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

New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

techraptor.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–277 of 277 posts

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#271

Post by jsprogrammer »

mahranch wrote: post #184
jsprogrammer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is intentionally suppressing speech that you don't like, not censorship? It would seem to be the very definition of censorship.

I think it depends on the context. If I'm a mod on reddit and I remove a submission because it's a clear rule breaker, am I censoring the person who posted it, or am I performing content curation? Which is the more accurate term to use? It might be technically correct to call water a 'clear liquid', but isn't there a better term or name to use, a more accurate and descriptive term to use? A clear liquid can also refe…

>I think it depends on the context. If I'm a mod on reddit and I remove a submission because it's a clear rule breaker, am I censoring the person who posted it, or am I performing content curation? Which is the more accurate term to use?

If you remove speech you don't like, it is censorship.

Curation would be tagging content for a front-end filter that excludes content based on its configuration.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#272

Post by innguest »

cmdrfred wrote: post #216
innguest wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of prejudice in your sentence. Having some experience in this debate topic, I don't think there are "holocaust deniers", there are only gas chamber skeptics. Same with "anti vaccination nuts", I think there are only people that are against forced vaccination. No one is against you vaccinating your kids and living in a town where only vaccinated people are allowed. If arguments were as simple as you're p…

I don't think there are "holocaust deniers", there are only gas chamber skeptics. I don't want to give any publicity to such idiocy but here you go: http://expeltheparasite.com/2013/10/28/the-holocaust-hoax-it... http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html

Indeed it is this kind of idiocy that turns people off revisionism altogether, when in fact it is a serious field that has contributed enormously to progressing the much needed, and much stifled, research on WW2 atrocities.

For the intellectually curious I'd say steer clear of any website with a swastika. Start with Skeptic magazine's Michael Shermer "holocaust debate" with Mark Weber (available on Youtube) for a civilized discussion, based on documents, among intellectually honest people. If you want something to read regarding revisionist arguments, I can recommend Arthur Butz's PDF book (a fellow computer scientist) available online. For the mainstream arguments I recommend the relevant parts of Hilberg and Arad and then Pressac's books on gas chamber operations. This will equip the student with enough knowledge to be able to talk about the subject intelligently.

This was the only safe way I could find of starting this research since a lot of material online seems hell-bent on blaming Jews for everything. I never understood this spurious connection. I don't hate anyone, and I was curious to know how exactly millions of people could have been killed in such a systematic way. So I started looking for material without the hatred and it does exist, but it leads down a deep rabbit hole with very few certainties. Gas chambers are one of the hardest problems for historians to explain and the most prominent researcher in this area, Jean-Claude Pressac, has switched between mainstream and revisionism a few times because of that. That much should entice the potential student.

Near-unanimity among academics happens when there is great political pressure. Even the Pope's political enemies in the 13th century conceded to his altered version of 4th century history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine) that was used as a device to support the Pope's political authority. Today, Israel needs a similar political authority, and as Norman Finkelstein argues, it finds such authority in the mainstream holocaust narrative. Hence the political pressure against progress in this field, and hence the laws against discussing it in Europe.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#273

Post by innguest »

DanBC wrote: post #211
innguest wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of prejudice in your sentence. Having some experience in this debate topic, I don't think there are "holocaust deniers", there are only gas chamber skeptics. Same with "anti vaccination nuts", I think there are only people that are against forced vaccination. No one is against you vaccinating your kids and living in a town where only vaccinated people are allowed. If arguments were as simple as you're p…

EDIT: I should have searched for [innguest holocaust] before answering. There are plenty of people who think the holocaust - all of it - is a lie. And even if we accept your much more limited version of what a holocaust denier is - "the holocaust happened but the gas chambers didn't" - well, that's wrong too. And there are plenty of people who campaign vigorously to stop other people's children being vaccinated, who…

Regarding the holocaust, see all I have to say about it in my other reply below.

As for vaccination... look, I am not against vaccines, I was vaccinated. I don't think vaccines are harmful. But I am intellectually honest enough to understand their arguments and to see you're distorting them.

Just like a Christian should proselytize and try to convert me if they actually believe I am going to hell, so should an anti-vaccination person that believes vaccines do harm and want to convince others about it. It took me a while to understand this. Penn Jillette makes this point here in 1 minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk

That anti-vaccine people proselytize tells me they are genuine and I should look into what they have to say and exchange ideas with them to see where they are wrong and where I might be wrong.

If they don't proselytize how do you suggest they bring up their concerns? I am for the free market of ideas. I am always skeptical of those that don't engage in debates because the other side is "clearly wrong".

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#274

Post by DanBC »

innguest wrote: post #273
DanBC wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I should have searched for [innguest holocaust] before answering. There are plenty of people who think the holocaust - all of it - is a lie. And even if we accept your much more limited version of what a holocaust denier is - "the holocaust happened but the gas chambers didn't" - well, that's wrong too. And there are plenty of people who campaign vigorously to stop other people's children being vaccinated, who…

Regarding the holocaust, see all I have to say about it in my other reply below. As for vaccination... look, I am not against vaccines, I was vaccinated. I don't think vaccines are harmful. But I am intellectually honest enough to understand their arguments and to see you're distorting them. Just like a Christian should proselytize and try to convert me if they actually believe I am going to hell, so should an anti-v…

You said

> Same with "anti vaccination nuts", I think there are only people that are against forced vaccination. No one is against you vaccinating your kids and living in a town where only vaccinated people are allowed.

I was responding to that. There are people who are against all vaccination; people who think you are harming your children if you vaccinate them. You are wrong to suggest that those people do not exist.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#276

Post by thesimpsons1022 »

tptacek wrote: post #109
mc32 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my pet peeves with reporters and writers is that they believe themselves to be studied, enlightened and informed, more so than their audience. And if true this would be great. If true they could inform me and give me better understanding of the world around me. Sadly, I find, most of them rely on gut, opinion and lack rigor. They lack basic scientific investigative techniques. So we end up reading mostly opini…

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the mainstream US news media consists of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, and the Washington Post. Could you cite an example in any of those four publications where undue weight was given to "antivax" people? Just so you know: I 1000% agree with you that giving equal weight to antivax crazies and professional epidemiologists would constitute "un…

most people don't get their news from print media as far as i know.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#277

Post by gambler »

gambler wrote: post #56
rory096 wrote: post #4

I was hoping someone would write about how bad this article was. (Shocked to see it's the same one as the pretty good piece from earlier.) The worst part to me was the article quoting Mitch Kapor to back up its implicit support of internet censorship: >...charges that bullying, harassment and cruel behavior are out of control on the web... >Mitch Kapor, a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that R…

Yeah, it's a pretty good example of what has become of news reporting. It has an instance of almost every common issue, except misinterpreting statistics. Emotionally loaded language. Blatant fact framing. Suppositions. Presenting one side of a controversial issue as an opinion of absolute majority. Manufacturing "context" out of true, but mostly unrelated facts. It's especially striking in contrast to the original,…

I missed one: citing cherry-picked "experts".
Post reply on HN