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

How Lies Spread Online

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#101

Post by gaius »

bumholio wrote: post #14
sien wrote: post #6

You hire Judith Miller to write about WMDs. Then get 'quality' news to publish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller The cost of the NYT's 'disinformation' about Iraq was a war that cost hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.

It's quite unfair to compare misinformation campaigns orchestrated by the whole US government and it's intelligence agencies, as was the case with Iraq's WMDs, to online propaganda organized by private individuals to the benefit of various political candidates or their own online circulation. What happened with Iraq was not just fake news, it was fake governing, it was another order of magnitude. Miller and the NYT w…

It's quite unfair to compare misinformation campaigns orchestrated by the whole US government

Oh come on. The NYT et al have not hesitated or been reluctant in any way to criticise the current US government. They equally gleefully supported the WMD story because it suited them to do so, pandered to them feeling important.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#102

Post by Tycho »

You know what else spreads online? Truth that the mainstream media wont touch, or would rather suppress. Take for instance this smug, misrepresentative Washington Post editorial on a documentary about the geopolitically significant Magnitsky Act, a film which western audiences would probably never see if it wasn't for the internet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russian-agitprop-lan...

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#103

Post by andrewingram »

jibal wrote: post #100
andrewingram wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, but just because Trump won doesn’t mean they were wrong. According to their prediction, Trump wins in one in every fifty times. There might be plenty of reasons to believe their analysis was flawed, but by itself the fact the Trump won doesn’t actually imply that.

Actually, according to their prediction, Trump wins 3 in every 20 times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential...

Good to know, but my comment was on the assumption that the parent comment provided the correct percentage.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#105

Post by jibal »

andrewingram wrote: post #103
jibal wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, according to their prediction, Trump wins 3 in every 20 times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential...

Good to know, but my comment was on the assumption that the parent comment provided the correct percentage.

Well duh. But the point is that that assumption was both erroneous and unwarranted.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#106

Post by beaconstudios »

enraged_camel wrote: post #90
growlist wrote: post #43

In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth ov…

>>In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. As the saying goes, truth has a liberal bias. :)

it's funny that you mention liberalism because the common understanding of the meaning of "liberalism" has shifted over time. Classical liberalism is much closer to libertarianism than progressivism.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#107

Post by mirimir »

monocasa wrote: post #74
mirimir wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also my impression. I followed that closely. It's also my impression that the US intelligence community tried to warn the Bush administration about the 9/11 attackers, but that Condoleezza Rice blew them off.[0] 0) https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-director...

> It's also my impression that the US intelligence community tried to warn the Bush administration about the 9/11 attackers, but that Condoleezza Rice blew them off. Nah, the official report from the CIA was FOIAed. IMO this meme that the CIA saw it all right is just Washington internal politics leaking out. https://www.scribd.com/doc/259216899/Iraq-October-2002-NIE-o... Page 13 > High Confidence > * Iraq is continui…

But it wasn't just the CIA. I've read that the NSA had intercepts.[0] And regarding the NSA, I tend to trust Bamford. I also gather that NSA staff didn't want to reveal too many specifics, to avoid compromising methods etc, and that their reticence proved counterproductive.

The FBI were reportedly also close to the hijackers.[1] And they also have lots of data on Saudi connections.[2]

Also, there used to be an article on salon.com about a team of Mossad agents that was tracking the 9/11 hijackers. But now I don't find it. As I recall, there were connections to young Mossad agents in the US, who posed as artists, selling their work door-to-door.[3] I've also read that it was rather a rite of passage for young agents. With the US being relatively safe for training.

0) https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/21/missed-calls-nsa-terror...

1) https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129563&page=1

2) https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fbi-is-keeping-80000-secre...

3) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel...

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#108

Post by IshKebab »

jibal wrote: post #94
growlist wrote: post #43

In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth ov…

> either it's predominantly the right that lies Yes.

Yeah this is pretty clear to anyone who pays any attention.

The Brexit bus is an obvious recent example.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#109

Post by growlist »

jibal wrote: post #94
growlist wrote: post #43

In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth ov…

> either it's predominantly the right that lies Yes.

Do you honestly believe this? To what would you attribute the difference - for example do you think that the right are morally corrupted, and the left righteous?

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#110

Post by growlist »

IshKebab wrote: post #108
jibal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> either it's predominantly the right that lies Yes.

Yeah this is pretty clear to anyone who pays any attention. The Brexit bus is an obvious recent example.

Because Remain were whiter than white eh?

'Publishing Treasury analysis, [George Osborne] said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.'

Versus:

'That Immediate Brexit Recession - UK GDP Growth 0.6%, Best In Developed World'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-3635556...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/26/that-imm...

Post reply on HN