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

The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

slowboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 355 posts

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#171

Post by throwaway894345 »

dang wrote: post #165
throwaway894345 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you call someone disingenuous, then yeah, you're being offensive. But if you call the idea disingenuous, then it's much less offensive. If you phrase it like, "isn't that a little disingenuous?" it's even less offensive yet (I think "isn't that a lie" would come off a fair bit more offensive). Using "disingenuous" and words like it, I've had a lot of success finding common ground or at least identifying the locus…

Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. Therefore, if an internet comment calls an idea or an argument disingenuous, it's calling the idea-holder or argument-maker disingenuous. It may be a little more indirect, but it's still an attack. In my observation, that word has the opposite effect of 'finding common ground', so I'm surprised to hear you say that. If finding common ground is…

> Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with.

I don't think that's required. If I call an idea "disingenuous" (or "misleading" for that matter), it doesn't imply that the arguer intended to mislead, but only that the idea lends itself to misinterpretation ("it seems disingenuous to suggest that the protest was violent on the basis of the actions of one or two out of tens of thousands" That's my $0.02, anyway.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#172

Post by president »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #23

I've also noticed that the term "willful ignorance" gets thrown around a lot more nowadays. There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that what they believe is the absolute truth that any disagreement or critique must therefore be out of malice rather than genuine disagreement.

Most people are not willing to have a Socratic style debate let alone admit they could ever be wrong. That is the root of the problem in our society today.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#173

Post by ZeroGravitas »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #164
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see how that applies to a well documented history of voter suppression? Yes, in theory, you could have a color blind system and some random change could have a negative impact on some group randomly. That's not what happened in reality though. "In theory, I might not have killed him" isn't a great argument for someone found standing over a body with a knife, you're generally looking for something a bit…

Similarly, I don't see how "a well documented history of voter suppression" applies to increasing election security. I don't see that phrase in your first link, but I found it here: https://www.studioatao.org/post/understanding-the-u-s-govern... . From there I found a link to the evil Brian Kemp who dared to purge voter rolls! https://newrepublic.com/article/151858/americas-relentless-s... Many believe that one of th…

It appears we dont really have enough commonly accepted facts to have a fruitful conversation.

The article you linked to talks about a lot of really horrible things, which I guess you agree with based on your linking to it and describing removing voters from the voters role for simply not voting in the previous election as no big deal?

My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad. If thats partisan then I'm glad I'm not in the party fighting to reduce democracy.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#174

Post by aaroninsf »

epgui wrote: post #148

> I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about. If anything, people seem to be better-informed than in the past — which is what you would expect because our information technology has gotten better [...] This kind of framing makes…

I wish I could upvote this 10x though I see atm that is not necessarily.

A very nice summary of priors and predicates that need to be grokked!

To these I myself often add several aspects looking more specifically what "social graph" means and what the so-called algorithm means, with lemmas about "engagement" and its industry...

...and the underbelly of how the algorithm works, the constellation of surveillance tracking entity resolution and targeting that make up the actual functioning of "teh algorithm."

These regularly lead me back to trying to find pithy summations of specific paths through this mire, such as "deplatforming is not censorship, it is failure to provide or sell a megaphone," and, "we need to reason about 1A the way we do about 2A," (ie in terms of understood liberty vs aggregate societal harms).

Another such summation is simply to observe that the subset of "the information out there" that any individual sees, and which is amplified within their own social circles online and off-, is the most hotly contested property in the market today. In many markets.

Against this individual integrity and good faith often appears to be but a reed in the wind.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#175

Post by archhn »

If people trusted the establishment and their institutions, "misinformation" wouldn't be a problem. People would just shrug off the rhetoric coming from the fringe. The pervasive mistrust of institutions and the establishment, foretold as the fourth turning, is what is causing people to turn to fringe sources for their information. What we are seeing here is a battle for authority underwritten by decades of establishment failure. It's going to get very ugly.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#176

Post by fortuna86 »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #99
standardUser wrote: post #96

"...but you can find super-informed people on both sides of the question. That’s why it’s a live debate." It's just rhetoric. Anything can become a debate, such as who won the 2020 presidential election, if one side is willing to make up facts and repeat them over and over. Proponents of the Big Lie are super-informed, insofar as they have a lot of lies they can say with a straight face that act as stand-ins for actu…

