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

The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 981 posts

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#231

Post by modriano »

swiley wrote: post #2

If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.

An individual's understanding of the world is shaped exclusively by the signals produced by their 5 senses. Intelligence governs an individual's ability to interpret those signals and draw further conclusions from those interpreted signals, but if that individual is fed a constant stream of bad yet internally-consistent data, correct application of logic and reason will lead that individual to objectively incorrect conclusions. Further, human beings aren't perfectly rational machines capable of processing the utterly overwhelming amount of signals we are exposed to at any given instant, rather we develop blinders to focus in on specific signals and we develop heuristics to reach decisions without processing all possible signals. I haven't read every whitepaper put out by every politician I've ever supported, nor has 99.9999+% of others, but we still support politicians because of our heuristics and blinders. I prefer forming my opinions from whitepapers, source documents, and a rigorous analysis of a candidate's behavior, but ultimately a heuristic I rely on is the opinion of other people or institutions that I trust, like the New York Times, the Economist, Ezra Klien, Matt Yglesias, Raj Chetty, etc.

I've decided that I don't like believing incorrect things, so I've thought a lot about epistemology and embraced a mixture of pragmatism and empiricism (where possible). I try to independently verify suspicious claims, but it took me a long time to become a competent data scientist, I'm willing to spend far more time searching for good data/signals and analyzing them than most other people, and I still can't be informed on everything which necessitates reliance on sub-optimal heuristics. Most people don't even attempt the rigor I aspire to, preferring a tribal epistemology, where they outsource opinion-forming to the thought-leaders of their tribe. If those tribal thought-leaders are telling people things like

* "Hillary Clinton is running a pedophilia ring out of the basement of this pizza restaurant" or * "COVID-19 is a librul hoax so don't wear a mask or embrace any hard-won public health advice" or * "Joe Biden's landslide victory isn't real, and even though we can't prove it, despite the fact that electoral systems are designed so that malfeasance would be easily detectable, you should ignore reject the result of a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION, EVEN IN STATES WHERE THE OUTCOME WAS CONFIRMED BY A HAND RECOUNT"

you'll see behavior from individuals in that tribe that's consistent with the signals those individuals perceive, but the behavior won't produce the expected outcome, because the signals don't reflect reality. Instead, it will produce mayhem, death, destruction, pain, and loss. This is empirically undeniable.

TL,DR: Democracy depends on the votes of people. People form opinions only from the information that passes through their senses and into their mind. Garbage in, garbage out. It's possible to solve problems through rational analysis of sufficiently accurate models of reality, but models that don't reflect reality can be extremely, devastatingly destructive. If the signal "Donald Trump actually won the election and it is being stolen from him" was an accurate description of reality, it would rational to use violence to repel the usurpers trying to steal your country. But that signal is false, and spreading that signal both is eroding belief in democracy among the communities where enough members embrace that false signal, and it will in lead to unjustified murders.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#232

Post by makomk »

The Palmer Report is probably an even better example of just how cynical and partisan this push by social media sites to purge claims of election fraud is than the article makes clear. Back when their anti-Trump articles started to spread across social media, I did some quick searching (y'know, just basic old-school internet literacy stuff when seeing sensational articles from a publication you haven't heard of spreading virally online) and concluded their main claim to fame seemed to be having their own Snopes tag due to the bullshit they'd published. No detectable presence on respected or independent sites beyond that, not even a Wikipedia entry. All the normal hallmarks of your classic fake news site, in the pre-2016 sense of the term.

In no time at all after they started saying what Trump's opponents wanted to hear, though, Twitter had given them a verified account, their Wikipedia entry was glowing and featured prominently when searching for them, and they'd been granted a veneer of respectability by big tech companies and were being spread by the personal but work-associated social media accounts of those who worked for big tech. There was no fearmongering about social media sites spreading disnformation that undermined democracy, even though the articles were strikingly like what Trump and his supporters are pushing now, down to the specific arguments even, and every bit as dubious.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#233

Post by tbatchelli »

cousin_it wrote: post #119
tbatchelli wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are rational most of the times, and act based on the well of knowledge they have at the time. When you choose to promote certain content because of its high engagement benefits you given its controversial nature, then you are poisoning the well of knowledge for each individual. If you do so in a feedback loop, considering what they were interested in before, you accelerate your earnings as well as the poisonin…

Sometimes I see the argument made that people are hackable by lies, therefore censorship is needed as an antidote. But I don't buy it, because 1) lying is equally available to all, but censorship is available only to the powerful 2) the powerful are as flawed as anyone else, except with power 3) historically the powerful who dabbled in censorship have also lied a lot, and censorship has helped them lie more easily. S…

I was just covering one side of the equation. I don't like censorship, and as they say: you should legislate as if your opponent is the one that will apply the law. You can apply censorship to take care of one "good" reason, but eventually censorship will be applied for a "bad" reason.

What I wanted to focus on is that it is not true that free speech is the solution to all democratic problems, it's not an absolute good. We limit speech already, you can't advocate for the killing of other people, races, etc...

Also, about free speech, if you can say what you want but there are very large entities controlling who gets to hear what you say, then in a way censorship might be already happening. In this case non-arousing messages are being suppressed because they don't make money, so we all feel like everybody is either pro-this or against-this, and they're all really mad and or dangerous.

