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

DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–865 of 865 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#861

Post by CRConrad »

account42 wrote: post #855
CRConrad wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument I'm hearing is that most people are stupid and those stupid people aren't smart enough to know better Yup, exactly. And that argument is correct. > this was the same argument used to perpetuate slavery. > Edit: Elaborated my argument. No, created a huge strawman.

Who do you think is smart enough to decide what the plebs should be allowed to hear and see? You?

Any engineer who is as smart as the SEO-gaming trolls spreading disinformation from the RNC or the St Petersburg "Factory", and can write search engine rules to undo theirs.

And the "plebs" would still "be allowed to hear and see" the fake news; un-gaming the Troll SEO will just put their dreck down on the eighth page of search results where it belongs, in stead of the first. (Well, "will"... Easily could, if it gets implemented that way. Which is all at least I would ask of the search engines.)

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#862

Post by docmars »

CRConrad wrote: post #856
docmars wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea that this many people have been duped by disinformation campaigns is in bad faith. People wouldn't be seeking alternative sources if they had any reason to trust mainstream corporate media, and the latter has proven themselves deeply untrustworthy given the number of political scandals and manufactured crises they have grossly misrepresented by cheering them on and making it clear that critical think…

> So of course people are going to seek sources that do not gaslight them and condescendingly hand them down information And what they find are usually other sources which gaslight them far more, but whose (dis)information they then proselytise as if they've Done Their Own Research and finally Seen The Light.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely zero sense. Gaslighting your audience means you, as a publisher of information, openly states to your viewers that they aren't capable of finding credible information themselves, and discerning what's true or false. It's also the process of declaring information as "misinformation" and having your audience prove you wrong over and over again — or through more official processes like Congressional hearings, courts, etc. finding that swaths of information shared by the corporate media was largely false after all.

It's telling intelligent people they are less capable than they really are. Truly, no one can make that suggestion without some level of hubris and high-horsed thinking, undeserving of anyone's attention.

Again, these are valid reasons why so many people do no trust our institutions responsible for conveying accurate information with as little bias as possible, which barely exists today, and thus independent journalism has quite successfully taken their place, and as a result, corporate media giants attack these lesser sources as their viewers and ratings observably and objectively plummet (as reported).

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#863

Post by CRConrad »

docmars wrote: post #862
CRConrad wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So of course people are going to seek sources that do not gaslight them and condescendingly hand them down information And what they find are usually other sources which gaslight them far more, but whose (dis)information they then proselytise as if they've Done Their Own Research and finally Seen The Light.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely zero sense. Gaslighting your audience means you, as a publisher of information, openly states to your viewers that they aren't capable of finding credible information themselves, and discerning what's true or false. It's also the process of declaring information as "misinformation" and having your audience prove you wrong over and over again — or through more official processes li…

> I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely zero sense.

Not to you, perhaps, but it looks to me like this is because you have a weird definition of gaslighting.

> Gaslighting your audience means you, as a publisher of information, openly states to your viewers that they aren't capable of finding credible information themselves, and discerning what's true or false.

No. As I've understood it, the whole idea is not to say that openly, but only to imply it, so your audience (=victim) comes to the erroneous conclusion that yours is the only "truth" they can trust on their own.

> It's also the process of declaring information as "misinformation" and having your audience prove you wrong over and over again — or through more official processes like Congressional hearings, courts, etc. finding that swaths of information shared by the corporate media was largely false after all.

Huh? That's "the process of" gaslighting?!? No, that has absolutely fuck-all to do with it, AFAIK. Pretty sure Hitchcock wouldn't have the faintest idea WTF you're on about. I, OTOH, (unfortunately) do have all too good an idea of what this rant means: That you are yourself thoroughly gaslighted -- or fully brainwashed -- by stark raving MAGAhats.

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#864

Post by OtomotO »

Black_Antlers wrote: post #860
OtomotO wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in the eyes of the bigot their bigotry is totally justified. So it all boils down to "but I am right, trust me, my bigotry is totally justified" But yes, you're right with your assessment, that I view being tolerant as an absolute state. From my point of view being "a little" tolerant or "being 98% tolerant" is the same as not being tolerant at all. Being tolerant doesn't mean that I won't defend my values or sta…

> So it all boils down to "but I am right, trust me, my bigotry is totally justified" Are you suggesting here that bigotry against Nazis is not justified? Or if not then what argument are you making? What do you hope to achieve with it? Nazis will always argue freedom of expression and make the argument you are making while it benefits them. They were democratically elected after all. But this doesn't mean they actua…

> Are you suggesting here that bigotry against Nazis is not justified?

What exactly do you expect me to answer here?

If I say no, I created kind of an ex falso quodlibet situation, a contradiction (from some points of view)

If I say yes, I am labeled as a Nazi, because what else could I be?

This technique didn't work in ancient Rome, it doesn't now.

I never was a Nazi, nor will I ever be one. I can sleep well saying that not once in my life have I felt superior to anyone because my skin color is white or because I am male. The thought simply never occurred to me (apart from analyzing the existence of such thoughts in others)

But, yes, I want to reach out to Nazis, because the majority of them are "lost souls" (no, I am not religious by any means) and not the hardcore people that really know what they are doing.

> Good on you for supporting that I guess?

See, ad hominems also don't work on me. (They may work on bystanders though)

Re: DuckDuckGo “down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation”

#865

Post by chinchilla2020 »

somenameforme wrote: post #143
chinchilla2020 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any links to this? I would love to watch some old videos from that time.

Not videos, but these two articles played a formative role in my worldview (related to Iraq): WaPo: "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i... NYTimes: "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u... I find it extremely interesting to occasionally reread those knowing what we know now. And nothing has changed, except for now there is…

I finally got around to reading it.

What an absolute shock. Even though I have the benefit of hindsight and know how the story ends, it is still incredible to read the article and feel the confidence emanating from the journalist. The whole thing has an air of well-researched credibility - the professionalism you would expect from an authoritative source.

Yet it is dead wrong about the facts.

It really makes you wonder what else we hear that is blatantly false but do not question it.

Post reply on HN