How Lies Spread Online • Hacker News Board

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#131

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 12:13 AM UTC

growlist wrote: post #125

ajross wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating fact checkers with "the media", and sort of changing the subject. Can you explain again why exactly you don't trust answers you get from Snopes or Politifact? Don't tell me what "many Trump supporters" think. Tell me why you don't trust them.

Can you tell me why I should trust them? Shouldn't we approach these organisations that purport to be the single source of truth with extreme scepticism? Apart from that in my observation these organisations are not impartial, and I think in the context of the universal anti-Trump media they are easily dismissed as just another group suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. I should make clear I don't live in the U…

> Shouldn't we approach these organisations that purport to be the single source of truth with extreme scepticism?

None of them have made that claim. Ironically, Trump actually has, more than once.

But, yes, those that make that claim should be approached particularly skeptically.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#132

Post by andrewingram » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:08 AM UTC

jibal wrote: post #127

andrewingram wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thrust of my message was about the misunderstanding of statistics, so the actual numbers (correct or otherwise) are irrelevant to the point I was making. Replace the numbers in my comment with the correct ones and the meaning remains the same.

Sigh. I know the thrust of your statement; that's why I said "duh". But I made a different point. See, you're not the only person on the planet with points to make. And again: your assumption was unwarranted. That's a mistake on your part, but it seems that you have no interest in whether you make mistakes.

Given that you've started casting aspersions on my character, at this point it's hard to imagine that you're not acting in bad faith. But who knows, maybe it is possible to salvage this.

I don't understand what was so objectionable about my assumption. Sure, I could have fact-checked the numbers on the comment I was replying to, but they were irrelevant to my point, and it's not exactly a news article where such rigour would matter. I don't really feel a stronger defence is necessary. I also acknowledged your correction of the statistic.

You say you're making a point, but what actually is it? The most meaningful moments of my life have been when i've realised i've been wrong about something, so seriously, if I've made a big mistake I genuinely want to know what it is. But ultimately, for me to recognise when I'm wrong, the mistake needs to be highlighted.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#133

Post by jibal » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 4:20 AM UTC

andrewingram wrote: post #132

jibal wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. I know the thrust of your statement; that's why I said "duh". But I made a different point. See, you're not the only person on the planet with points to make. And again: your assumption was unwarranted. That's a mistake on your part, but it seems that you have no interest in whether you make mistakes.

Given that you've started casting aspersions on my character, at this point it's hard to imagine that you're not acting in bad faith. But who knows, maybe it is possible to salvage this. I don't understand what was so objectionable about my assumption. Sure, I could have fact-checked the numbers on the comment I was replying to, but they were irrelevant to my point, and it's not exactly a news article where such rigo…

Good grief. This site needs a block feature. Over and out.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#134

Post by dang » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 7:27 AM UTC

octonion wrote: post #15

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.

Really, it was all the New York Times & the US government had nothing to do with it? Go away, propaganda troll.

Personal attacks and name-calling will get you banned here regardless of how wrong someone else is. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on.

Edit: actually, since you've done this repeatedly after we warned you, I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#135

Post by growlist » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 9:15 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #130

growlist wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me why I should trust them? Shouldn't we approach these organisations that purport to be the single source of truth with extreme scepticism? Apart from that in my observation these organisations are not impartial, and I think in the context of the universal anti-Trump media they are easily dismissed as just another group suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. I should make clear I don't live in the U…

So... I see you did decide to respond. > Can you tell me why I should trust them? Because they have a years-long(11 for Politifact, 19 for Snopes) history of being right. They're consistently, reliably right. So yeah, I trust them. I trusted them under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. I trust them now. Maybe you are the one who needs to re-evaluate priors: maybe, just maybe, the "universal anti-Trump medi…

You are just asserting here though aren't you? There are those that assert just as forcefully that they are wrong. On what basis am I supposed to choose which is correct?

As a disinterested observer it seems like every couple of weeks the media switch to a new script in a desperate search for something that will stick: Russia! Gun control! Sexist! Racist! Stormy Daniels! on and on yet apparently unsuccessful thus far as polling with his base looks pretty good for him. Perhaps it's all substantive, but even if it is I don't think the tactics are working. Surely better to stand back a little and let Trump make himself look foolish with his never ending ridiculous tweets?

Trump seems more conman than anything else to me, but the media would have us believe he's the Antichrist.