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

Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 136 posts

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#121

Post by naiveai »

beginningguava wrote: post #86
rrggrr wrote: post #25

The only counter-measure that works against polluting the polity with influence operations is earnestly educating people to be critical consumers of information. Why? Because one cannot empower government to counter-message influence operations without risking an abuse of power. My son's middle school appears to be tackling this problem to some degree by teaching students to: (a) not accept 'facts' without multiple s…

This is just legacy media trying to regain power. Fake news has been around forever, look up Yellow Journalism. The difference now is that the 5 multi-national corporations that controlled nearly everything we saw and heard are losing their monopoly on what information reaches the population. Everybody loved big data and social media when Obama used it to win and when Arab Spring happened. But now it's a threat to de…

It's almost as if every piece of technology is a double edged sword. Anything that can be used to disseminate information can also be used to disseminate disinformation. It's the nature of things like this.

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#122

Post by tareqak »

dragonwriter wrote: post #108
tareqak wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely see what you are saying, but I think it would be similar to the FCAP in terms of who would be affected. The accounting provision of the FCAP applies to companies that list securities in the US. Similarly, news organizations (radio, TV, newspapers) could be held accountable depending on how big their audience is estimated to be. One way to look at it could be like "Shouting fire in a crowded theater", whi…

> One way to look at it could be like "Shouting fire in a crowded theater", which is not protected speech Referring to Schenck v. US on the bounds of Constitutional free speech is like citing Plessy v. Ferguson on permissible racial segregation.

I didn't mean to cause offense. If you could please show me where I went wrong here, then I'd appreciate it.

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#123

Post by loveyourmother »

mc32 wrote: post #116
azemetre wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling likely voters to vote for your candidacy is drastically different than telling people Climate Change is a Chinese hoax or that thousands of men, woman, and children seeking asylum are terrorists.

But it’s also false to claim most are women and children and that most are fleeing violence (most are men seeking economic sdvantage) and that entering illegally deserves as much rights as people who’ve applied legally and have waited decades. It’s also false to insinuate the Obama admin didn’t use teargas against wannabe border crossers. And it’s also false to insinuate it’s illegal. France, just the other day had s…

The fact that people are downvoting you for just point out hypocrisy is sad.

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#124

Post by simonh »

orbital-decay wrote: post #87
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The information is coming at you regardless of your expertise. Those who don't have the expertise are at a distinct disadvantage to those who do. The tools may be good in the technical sense, but in the do they help normal people out sense they often are not. I would call that a bad situation, one we need to find creative and effective ways to remedy.

That's just... a fundamental limitation? I don't think there's a way for an unskilled ("normal") person to dissect and analyze the information outside of their understanding in a meaningful way, no matter how creative you get.

I think that's the point. It's not anybody's fault and it's not that anyone is doing anything wrong, it's just a problem we need to take into account and try to mitigate.

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#125

Post by simonh »

mc32 wrote: post #116
azemetre wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling likely voters to vote for your candidacy is drastically different than telling people Climate Change is a Chinese hoax or that thousands of men, woman, and children seeking asylum are terrorists.

But it’s also false to claim most are women and children and that most are fleeing violence (most are men seeking economic sdvantage) and that entering illegally deserves as much rights as people who’ve applied legally and have waited decades. It’s also false to insinuate the Obama admin didn’t use teargas against wannabe border crossers. And it’s also false to insinuate it’s illegal. France, just the other day had s…

I'm generally pro-immigration, but you're right and make valid points. I'm a UK citizen but we face similar problems in nature if not magnitude. My position is that controlled, proportionate immigration is good for the country (UK, but generally too) both culturally and economically and should follow legal due process.

My main criticizm of the Trump administration's handling of the situation, as an outside observer, is that they are persistently and maliciously bypassing due process (muslim ban imposed arbitrarily even on legal residents while people were in the air, separating children from their parents, etc). Frustration and revulsion at these actions naturally throws a sharp spotlight on whatever else the administration does with regard to immigration, and rightly so. As I said, you're probably right on those incidents, but it's also fair to say that the degree to which a tactic is used also matters, and they deserve every single bit of enhanced scrutiny they face on this issue.

