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

Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#41

Post by golergka »

SandersAK wrote: post #34
cirgue wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. This is a profoundly naive view of how media works. In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet, and circulation of media was dependent on public consens…

What you're describing is the narrative that most media barons pushed from the 50's onwards - the notion of "quality journalism" - it's the reason the Pulitzer prize exists at all ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/2015-pulitzer... ). It was built to legitimize newspapers. Media barons didn't hire journalists because they were ethical and factually accurate. They created that narrative because otherwise…

Excellent storytelling, strong narrative.

Got any evidence to back it up though?

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#42

Post by mjburgess »

This is a massive signally piece from the Hacker News socially-naive cynicism clique peddling its myths about how society works.

Half-baked unempirical soap-boxing with your Headline Hits from "College Campuses Arent What They Used to Be" to Oh! Think of the Children! and the New York Times Best Seller: "STOP LABELLING YOURSELF PEOPLE!?!?!"

Ugh. It's a parody of itself. If you want to make this point then you need to do so by presenting an actual analysis of social dynamics on the internet, their changes, and so on. Not this pseudo-intellectual apocalypticism that was once phoned-in to broadsheet Op-Eds and now fills 20 tweets.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#43

Post by cirgue »

djshgakdfdh wrote: post #32
cirgue wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. This is a profoundly naive view of how media works. In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet, and circulation of media was dependent on public consens…

> based in part on the reputation of the outlet The reputation is where the bias lies. Consider the new york times: you probably respect it if you agree with it. If you don’t, it’s crappy narrative journalism. This certainly aligns with the parent comment’s claim that “facts” have never been the forte of any media; they simply need to agree with their readers. There’s simply little need to get 100% accuracy when 70%…

>The reputation is where the bias lies.

So there's a difference between bias, which exists in every human communication imaginable, and abjectly bad writing and reporting. The major problem today is the latter.

> Also, note that you can only see the issues in reporting if you’re closer to the story than the reporter is.

That is absolutely not true at all. Most bad journalism today is insultingly bad. Take this article, which was the top article on Salon's 'News' section: https://www.salon.com/2017/09/26/george-clooney-donald-trump...

Basically, it is a puff piece about how George Clooney doesn't like Trump and has said as much. This article is clickbait designed to get likes on social media. Much of what is stated is probably true (I would not doubt that George Clooney said these things), but ultimately it doesn't matter. The point of the article is not to inform, it is to provoke a reaction.

Salon used to be a reasonably thoughtful outlet. They now appear to be a tabloid. This is a pattern that has played out over the internet media for the past several years, and we are all definitely worse off for it.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#44

Post by SandersAK »

golergka wrote: post #41
SandersAK wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is the narrative that most media barons pushed from the 50's onwards - the notion of "quality journalism" - it's the reason the Pulitzer prize exists at all ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/2015-pulitzer... ). It was built to legitimize newspapers. Media barons didn't hire journalists because they were ethical and factually accurate. They created that narrative because otherwise…

Excellent storytelling, strong narrative. Got any evidence to back it up though?

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+fall+of+journalism&oq=th...

There are dozens of papers written about this - but the main thought exercise is to just consider that if the "truth" was the core value of media, of course they would double down on it.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#45

Post by programmarchy »

rjbwork wrote: post #37
willvarfar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Tangent: many countries have national tv channels that are paid by license fees or taxation. These channels strive to be independent, neutral and objective. And although it's quite in fashion to be negative about eg the bbc, I think they succeed really very well.)

I dunno man, the BBC from what I hear/read is really biased towards the left.

NPR, too. I think this is largely because it is the left who typically seeks out public funding for social programs.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#46

Post by djshgakdfdh »

cirgue wrote: post #43
djshgakdfdh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based in part on the reputation of the outlet The reputation is where the bias lies. Consider the new york times: you probably respect it if you agree with it. If you don’t, it’s crappy narrative journalism. This certainly aligns with the parent comment’s claim that “facts” have never been the forte of any media; they simply need to agree with their readers. There’s simply little need to get 100% accuracy when 70%…

>The reputation is where the bias lies. So there's a difference between bias, which exists in every human communication imaginable, and abjectly bad writing and reporting. The major problem today is the latter. > Also, note that you can only see the issues in reporting if you’re closer to the story than the reporter is. That is absolutely not true at all. Most bad journalism today is insultingly bad. Take this articl…

It’s easy to find poor reporting, but many people are blind to the flaws in each outlet. I don’t see any issue with rejecting the idea that any news source is “factual”. That is a downright harmful idea. You want to be sure about something? Go there yourself, or pay someone a lot of money to convincingly verify it.

You know what’s hard? Finding good reporting. Everyone is selling you something, even if it’s just a comfortable world view.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#47

Post by zaptheimpaler »

SandersAK wrote: post #17

This idea that "truth" and "facts" was ever a profitable business comes from a very naive place. With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. Newspapers historically were not driven by facts but by classified ads and cartoons. TV, even in its golden ag…

The most perverse part of this whole thing is that people cant/wont pay appropriately for truth. Otherwise it would be as simple as setting up a newspaper that is fully paid for by people - no ad money, no one pulling your strings.

Lies are only unmasked as lies months/years later where no one even remembers the whole arc of the conversation well enough, or sees the actors that spread lies to think "huh if we all had known the truth at the outset, none of this shit would have happened".

Its the same problem with online education - you can put up courses but there are many more courses than motivated learners, even fewer who would pay for it except to signal worth to employers.

Do you have any ideas on how to make truth even slightly profitable?

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#48

Post by throwanem »

golemotron wrote: post #11
throwanem wrote: post #2

"Want to escape? Avoid Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. Avoid venues and media built around group signaling and conspicuous consumption." Ironically, this only works well if ~everyone does it; if ~nobody does, it isolates those who do.

"Want to escape? Avoid Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. Avoid venues and media built around group signaling and conspicuous consumption." There won't be any escape, just a move toward smaller more focused online groups each with their own mores. The future looks more like a world of Slacks than a Facebook. It's fascinating that this is happening in both social media and the world (Brexit and the fragmentation of Europe…

> smaller more focused online groups each with their own mores

So, more what the Internet looked like before 2007 or so. I was there for that, and won't say it was without its drawbacks - but it is starting to look as though the drawbacks of the current fashion outweigh them.

> It's fascinating that this is happening in both social media and the world (Brexit and the fragmentation of Europe) at the same time

Indeed it is. Perhaps there's a larger lesson to be drawn.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#49

Post by ForHackernews »

SandersAK wrote: post #34
cirgue wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. This is a profoundly naive view of how media works. In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet, and circulation of media was dependent on public consens…

What you're describing is the narrative that most media barons pushed from the 50's onwards - the notion of "quality journalism" - it's the reason the Pulitzer prize exists at all ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/2015-pulitzer... ). It was built to legitimize newspapers. Media barons didn't hire journalists because they were ethical and factually accurate. They created that narrative because otherwise…

>> In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet

> But even here, this high falutin branding is there only to justify the power of ads for a different (read: intellectual) audience.

You two are in agreement.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#50

Post by throwanem »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #7
kumartanmay wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree to almost everything he said and I am also avoiding all the social media. It's surprising that he didn't use his blog to share, instead a social media. He has intentionally not mentioned Twitter. Was/ Is he an investor in Twitter?

Because the unfortunate and harsh truth is that if he had posted it on his blog, hardly anyone would have read it.

POSSE (Post on Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere) is a thing. I don't think you can turn off replies on Twitter at least, though, so you'd still potentially end up with fragmented conversation, although you could just choose not to care about the Twitter side of it.
Post reply on HN