I don't think that's what the right wing is about at all. All the conservative pundits I listen to think Trump behaved disgracefully after the election and that there is still no evidence of sufficient voter irregularities to turn the election. Many still believe it's a major problem that states like Pennsylvania violated their own laws during the election, which should be illegal, but handling that is a separate iss…

> disgracefully

Amazing all the words that some come up with to discount what was a violent attempt at staying in power after losing an election.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#177

Post by feurio »

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #160
feurio wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, the actual definition on that page is: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Google says: adjective: woke; comparative adjective: woker; superlative adjective: wokest alert to injustice in society, especially racism. "we need to stay angry, and stay woke" Merriam Webster: chiefly US slang :…

But still you're here getting only the definition that you want to take and ignoring all the other stuff about wokes fighting for their ideals by trying to censor, ban, fire those who have different ideas, instead of discussing... I already told you that their attention to those things is not the problem but is the attitude no? Let's say that I am a guy, attentive to social justice, noble. Then I am that same guy who…

I've invited you to give me an alternative definition - can you just tack on an extra sentence to the Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster or Goole definitions please? Once you have defined what woke is then you can talk about what they do. Wanting people banned, censored, fired are actions that can be carried out by anyone. Vladimir Putin has people banned, censored, fired (and worse), but he's not woke, is he?

We're having a converstion, but for you to make a valid point that people are doing these thing then you need to present examples.

You couldn't/wouldn't present an example of the newspaper wokeness that you suggest is happening.

Give me just one (your best) concrete example of this woke culture in action and you'll have made a point, otherwise this is all just angels dancing on the head of pin territory.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#178

Post by brianfitz »

fortuna86 wrote: post #166
epgui wrote: post #148

> I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about. If anything, people seem to be better-informed than in the past — which is what you would expect because our information technology has gotten better [...] This kind of framing makes…

> If anything, people seem to be better-informed than in the past [citation needed] more information =/ better informed, the same way drinking from a firehose doesn't allow you to ingest more water than drinking slowly from a glass. This point missed ironically by a website called "slowboring.com"

I believe he was using the source article. One example was a leap in public polling around how our government functions (33% jump in being able to identify the three branches of the US federal government).

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#179

Post by PathOfEclipse »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #173
PathOfEclipse wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, I don't see how "a well documented history of voter suppression" applies to increasing election security. I don't see that phrase in your first link, but I found it here: https://www.studioatao.org/post/understanding-the-u-s-govern... . From there I found a link to the evil Brian Kemp who dared to purge voter rolls! https://newrepublic.com/article/151858/americas-relentless-s... Many believe that one of th…

It appears we dont really have enough commonly accepted facts to have a fruitful conversation. The article you linked to talks about a lot of really horrible things, which I guess you agree with based on your linking to it and describing removing voters from the voters role for simply not voting in the previous election as no big deal? My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is ba…

It appears we dont really have enough commonly accepted facts to have a fruitful conversation.

Welcome to American politics. That you were willing to have a dialog at all with someone who disagrees with you might set you above the average.

My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad.

How about this big picture take? Democracy is good, and citizen votes deserve protection. Every fraudulent vote dilutes a legitimate vote. Even the appearance of insecurity undermines faith in the democracy.

And yes, it's incredibly partisan for you to claim that republicans are trying to "reduce democracy." An attitude like that will both fail to convince anyone who disagrees with you, and also keep you in the dark about truths your party in general are unwilling to accept.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#180

Post by fortuna86 »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #164
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see how that applies to a well documented history of voter suppression? Yes, in theory, you could have a color blind system and some random change could have a negative impact on some group randomly. That's not what happened in reality though. "In theory, I might not have killed him" isn't a great argument for someone found standing over a body with a knife, you're generally looking for something a bit…

Similarly, I don't see how "a well documented history of voter suppression" applies to increasing election security. I don't see that phrase in your first link, but I found it here: https://www.studioatao.org/post/understanding-the-u-s-govern... . From there I found a link to the evil Brian Kemp who dared to purge voter rolls! https://newrepublic.com/article/151858/americas-relentless-s... Many believe that one of th…

> Similarly, I don't see how "a well documented history of voter suppression" applies to increasing election security

Because "election security" - applied strategically and unequally (such as removing ballot boxes and voting stations in areas that are strongholds for your political opponents) is nothing but suppression tactics. Even voter ID laws, when applied only in places where gov ID is not common, can be weaponized.

You know this.

Post reply on HN