We all know how this is going to end up. It always starts with fact checking and then moves on to removing articles that are wrong.
Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
31–40 of 40 posts
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you feel like the appropriate way to respond to a comment pointing out a bad faith argument is to reply with another bad faith argument?
Because its not a bad faith argument to point out that even people who are obviously wrong think of themselves as the sources of truth. I actually thought it would be a little aggressive to point out that "telling people the truth and warning them about false truths" is not what education is. Education is a lot more complicated than that. What that is is a literal description of propaganda from the perspective of the…
No, the bad faith part was using an infamous pseudo-religion as a thought-terminating cliché instead of just saying what you said much more clearly and eloquently in this reply. :-)
Propaganda isn’t “telling people the truth and warning them about false truths”. Propaganda is spreading a message, even if it’s known to be false, in order to induce a desired behaviour. It does not care about the truth, it does not care about the wrong decision, it cares only for a specific outcome and uses any message possible to achieve that outcome.
If the point of education is not to tell people the truth and warn them about false truths so they don’t make wrong decisions, what is the point of education?
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because its not a bad faith argument to point out that even people who are obviously wrong think of themselves as the sources of truth. I actually thought it would be a little aggressive to point out that "telling people the truth and warning them about false truths" is not what education is. Education is a lot more complicated than that. What that is is a literal description of propaganda from the perspective of the…
No, the bad faith part was using an infamous pseudo-religion as a thought-terminating cliché instead of just saying what you said much more clearly and eloquently in this reply. :-) Propaganda isn’t “telling people the truth and warning them about false truths”. Propaganda is spreading a message, even if it’s known to be false , in order to induce a desired behaviour. It does not care about the truth, it does not car…
> No, the bad faith part was using an infamous pseudo-religion as a thought-terminating cliché instead of just saying what you said much more clearly and eloquently in this reply. :-)
This is not a compliment, this is doubling down on saying I was arguing in bad faith. Scientology is an excellent baseline for nonsense, not a thought-terminating cliché. I also use flat-earthers: if your argument would work just as well for flat-earthers, it's an empty argument.
In school, I was taught the tools to get my computer to do what I said and how to read. Not the truth, and what to ignore, except in history or social studies class. Needless to say, what I was taught in history and social studies in the 80s was propaganda, even the true parts.
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#34Who asked for this?
Those who in their hearts dream themselves our masters - https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked up your statistics and the reason there is nobody calling it out is because, first, that's not the claim being made (the argument is that they earn far less than equivalently trained professions which is objectively true no matter how you dice it) and, second, teachers really are paid less on a per hour basis than the OECD average which makes your statistic super misleading. In fact, the gap in lifetime earn…
> (the argument is that they earn far less than equivalently trained professions which is objectively true no matter how you dice it) I've never seen this argument, and frankly, I don't really understand it -- what are "equivalently trained professions", and why all "equivalently trained professions" should be paid the same? > and, second, teachers really are paid less on a per hour basis than the OECD average which…
> I've never seen this argument.
It's incredibly common. Even here on HN. I personally empathize with it because I'm a programmer and I'm quite certain much of the work I do provides less value than a decent teacher would _in the long term_.
Societies benefit from paying teachers more as:
- they deserve more
- higher salaries attract better teachers and actual domain experts who have little economic incentive to teach when they can make more elsewhere.
- a better educated workforce will pay for itself in the long run, although I think FUD over deficit spending isn't necessary here and would be fine if it eventually creates increased output/asset creation.
I am not claiming that these ideas are proven, just that I personally empathize with them. If you or anyone has research to counter or back up these claims that would be very helpful.
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#36We all know how this is going to end up. It always starts with fact checking and then moves on to removing articles that are wrong.
In between now and that end point, it is neither one beast nor another. It is a partially flag corpus in which some articles are meta labelled for fact checking and some aren't.
Who gets to choose which articles are scrutinised and which aren't?
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#37It seems that the leadership of archive.org is completely broken. First was the stupid stunt of saying they were a library and lending out unlimited digital copies, when it was pretty obvious that doing that would lead to huge copyright issues. Now it is this, moving them from being just an archiver of information to a commenter on information as well as an archiver and jumping headfirst into the culture wars.
I don’t want archive.org to be an exciting organization. I want it to be a boring organization that just archives as much of the internet as they can plausibly can.
It seems that current leadership is not content with being that.
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding context and giving suggestions for additional material is something librarians and museum curators have done probably since the dawn of the profession, and it’s all I can see happening here. I’m really struggling with your take that this is somehow a new or bad development. Have you ever been to a library and asked for help finding something and received a suggestion that if you are looking to read X, you migh…
I've been to libraries that offer context, recommendations, etc, but that doesn't seem like a very close analogy here. I've never seen a library book with a warning on the cover saying the librarians think it contains false claims, and if a library did apply such labels I'd be worried about how willing they are to continue stocking those books.
How close does the analogy need to be in order for you to feel comfortable that what Internet Archive are doing is not at all dangerous or unprecedented? While you may not have encountered it, some libraries do label books for content[0]:
> Some libraries block access to certain materials by placing physical or virtual barriers between the user and those materials. For example, materials are sometimes labeled for content or placed in a “locked case,” “adults only,” “restricted shelf,” or “high-demand” collection.
(emphasis mine)
Here’s another real-world example. In the physical world, book publishers often print updated editions of books with corrections, distribute errata, attach disclaimers[1], and sometimes recall books entirely[2]. (If you feel the urge to split hairs here about how one entity is a third-party publisher and the other is a third-party library, please think seriously on how this distinction is relevant to adding context.)
The concerns that the ALA have with labelling in the physical world don’t apply to what IA is doing, since IA are not creating barriers for patrons to access content, they are just adding context—as book publishers, museum curators, librarians, film distributors, documentarians, historians, and others have done for centuries.
[0] http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpret...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/business/media/publisher-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/books/naomi-wolf-outrages...
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#39It seems that the leadership of archive.org is completely broken. First was the stupid stunt of saying they were a library and lending out unlimited digital copies, when it was pretty obvious that doing that would lead to huge copyright issues. Now it is this, moving them from being just an archiver of information to a commenter on information as well as an archiver and jumping headfirst into the culture wars. I don’…
The leadership could have been compromised in some way.
Re: Fact Checks and Context for Wayback Machine Pages
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been to libraries that offer context, recommendations, etc, but that doesn't seem like a very close analogy here. I've never seen a library book with a warning on the cover saying the librarians think it contains false claims, and if a library did apply such labels I'd be worried about how willing they are to continue stocking those books.
How close does the analogy need to be in order for you to feel comfortable that what Internet Archive are doing is not at all dangerous or unprecedented? While you may not have encountered it, some libraries do label books for content[0]: > Some libraries block access to certain materials by placing physical or virtual barriers between the user and those materials. For example, materials are sometimes labeled for con…
I generally trust that librarians take the attitude towards categorization and labeling that your source presents, as a neutral exercise that has to be done for practical concerns. Some people will "be predisposed to think of labeled and filtered resources as objectionable", but that's wrong, and the library has a duty to try and structure things to minimize that incorrect predisposition. That doesn't seem to be the attitude the Internet Archive is taking here - information like "this article was part of a disinformation campaign" or "this article was banned by Medium" is relevant only to the extent that it discourages people from reading it or believing what it has to say.
Some of the practices you're describing in book publishing do bother me. I have no issue with the author of a work making corrections, errata, disclaimers, etc. But when a publisher agrees to publish a book, and then reneges because they don't agree with its contents, I find that disturbing.