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#126

Post by coldtea »

nabla9 wrote: post #105
beginningguava wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just legacy media trying to regain power. Fake news has been around forever, look up Yellow Journalism. The difference now is that the 5 multi-national corporations that controlled nearly everything we saw and heard are losing their monopoly on what information reaches the population. Everybody loved big data and social media when Obama used it to win and when Arab Spring happened. But now it's a threat to de…

Fake news and yellow journalism are not the same thing. Yellow journalism is just sensationalism, entertainment and bad journalism. Fake news is deliberate disinformation for propaganda purposes.

Nope, yellow journalism peddled extensively in "deliberate disinformation for propaganda purposes" as well.

It's not just something like sensational stories or gossip columns that's yellow journalism. It was used for political purposes to scare the population, attract voters, and so on...

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#127

Post by gambler »

orbital-decay wrote: post #87
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The information is coming at you regardless of your expertise. Those who don't have the expertise are at a distinct disadvantage to those who do. The tools may be good in the technical sense, but in the do they help normal people out sense they often are not. I would call that a bad situation, one we need to find creative and effective ways to remedy.

That's just... a fundamental limitation? I don't think there's a way for an unskilled ("normal") person to dissect and analyze the information outside of their understanding in a meaningful way, no matter how creative you get.

>That's just... a fundamental limitation? I don't think there's a way for an unskilled ("normal") person to dissect and analyze the information outside of their understanding in a meaningful way, no matter how creative you get.

This is discussed in depth in Augmenting Human Intellect:

http://dougengelbart.org/content/view/138/000/

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#128

Post by antidesitter »

Retra wrote: post #111
antidesitter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? How did you read it that way? Seems pretty clear the GP specifically used the term "shill".

You used the term "specifically" but nobody is nitpicking the meaning of that word to elevate a non-generous interpretation of what you mean. Sometimes people are just not that careful with the words they choose and don't expect others to jump on their word choice as indicative of some highly nuanced intent.

> You used the term "specifically" but nobody is nitpicking the meaning of that word to elevate a non-generous interpretation of what you mean.

What do you think the word “shill” means to most people? I’m baffled at your attempt to characterize this as “nitpicking”.

> Sometimes people are just not that careful with the words they choose and don't expect others to jump on their word choice as indicative of some highly nuanced intent.

It’s pretty clear the author intended to call politicians who don’t “support public education” shills. There’s nothing “nuanced” about that.

If you don’t think calling such people “shills” was the intent, I’m curious to hear your alternative interpretation.

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#129

Post by hammock »

forapurpose wrote: post #84
commandlinefan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without any evidence whatsoever, he said that Democrats were trying to steal the election through "FRAUD." Well, wait a minute - both of those races had already been called in favor of the Republican candidate on the night of the election until boxes and boxes of mysteriously Democrat-leaning ballots were suddenly found the following day... I think that constitutes evidence, even if it's not conclusive.

For any set of boxes, there is a 50-50 chance that they will favor one or the other party. Given the geographic polarization of the parties, the boxes seem likely to heavily favor one or the other party. We can't distinguish the event from random chance, afaik, and therefore it's not evidence. > mysteriously Is there a basis for this word?

Seems the basis would be, that the new votes were highly un-representative of all the other votes previously tallied (majority Republican)

The parent comment probably disagrees with your assessment of 50/50.

Re: Common-Knowledge Attacks on Democracy

#130

Post by hammock »

forapurpose wrote: post #83
hammock wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They may be less vulnerable to attacks from outsiders, but they are much more vulnerable to attacks from their own government. It's similar to totalitarian governments Interesting that you say that about China, because that was exactly Bruce Schneier's conclusion about the United States: >Our research implies that insider attacks from within American politics can be more pernicious than attacks from other countries.…

What I mean is: > [People in dictatorships] may be less vulnerable [than people in democracies] to attacks from outsiders, but they are much more vulnerable to attacks from their own government. What the study is saying is: > Our research implies that insider attacks from within American politics can be more pernicious than attacks from other countries. That is, I'm comparing the vulnerability of people in democracie…

Yes. The point of agreement is that both people in dictatorships AND people in democracies are more vulnerable to insider attacks from their own governments, than to outsider attacks.

I was calling that out as .. interesting.

Post reply on HN