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

Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

digitalnewsasia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#131

Post by NovaS1X »

angersock wrote: post #127
Htsthbjig wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was just the start: http://vimeo.com/85948693 Now companies and big governments are analyzing network graphs in real time thanks to Facebook. They can test people's reaction on real time to anything. I don't believe that Apple's success is just about Advertisement, I use their products a lot because they are very good products. When I was a kid I did not have money so I bought all computer gear myself looking fo…

Was your post just an elaborate example of this sort of organic advertising and astroturfing?

It sure looks like it to me. Notice how the flow of his conversation goes from on topic to something completely non-relevant that hits close to home on HN and is quite relevant/important to the members here.

The reply to that comment could be or is an example of how forum-sliding can be obtained with multiple accounts.

How do we know that those up votes are legitimate too?

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#132

Post by NovaS1X »

jschwartzi wrote: post #115
tptacek wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you should be able to provide an example of an NSA thread on HN where a sockpuppet diverted the conversation to infighting between people otherwise sharing common ground. I don't think standards groups need a lot of help concern-trolling complexity into standards. The exact same force is exerted on more benign standards; watch HTML for example. Here's a rebuttal framework: select a NIST crypto standard and show a…

I would actually really love to see this. Could you find the HTML working group thread or does it have to be a competition?

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable.

he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#133

Post by ddingus »

zbyte64 wrote: post #129
ddingus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but I have different hypotheses on the mechanism and motivation of the players. Of course you do! This kind of discussion needs to be out in the open to a far greater degree than it currently is. Your last statements are good food for thought. Thanks. Likewise on sympathies. This thread has got me thinking on ways to put some basic information out there in the hopes of a greater dialog.

This thread is blowing my mind. Please continue to share. I really like the idea that models are often formed prematurely and the reference to pokemon cards. One metaphor I use allot is that our values are like a deck of cards, some values are ranked higher then others. The ranking is determined in part by a recursive function (shuffling or playing a game of go fish) but also by functional requirements to justify the…

Doesn't that just work? What? You hit me with a baby killer +2? Here's a fuck the poor +5, how do you like them apples?

lol It really seems that way so often to me.

And yes! Bible verses. That is where the Pokemon thing in me came from. Was on a thread, and one of 'em dropped a verse, and soon, it was just like a game.

So I dropped Marley 4:20, you all fuck off and left. Not the best form, I know. But gratifying because that did blow up the little game and it was a total dodge in the form of massive subject change to pot.

Justification and affirmation drive huge amounts of the dialog.

Here's something from my own life you might find interesting, and this is the root of some of what I write here.

Coming out of school, and out of a hate church, I was left with some homophobia and some angst over biracial marriage of all things.

Met a good friend at work. She and I clicked, and eventually the running conversation bumped into both of those and she nailed me big.

Right there is a moment of character of sorts. For me, I could see it wrong, and I could see I really should improve, so I did. Took that stuff on the drive home and questioned all of it. Eventually resolved it for my own reason, which was just to be of better character, and it was done.

But, people can choose to defend, and if they do, they head down that path of justification and affirmation and part of their self-definition gets linked to specific issues policy vision kinds of things.

In my case, the debate mattered. I valued the other person, and they me, and so there was no real shame sorting it out. I was from a small town, and honestly, that kind of thing can just happen.

But, I could have taken another path then, and I could imagine myself today crippled in the debate because I would have a very deep, personal investment in making sure some specifics I need to feel good about who I am stay in place.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#134

Post by ddingus »

protonfish wrote: post #123
ddingus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, maybe I should publish. I'm not sure how, or what an appropriate context is. After mulling your comment over, I realize the best path on this might be to provide open information. This is likely to operate under the same kinds of dynamics information security currently does. So, let me just put it out there, maybe sort of a mini "Ask HN?" Really, I'm unsure how to proceed. I understand quite a bit about this an…

So much here... It's nice that despite all the nonsense to be found on Internet posts, there can be some quality thought if you patiently wade through the junk first. I know what you mean about how best to share your work. I am sitting on a bunch of AI research that others might be interested in and I am not sure how best to document and share, especially while not working in academia. A book, video, or web site mayb…

Again, after mulling it over, I think both our models have significant merit, and they are incomplete.

Errors mostly have no personal reinforcement. They get corrected mostly over time. Agreed.

