Live data from Hacker News

Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

theverge.com

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United Stares is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy. Democracy is not the opposite of a republic. Monarchy is.

True as long as the representative democracy doesn’t infringe on the individual’s constitutional rights. That’s where the democracy bit gives way to the judicial branch. Of coarse with a politicized court you’re right back to the ills of a democracy.

What you’re saying is still true in a constitutional monarchy. Being a republic or democracy doesn’t matter. Its the constitutional part that’s important.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#112
post #98

> Congress should update its laws regarding political advertisers, and social media users need to “adjust to a media environment in which several dozen gatekeepers no longer control what is newsworthy.” What is happening as been happening all along, for years. The now difference is who is doing the influencing; for what ends; and yes the how has changed but that's not really what's causing the friction. For Stamos to…

Yeah, I think it all basically comes down to: The internet is destroying existing power structures, and giving control to alternative media sources/platforms/whatever that people are starting to trust more than the 'mainstream' ones. So all the hand wringing and fake news paranoia and what not feels like a desparate, last ditch attempt by those who did well before to try and cram the internet/social media genie back…

> "The internet is destroying existing power structures, and giving control to alternative media sources/platforms/whatever that people are starting to trust more than the 'mainstream' ones."

Yes. But not only sources of info but __more importantly__ ways for people to organize into groups. I'm not talking about protests and such but getting shit done. Traditionally, this was the role of gov and other power structures. Yes, there are now viable - and likely more effective - alternatives to such traditions.

To your point, this explains all the divisiveness. Things are being taken to extremes (by the DNC, Mainstream Media, GOP and their associated Big Inc partners) in order to maintain a belief that they need to exist and continue to hold so much power. The show also serves as a distraction.

Something has to give. But I feel history says it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#113
post #2

> the ultimate ‘last line of defense’ will be users who are willing to question ‘what they see and hear’ Nobody cares because they're more interested in their team winning, by whatever means necessary, than being charitable. > who recently stepped down from his role as Chief Security Officer ... But couldn't make that argument or be effective in that capacity while employed. That is why we need something like codeter…

> Nobody cares because they're more interested in their team winning, by whatever means necessary, than being charitable. I'd say that few people have a reason to care about the truth at all at this level. Take natural world: people will believe whatever bullshit someone sells to them, because unless you're a scientist or engineer in a field that requires you to be right, the lie has zero first-order impact on your l…

> has little first-order impact on their lives

I'm inclined to agree with you on this point.

But I wonder why/how the group feels so passionate about these first order impacts and coordinate acts and values, if the individuals see little first-order impacts on their lives (and are just acting socially as you describe)

Somehow the group is perceiving effects differently than individuals then

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#114
post #55

Oh please. The headline might as well have been: We need to protect people from information and ideas we don't agree with. Freedom of speech is not just about speech, its about ideas. Nobody should ever be deemed the arbiter of truth. Not Facebook, not the government, not anyone. Decentralize the social networks. Let everyone speak, even the bad people. Realize that you actually make the problem worse by suppressing…

Saying "everyone should speak" actually means "everyone should speak according to their purchasing power in the market" right now - so I think your premise, while well meaning, is not realistic. Having liars with big pockets broadcast lies (propaganda) works very effectively, no "black market suppression of the truth" is needed to weaponize bad ideas.

Control and monitoring turns easily into oppression and stagnation, and there is many blooded pages in history to describe that outcome. We might say that this time it will be different, that we are just removing the bad actors and obvious bad behavior, and to put our trust in those that sit at the control. To that I quote: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."

On the other end we have the open town square where the loudest speakers and richest will overpower all other voices until none can hear anything and chaos pours forth.

From both we see people flee into isolated subgroups with perfect echo chamber where the oppressed be free from the loud and censors, with the eventual result of polarization where those outside turns in their eyes into less and less human. From there hate and violence ensures and we go back and ask our self, did we want the censors or loudest to rule.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I was referring to formal education. And I didn't mean that a higher degree leads to better choices. But it does reduce the possibility of being manipulated through fake news. And while talking about education, we should also overhaul the way it is mostly taught - from simple memory functions to actual critical thinking and understanding. Go check any authoritarian or reactionary government - they cut spendi…

>it does reduce the possibility of being manipulated through fake news I'm sorry to say, but there's no evidence it's true. Formally more educated, and formally less educated belong to different social tribes, and react to different information stimulants, and that's all. Advertising industry successfully pushes peoples choices of all sorts of education. Also, I believe your idea of authoritarianism is not wholly cor…

What kind of evidence would convince you that education results in less susceptibility to propaganda? This seems facially true to me, but if someone studied it formally would you believe the results since the researchers are educated?

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I was referring to formal education. And I didn't mean that a higher degree leads to better choices. But it does reduce the possibility of being manipulated through fake news. And while talking about education, we should also overhaul the way it is mostly taught - from simple memory functions to actual critical thinking and understanding. Go check any authoritarian or reactionary government - they cut spendi…

> But it does reduce the possibility of being manipulated through fake news. Really??? Most "educated" people are proud of their indoctrination. They frame it and put it on their wall and resume

Education is, by intent, the opposite of indoctrination.

