans have well over a decade of full-time education, yet here we are. People question it's quality or assert that some degree-holding buffoon proves it worthless, but I doubt they have convincing empirical evidence that our population knew more in another era.