What I was getting at is a more deliberate error, or a forced one. The deliberate error is something like seeking affirmation for a character issue. Racist seeks reinforcement for racism rather than enlightenment to get past racism. The forced error could be something like an authoritarian childhood elevating dogma to fact, seriously impacting that person and their ability to grow and be objective.

Dominance / submission does drive a lot. And I do see a very clear connection between that and online dialog in that people who maybe are subs in most of their life get online and are free to be that dom they dream about being...

I tend to disagree about "the core social desire", but I do agree about it being "a social desire", among many other ones.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#135

Post by JonnieCache »

selmnoo wrote: post #25
fidotron wrote: post #7

Of course, this place isn't immune to it. That includes all the usual suspect discussions (NSA, Palestine, China, Russia etc.) but more visibly with the employees of certain companies. One of the more curious things you can do on HN to distract from a story is to start a tangential flamewar in the comments on it, but my single favourite way I see to bury things around here is to ask for detailed citations to data for…

The fascinating thing is, you can't stop the ads on HN from the big big players, because it's effectively accounted as being real news. Zuckerberg held the second public Q&A session the other day, that promised him some news. Then there was that article about a woman engineer at Facebook, the story appeals very appropriately to current events and the emotional zeitgeist of the tech industry, and there was that whole…

Here's a fun article about facebook's postmodern propaganda:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/01/randi_zuckerberg.html

Part 2: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/03/who_can_know_how_much...

Note: one may well disagree with some of the things he says. Try not to freak out.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#136

Post by pekk »

sk5t wrote: post #128
pmoriarty wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Apple. I too used to use Gentoo, though it was far from my first Linux OS, and Linux was not my first Unix-like OS. I'll spare you the recounting of my entire computer-use history, except to say that I've used a wide variety of operating system over a period of decades, both as a user, sysadmin, and a developer. I've hated Windows since it was invented, and hated Microsoft before even then, back in the DOS day…

As a counter to the notion that "they're really not as technical as they think," I'd argue that the professional user has to pick and choose his battles. Spending half a day futzing with window manager and X server configurations--whether due to new hardware, an incompatible patch, or something else--really, really hurts when it stands in the way of programming.

Mainstream Linux distros have not required those things for many years.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#137

Post by dandelion_lover »

ddingus wrote: post #75
protonfish wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt there is much written on this. It is a very new area (other that the traditional logic fallacies which still work as well as they always have) and if there is serious research being done it is probably proprietary - it's more valuable to use it secretly. Your work is some the best I've seen on online conversation manipulation. Keep up the good work.

Well, maybe I should publish. I'm not sure how, or what an appropriate context is. After mulling your comment over, I realize the best path on this might be to provide open information. This is likely to operate under the same kinds of dynamics information security currently does. So, let me just put it out there, maybe sort of a mini "Ask HN?" Really, I'm unsure how to proceed. I understand quite a bit about this an…

> Well, maybe I should publish. I'm not sure how, or what an appropriate context is.

If you don't mind revealing your identity, arxiv.org should be a good choice. It allows online publishing with open access for free without peer-review, and it is used by academic researchers a lot (including myself).

In case you prefer to stay anonymous, you may try to send them an email explaining the reasons for that.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#138

Post by jsprogrammer »

NovaS1X wrote: post #132
jschwartzi wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually really love to see this. Could you find the HTML working group thread or does it have to be a competition?

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable. he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

Sockpuppets confirmed on HN.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#139

Post by xorcist »

sitkack wrote: post #88
tptacek wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you should be able to provide an example of an NSA thread on HN where a sockpuppet diverted the conversation to infighting between people otherwise sharing common ground. I don't think standards groups need a lot of help concern-trolling complexity into standards. The exact same force is exerted on more benign standards; watch HTML for example. Here's a rebuttal framework: select a NIST crypto standard and show a…

I often think your elequonce with the keyboard and Spock like logical argumentation sets people off by dropping 'cite bombs like debate star.

Especially when having no citations of his own. It's mainly used as a tool to deflect the debate into a meta-debate about citation qualities.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#140

Post by ownagefool »

NovaS1X wrote: post #132
jschwartzi wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually really love to see this. Could you find the HTML working group thread or does it have to be a competition?

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable. he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

I've no doubt that people ask for citation in the manner suggested, but the gp had a resonable point. In the absense of evidence, it's better to assume what's going on is organic to online discussions.

If you've been on the internet for the last 10 years, this is easy to believe. If not, just visit the phoronix fourms. You'll be astounded by the batshit insane folks.

Post reply on HN