This is not an easy problem to solve.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#234

Post by dathinab »

olefoo wrote: post #150

This is all the result of confusing 1st amendment rights with the right to access the audience that gathers at a particular URL. What Taibbi is asking for is that the guy who tells you that drinking rat poison is good for you should be allowed an audience and that even putting a warning alongside the video would be an infringement on his rights. Looking at the comments here I have to conclude that HN is no longer on…

> What Taibbi is asking for is that the guy who tells you that drinking rat poison is good for you should be allowed an audience

He should, it's the basis of democracy. Sure rat poison is a bad example, but thinks are much less clear cut if we speak about other things, including covid19. So putting up warnings about this problems (potential more then just a subtle note at the side) is reasonable removing it is much less so (as long as they don't e.g. tell people to go on the street and kill all politicans or similar bs.).

I mean you start with removing 100% clear bs. misinformation.

Then you remove misinformation which contains some truth (it's still misinformation).

And before you notice unpleasant opinions are removed to (like e.g. the CIA having had similarities to a terrorist organization in the past, factual right but misguiding).

EDIT: Oh and if you tell people to dink rat poison and they do you should be held responsible for tricking people into killing them-self, still that's not the same as censoring the content. ------------

An example from Germany is that there is a very mixed movement called Querdenker. It clearly contains right radicals, nazies, covid denies, q-anon believers etc. BUT a non small part of the core movement are neither of this but people which believe in covid, believe it's bad. But also believe that the decisions done by the German government do more harm then good. But they get frequently denounced and grouped with all the problematic groups from before. Which has all kinds of problematic consequences (including making this people being more susceptible to manipulation from the problematic groups). Now removing (some of) the information sources of this people instead of adding information enlighten them about what is wrong with the information is only making it only worse. Furthermore you can't censor them as this will just push them to other information platforms and if you continue to censor again and again you will end up with a censorship system no less powerfull then chinas... which I believe no one would want in a democracy. So I believe we will have to learn how to handle such information _without_ censoring information we believe is wrong/misguiding.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#235

Post by Daishiman »

JPKab wrote: post #36
Daishiman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We in fact already do that and nobody bats an eye. People are not intimate with the details of most government bureaucracies, they are not expected to be, and they're no expected to grasp such details in a way that they can make informed decisions. And frankly that is absolutely correct. We believe in democracy to be the best system despite its flaws, and one of its flaws is that it's evident that most people have no…

Authoritarians always justify silencing speech for the greater good. You can reject lies with counters to those lies, or do it your way, and end democracy.

So when a lawyer or doctor is stripped of their professional license because they become professional bullshit peddlers, does that constitute silencing people or saving lives and the integrity of the justice system?

I don't have time to listen to million bullshit peddlers with an agenda.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#236

Post by AndrewKemendo »

swiley wrote: post #2

If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.

What does "Govern themselves" practically mean in this context?

Lets say that I'm an intelligent person that firmly believes in "rugged individualism" to the point where I'm an anarcho-georgist [1] and do not recognize the state as an authority for real property allocation based on a well reasoned moral philosophy.

Given the fact that there is no unclaimed territory for which I could live without falling under the purview of a state's thumb, and hence would not be allowed to "govern myself", how would I then govern myself consistent with my political philosophy?

This is obviously a hyperbolic example, but it's IMO an important exercise to explicate how a large group of people with heterogeneous values, is supposed to act/behave when a prime mover state system is (in effect) demanding no values be higher than it.

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

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#237

Post by Der_Einzige »

swiley wrote: post #2

If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.

Well, we do reject this idea. That's why we have a republic rather than a direct democracy.

The same allegory of the cave justifications for why the average individual is too stupid to rule and shouldn't be allowed to are made today. Oh, you aren't well enough educated or experienced enough? You should not govern, and move aside for those who are educated or experienced...

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#238

Post by chordalkeyboard »

defen wrote: post #139
keepper wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for making my point. Not sure why I'm replying, as its wholely offtopic - Nuclear, i think you should read up why people are against it. ( spoiler, it isn't the science... but maybe you should think about who can do it effectively vs the potential risks of doing it wrong... or you know, the imbalance of global power when only a few countries could generate.. well, power ) - GMO, again, same point above. "Su…

> - GMO, again, same point above. "Sure you can have this great crop, no seeds". Again, GMO per say isn't bad, its the implementation that's bad. Why specifically is it bad? If you want non-GMO food you can just grow your own.

Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes. The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#240

Post by thorough »

charonn0 wrote: post #183
underseacables wrote: post #61

This might seem extreme, but I think we should allow people to make up their own minds about what is truth and what is not. They are very clear cases for censorship (direct threats of violence for example) but Questioning the outcome of an election should not be one of them. Somehow we’ve allowed corporations to be the arbiters of truth in this nation, enter control the reins of communication.

Allowing people to make up their own minds doesn't mean you have to provide a platform for views you don't share.

How would you suggest a company like YT can "allow people to make up their own minds" about an issue if they do not "provide a platform for views" of that issue that they "don't share"?

Unless you are just making the point that YT censorship is more acceptable than government censorship (which I think everyone agrees with), then I'm not sure how you can have your cake and eat it to here.

Post reply on HN