11–20 of 150 posts
If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy. The next logical step is to decide how to blunt the will of the misinformed voter.
That’s like saying we have to give up on capitalism because people can commit fraud. Targeted electoral misinformation is a fixable problem.
It's hard to come up with good policy around this outside of educating people.
If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy. The next logical step is to decide how to blunt the will of the misinformed voter.
What if the voters choose an outcome you just don't happen to like? Is that all of a sudden undemocratic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem is the part of the quote you left out, "even when it means questioning our own beliefs.” I don't meet many people these days who are willing to do that, and I suspect that a scary percentage of them aren't capable of questioning their own beliefs.
Fundamental attribution error. It is not good to assume a mental defect on vast swaths of the population. That itself is attributing an irrational motive for their actions before considering if there may be a rational one. That is itself is the definition of uncharity. (But in a different capacity that what I outlined above) Again, consider that many of these folks are doing so from a rational choice, which is to def…
I started digging into things I had taken for granted such as Breibart being this racist place that only does fake news, Ben Shapiro probably was pretty extreme because he was alt right etc, Milo was a racist homophobe, Bannon was a white supremacist etc.
It ended up being a 6-month journey where I actually sat down and listened to what they had to say, which luckily is now possible because of the long interview formats that's been popping up on youtube like Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin etc.
And I must say that while I am still pro-abortion, pro gets married to whomever you want etc. I have a much better appreciation for what people I disagree with actually are saying and I can listen to it and actually argue without shaming them simply for being on the "wrong side". None of those people were the moral monsters I would normally read about whenever the alt-right was described. They were mostly people who actually could argue for their positions, positions I didn't always agree with but at least now understood better.
I have personally experienced now being shamed and people trying to go after my business simply because of some of my comments, even on HN.
The real danger of misinformation is the one we create for ourselves when we listen to what others say and interpret that.
I like the term strong-manning instead of straw-manning i.e. trying to position the argument of whoever you are debating in the strongest possible position rather than trying to go after their morals as the first thing.
In other words, most misinformation is the way we interpret things ourselves, not what was said or meant.
I would encourage you anyone to try just once in their life to take the "other sides" arguments seriously, hear them out and then figure out what exactly you disagree with them about and whether it's actually as much as you think when all comes to all.
No, absolutely not Alex.
The fact that these massive tech monopolies are so powerful that it's now just taken for granted that they are pseudo-governmental entities should be a wake up call for everyone. It's high time we start talking about anti-trust and the breakup of Facebook, Google, Amazon, and maybe others. This is completely unacceptable.
Our laws are woefully out of date, they were written when the only foreseeable damage from companies this large and powerful was pricing abuse. The damage they have caused is far more extensive and severe than that, we need new laws and aggressive anit-trust/anti-monopoly stances to undo this damage, hopefully before it becomes too late to stop them at all.
If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy. The next logical step is to decide how to blunt the will of the misinformed voter.
> If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy That’s like saying we have to give up on capitalism because people can commit fraud. Targeted electoral misinformation is a fixable problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fundamental attribution error. It is not good to assume a mental defect on vast swaths of the population. That itself is attributing an irrational motive for their actions before considering if there may be a rational one. That is itself is the definition of uncharity. (But in a different capacity that what I outlined above) Again, consider that many of these folks are doing so from a rational choice, which is to def…
Well, I guess that's what I'm getting at: is it really rational to assume that it's a zero-sum game? The history I've studied indicates it is not, at least until the totalitarians show up. But the antidote to totalitarianism isn't better totalitarianism, it is refusing to look at your neighbors as politically binary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem is the part of the quote you left out, "even when it means questioning our own beliefs.” I don't meet many people these days who are willing to do that, and I suspect that a scary percentage of them aren't capable of questioning their own beliefs.
Fundamental attribution error. It is not good to assume a mental defect on vast swaths of the population. That itself is attributing an irrational motive for their actions before considering if there may be a rational one. That is itself is the definition of uncharity. (But in a different capacity that what I outlined above) Again, consider that many of these folks are doing so from a rational choice, which is to def…
E.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
Seems to me, honestly, like a fair hypothesis for our tribal behavior. Moreso, to be honest, than the majority of people "understanding it to be a zero-sum contest".
Do you think that's too cynical?