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

261–270 of 355 posts

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#261

Post by mint2 »

civilized wrote: post #253
mint2 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you meant: > Messing with the choices people make that scientists, sociologists, and 9 out of 10 dentists think are bad for them and society as a whole isn't easy. I guess that my more appropriate and more relevant corrected version of the statement didnt sound like it supported the point so the original was phrased as if it’s my own non expert opinion that smoking causes cancer. fentanyl? Are you saying that…

You seem to think I'm making every possible point but the one I'm actually making. I'm not saying it's good for people to have fentanyl or misinformation. I'm not saying personal choices are above criticism or regulation. I'm just saying it's hard. You're going to be intruding into how people run their lives. Many of them won't like it. My personal take is that social media can be awfully like a drug, and we're proba…

Oops I didn’t realize you agreed with the overall point because I thought it would be, I can’t think of a more political term, being pedantic by trying to correct the higher comment to say that it’s actually not hard to find different viewpoints from a technical standpoint just immensely difficult and challenging considering psychology and human nature such that it’s unrealistic for the majority of people to do. I didn’t really see what the point of making that observation was unless it was to argue against the main point.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#262

Post by FFRefresh »

bcrl wrote: post #249
FFRefresh wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What misinformation have you been convinced of because you saw a targeted advertisement? Or a slightly different version: What views do you hold that originated from a targeted ad? Or for some more specific examples: In elections, do you start out looking to elect one candidate and then you see a targeted ad and you change your vote because of it? For COVID vaccines, did you start off with a stance and then you see a…

As I post every so often here on Hacker News, have a look at this ad my elderly father got a couple of years ago just before COVID hit: https://imgur.com/a/Lk85lST . It's a perfectly innocent search by someone looking for help with a problem that directs towards an ad for a phishing site. The worst part is that it's highly targeted. I tried doing EXACTLY the same search from my own phone and laptop and got completely…

Oh totally, that ad seems malicious. I was just curious about the misinformation angle that you mentioned and how you in particular have been duped or had your opinions changed because of a targeted ad.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#263

Post by sjtindell »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #184
fortuna86 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It was just one word, actually. And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa... We also know now that the russian collusion hoax was entirely fabricated by Hillary's team: https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-cre... I don't agree with w…

You are literally pushing one side of a flame war topic using biased news articles on an article about misinformation. Unreal. Your lack of self awareness makes the quality of your opinions self-explanatory.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#264

Post by fortuna86 »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #234
fortuna86 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow you stepped on every single information landmine possible. The NYT had commentators reporting on what they thought was true. They have done many years of introspection about their rule in the Iraq war, this is not what "perpetuator of misinformation" do - they double down. > Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares. What is one thing either site has gotten wrong (objectively, not your opinion) an…

The Free Beacon reported that a source told them the crack kits could specifically include pipes, and the story went viral https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-f... Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating . . . while confirming the Free Beacon reporting as entirely true. Here’s how they explained it: > In 2022, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services substanc…

> The Free Beacon reported that a source told them the crack kits could specifically include pipes, and the story went viral

No offense but if you asked me to make up a typical right wing red meat outrage generating story, this would be it.

> Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating

You didn't link to Snopes, instead "leadstories.com" which i've never heard of. Where is the source from Snopes itself?

Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no? At best this is a nuance argument of a somewhat complicated story about policy (which itself is complicated) - far from the "clear example of a false story" I asked for.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#265

Post by fortuna86 »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #243
fortuna86 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? Linking to opinion pieces by right wing media isn't a way of making an argument btw, it's outsourcing your thinking to partisans that can tell you want you want to hear. I don't like a lot of things about politics these d…

> I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was n…

> I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works

I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice.

> The assertion coming from the Clinton camp

"Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection.

> Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.

Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#266

Post by fortuna86 »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #103
RIMR wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's some nuance to this terminology, but overall I prefer to use the term "bad faith" when people are saying things that they know are untrue. In general, most people I hear using the term "willful ignorance" are referring to the same phenomenon of people lying to push their own narrative. Actual ignorance is never willful, by definition of ignorance.

Willful ignorance doesn't just include lying to push a narrative. It's also an ailment of probably the majority in modern society to both be uninformed about the issues of the day and to have no interest in becoming informed. And no wonder. Being informed is hard work! For any given issue, you have to research a lot, and do it from multiple perspectives and view points, including those you don't agree with. Then you…

> Until ~2 years ago, I was one of the uninformed masses. It took the recently-intensifying insanity of American politics and ascendant leftwing ideology in the past few years to wake me up.

"Red pilling" isn't waking up, it's just becoming a nativist right winger. Although the left wing calls itself "progressive" so I guess the words games are everywhere.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#267

Post by lp0_on_fire »

fortuna86 wrote: post #265
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was n…

> I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice. > The assertion coming from the Clinton camp "Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection. > Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS…

Serious question: Do you really think it's whataboutism to point out what one of the parties we're talking about was publicly saying on the campaign trail at the time in question? The roles could be reversed and I'd still make the same statement.

"Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said." is something you said a few comments up. You should listen to yourself more often.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#269

Post by RangerScience »

thenerdhead wrote: post #185
RangerScience wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The internet does not make me feel better informed. I feel more informed when I read books or.. 100% this, excellent observation. > FUD makes the truth hard to decipher One thing I try to do now is "filter out the FUD". I think I'm succeeding, but I don't know how to teach others to do it, so maybe I'm not, haha. Anyway! I filter out the FUD and then look at what's left. To, perhaps, step in it: my current case stu…

Would love to learn how you filter out the FUD!

Like I said, I'm not sure how to describe it. You kind of have to... identify, and then strip out, the emotional content of a message. (Note: don't do this all the time, but if the emotions are FUD, most of the time is a good rubric). A big part of that is identifying how someone is saying something, as opposed to what they're saying. This can be word choice, italics/bold/caps; grammatical structures, narrative structures.

That last one is large and subtle - I once called someone an "active psychological hazard" for the manipulation within their "narrative" structure; think about how good comedians build a kind of meandering story, and then apply that to an affect aside from humor, and you've got the right idea.

It's... I don't know. People tell me things, or I read them, and it forms a sort of multidimensional "shape" inside my mind. Then I lop off / rotate the shape so the emotional affects aren't present, or aren't significant, or aren't "in view". But also like I said, I don't actually know if it's working; but I think it is. I know that before I do whatever it is, I feel things; afterwards, I feel them, but at a remove, so they're more like things I could feel, if I chose to.

Does that all make any kind of sense, even a little bit?

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#270

Post by t0bia_s »

0x500x79 wrote: post #227
t0bia_s wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Real people are dying because of perpetuated information on social media and "news" outlets." You mean those about covid or vaccines? What exactly is wrong to let people choose? Why you think that what is best for you should be best for others?

Nothing is wrong with letting people choose, forcing incorrect information to people... that is wrong.

Define incorrect information. You have always possibility to believe that info or not. Bad for relationship with people is thinking that I know best and others know wrong and incorrect.
Post reply on HN