Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders • Hacker News Board

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#371

Post by GrinningFool » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

aww_dang wrote: post #352

GrinningFool wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we can't trust individuals to digest information themselves, what are we doing? We're realizing that it's no longer as simple as "people should just know better", because the forces they're up against are armed with all the latest psychological tricks to induce belief even in people who /do/ know better.

People have been lying to and manipulating others since the beginning of recorded history. Even mythological figures exhibited deceptive behavior. The Pulitzer prize is named for the creator of "yellow journalism". There's nothing new here. This reads as "this time is different", an appeal to special circumstances without addressing the crux of the issue, subjectivity & diversity of opinion. In practical terms this r…

I don't see how this time is _not_ different.

In addition to the bad actors (these are the same throughout time) themselves, they now have capabilities that _are_ different:

- They can be heard at will be heard by millions to billions of people

- They can track in real time whether their messaging is working, and adjust it for maximum effect using everything we've learned about human psychology in the last century

- They can target their messaging at scale, varying it to match what will work best for a given narrowly-defined demographic

- They can do all of this with an iteration cycle of hours, instead of days or weeks

Where is the historical parallel that invalidates the premise?

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#372

Post by loveistheanswer » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

weakfish wrote: post #365

loveistheanswer wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed I have read through Farrand's records of the constitutional convention, I've read many of the founders personal writings (both federalists and anti federalists), I've read many works of prominent Enlightenment thinkers, and I've studied much of the history of the oppression and censorship of the Church which helped inspire the ideal of freedom of speech. Nowhere have I seen anything resembling "freedom of spee…

I think we may actually be on the same side, then - my implication was that America is "freedom from persecution," _not_ freedom from criticism and/or private consequence. When I say _private_ consequence, I primarily mean if you say something that the owner of a restaraunt you dine in does not like, you can get kicked out from that private enterprise, but the government cannot stifle your ability to say the words th…

Defenders of slavery used that same "private enterprise" line to assert their rights over people; as did restaurant owners 100 years after slavery was abolished to justify kicking out people with offensive skin color.

It was not an existing law, but the ideal "that all men are created equal" which abolishonists and civil rights leaders pointed to in their quest for equality.

Likewise it is the ideal of freedom of expression which we are pointing to now that should protect humans from being banned from the digital town square for expressing offensive ideas.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#373

Post by aww_dang » Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 10:31 AM UTC

GrinningFool wrote: post #371

aww_dang wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been lying to and manipulating others since the beginning of recorded history. Even mythological figures exhibited deceptive behavior. The Pulitzer prize is named for the creator of "yellow journalism". There's nothing new here. This reads as "this time is different", an appeal to special circumstances without addressing the crux of the issue, subjectivity & diversity of opinion. In practical terms this r…

I don't see how this time is _not_ different. In addition to the bad actors (these are the same throughout time) themselves, they now have capabilities that _are_ different: - They can be heard at will be heard by millions to billions of people - They can track in real time whether their messaging is working, and adjust it for maximum effect using everything we've learned about human psychology in the last century -…

Advances in technology do not address the underlying philosophical or moral premises. The pushback against the Gutenberg press was argued along similar lines. Technocrats appear to be the new priestly class.

Narrowly focusing on technological minutiae deliberately misses the point.

I remember when the rallying cry of opensrc and hacker culture was: "information wants to be free". Shameless political FUD is the same parlor trick played again and again. Disappointing to see it getting so much play here.

If you're opening the door for invites to prove a negative, then perhaps you can prove that your rationale isn't misinformation? In terms of real politik, it buttresses authoritarian "fact check" narratives.

We disagree and that's not only healthy and normal, but the entire point. We should be able to disagree without characterizing arguments or subjective observations as misinformation deviating from an authority's concept of "objective truth".