Using scare quotes and imolicitly asserting that most of what goes by as education is actually indoctrination without argument as if it was an established, uncontroversial fact is not a substantive contribution to the discussion, though it is a good way of signalling a particular tribal affiliation.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#117
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what you mean by democracy. Suppose you get 100% voter participation through free and fair elections. Are you still sure that fails the definition of democracy? How hard is it to make that case? What if the voters choose an outcome you just don't happen to like? Is that all of a sudden undemocratic?

And if the majority of those voters are opposed to democracy itself, and vote for candidates who promise to take away votes from people they don't like, or establish a theocracy? "America isn't and shouldn't be a democracy" is a common Republican talking point. This has happened in Poland and Hungary and its darn close to happening in the United States.

Indeed, the Constitution states that the form of government of the United States should be a republic. Thus it already provides for the "low information voter" problem by mediating the will of the voter through his or her representative.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#118

This is a classic example of shifting the blame. Yes, he admits that facebook spent too much time trying to minimise the problem. And indeed they did. But it's not only the misinformation that is the problem, facebook itself is at the heart of the problem. They are one of many, albeit facebook being on the more influential side, platforms through which misinformation is spread. And of course education is the main han…

> Again, education is at the core of a solution to this misinformation crisis.

What proof do you have of this assertion? There are at least two reasons to be suspicious of the argument.

1.) It's self-serving. Many people who make it are themselves highly educated. It's a short step to advocating rule by philosopher kings, which has a very checkered history. [1]

2.) It seems easy to contradict. For example, one of the most effective ways to assess any political argument is to know who is funding it. It's hard to see how anyone can make informed decisions without such information. Level of education seems to be irrelevant here.

It's also worth noting while the authors of the American Constitution were big fans of education, they put more faith in mechanisms like separation of powers and representative government to anchor the political system. In fact one of Madison's arguments in favor of education was to "multiply the educated individuals from among whom the people may elect a due portion of their public Agents of every description." [2] That's quite different from saying that everyone must have these qualities in equal measure.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king

[2] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s35....

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you’re implying with your statement about the Republican talking point. The point of the point is the U.S. was designed to be a Constitutional Republic which isn’t a democracy. The Constitutional Republic is designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual via the Constitution and bill of rights. If by Democracy one is referring solely to majority rule, then protection against individual ri…

The United Stares is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy. Democracy is not the opposite of a republic. Monarchy is.

Monarchy is a democracy with one voter.

Re: Stamos says the US must ‘come together to protect’ democracy from misinformation

#120

Fake news is a symtpom, not a cause. To fight fake news, we'd have to go to the sources (note: this is mostly off the top of my head): * Fight partisanship/polarization. Not sure how to do this. But taking a big step back and trying to discuss things without labels would be a good start. And who knows... maybe a different voting system to encourage more parties to exist? There's a lot to do here. * Fight corruption.…

> To fight fake news, we'd have to go to the sources

True. But many people do not check sources and do not want sources. The more sources you link, the more likely your message is ignored or downvoted or considered spam. Some comment section tools even refuse posts with too many links.

The EU fights against sources.

Macron vows to tighten media control because 'fake news threatens democracy' https://www.rt.com/news/414945-macron-france-fake-news-law/

Senator Demands More censorship From Facebook & Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goNDSUZsQ1c&t=181

Out-of-control censorship machines removed my article warning of out-of-control censorship machines https://juliareda.eu/2018/08/censorship-machines-gonna-censo...

> Fight partisanship/polarization.

This is what every party/camp is fighting for. Maximize the own party/camp, minimize the party/camp of the others.

I agree that much could and should be done. E.g. voting with paper ballots every 4 years like centuries ago should be replaced by secure online voting that gives decision power to every citizen at any time for any political decision.

> Fight corruption.

At least in the USA, voting for Democrats or Republicans is voting for corruption. Corruption is a sign of quality for US voters. The more connected with the industry and the more money for campaigns, the better and stronger and more real and more competent the party appears to voters. Too few US people vote for the poor unknown parties with no coverage by the mainstream media that calls itself the reasonable truthful trustworthy non-fringe mainstream media.

> Stop emotionally framing things.

I doubt that this is a solution. E.g. too many US Americans do not care about their evil actions in the world. Maybe they know about them but they do not care enough. The US military is considered as a trustworthy glorious organisation instead of a tool of and for evil persons to promote death and misery worldwide.

Recent example after decades of war crimes:

- Yemen: Tackling the world’s largest humanitarian crisis https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/09/1020232

- Pompeo Backed Yemen War For Weapon Sales Profit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azx90nHiIeg

US Americans refuse to remove misery and poverty even in their own country.

UN Head: US Has 'Morally Wrong' Healthcare System Because Of Corruption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCu9dt9JpI

Although US Americans might care, they still behave as if they did not.

Fox Viewers Overwhelmingly Approve Med4All By 73% https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX5GSClA8z4&t=349

CNN’s Jake Tapper Caught Lying About Med4All - Lies Again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1jZNepTx80&t=35

> Reject online advertising.

I do not think that lack of money improves communication and reporting. Survival and work requires money. Money is received either by random advertising or by direct sponsorship by companies or by an existing paying loyal audience with a certain world view or by a revolution of the economic system that guarantees economic human rights and safety for all.

https://lustysociety.org/money.html

Post reply on HN