Live data from Hacker News

Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

neutronbytes.com

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#61
post #2

"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…

I was told verbatim "we don't care about fact checkings, we have had enough of it and you always bring them up" in a thread about covid. People like that are not in the fight because of some facts they disagree with, it's about raging against the Man for other reasons.

I think that's to do with the idea the fact checkers appeared to move in lockstep with social media trust and safety teams, rather than being independent sources of actual facts.

I don't know if that's true, but that was the reason. It's not about not liking facts. It's about not trusting people who claim to be fact checkers.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#62
post #4
post #2

"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…

Even so, you still have to do it. The only alternative is unchecked bullshit, and that is highly corrosive to polite society. It's basically information guerilla warfare. Lies are cheap and easy to produce, while the facts require investigation and analysis. Lies lead to conspiracy theories which lead to radicalization which lead to destruction of society.

The best antidote is speech and information flow. The Covington kid story changed drastically when an unclipped video of what happened came out, for example.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#63
God I'm so tired of fact checking.

First of all you cannot fact check an opinion. You can talk to the person and argue that, *IN YOUR HUMBLE OPINION* they're wrong. You can even present additional information that you think should help the person to change their mind, but you cannot expect it to happen, especially not at once.

Also, it doesn't matter as much WHAT you say but HOW you say it. Approaching someone for a discussion is one thing, attempting to be Einstein that knows everything better and presents everything he says as fact usually creates a defensive demeanor. Especially as journalists, that usually know jack shit about anything and happen to fail to reproduce even simple information correctly when depicting a story.

Then there’s another problem: A lot of people argue with science w/o even remotely understanding what science is. They present a lot of stuff as facts when suddenly a new player appears: progress. And that player can turn a lot of so called “facts” into questionable information. That’s the moment when it’s not about facts anymore but about the question how fast the information traveled and who it reached first.

So while a journalist is still stuck in the past, does fact checks that get a lot of posts/comments deleted on a website, others have already gotten to the new information and are trying to have a discussion on that, which is then successfully prevented by the fact checking journalist. When the new information has reached the journo 12h later, they don’t see themselves being responsible for anything…

But it’s not even that. A lot of science has been tainted by politics/ideology and is not in the least objective anymore, because the people in it are trying to further a political or ideological agenda. Which creates a whole new problem.

I could come up with many more examples here why fact checking is one of the worst ideas in human history, but it all boils down to one question: Who is in possession of the so called truth?

While the idea of fact checking is honorable, the simple information that there is no higher instance that holds the “ultimate truth” and that is not “politically or ideologically tainted” in one way or another should make it clear to anyone how bad the idea is once it’s put into action.

Not to mention how tinfoil hat connoisseurs behave once a fact check turns out to be wrong.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#64
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it help you if the job is "done" but causes a serious risk to lives? As I said: the stealing still happens. It's institutionalized in China. Your system IS better...or at least, for now. China is a dictatorship. Their way of handling "their" people is mad and dangerous. Even if you get things "done", you better be happy that you've been lucky to live in the US and not be afraid that your house may fall apart…

Is poor construction that needs to be replaced soon worse than no construction at all? I guess that's debatable, but I would have to see actual statistics on Chinese construction failure rates vs the US rather than just a general assumption that China = low quality before it is even worth considering.

Since we're literally talking about nuclear power, then which is worse: no Chernobyl or some Chernobyl?

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#65
post #8
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, you still have to do it. The only alternative is unchecked bullshit, and that is highly corrosive to polite society. It's basically information guerilla warfare. Lies are cheap and easy to produce, while the facts require investigation and analysis. Lies lead to conspiracy theories which lead to radicalization which lead to destruction of society.

I guess what I'm getting at is that checking bullshit is far less effective than choking it out with the truth. Nobody believes the moon landing happened because they read a fact-checker's piece on the hoax, they believe it because there's so much positive evidence just floating out there that the conspiracy theory can't take hold except in teeny tiny little pockets.

> checking bullshit is far less effective than choking it out with the truth.

Maybe so, but one of the problems is that the bullshit is more often drowning out the truth - so why not do both? Get the truth out there, and push back on bullshit.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was told verbatim "we don't care about fact checkings, we have had enough of it and you always bring them up" in a thread about covid. People like that are not in the fight because of some facts they disagree with, it's about raging against the Man for other reasons.

I think that's to do with the idea the fact checkers appeared to move in lockstep with social media trust and safety teams, rather than being independent sources of actual facts. I don't know if that's true, but that was the reason. It's not about not liking facts. It's about not trusting people who claim to be fact checkers.

I don't disagree with you about the situation regarding fact checking initiatives from social media moderation and safety teams and how their social capital and brand image play out against them.

In that particular case though the sources I provided were (1) an fact checking piece from a well known and respected information household and (2) a detailed and documented rebuttal of how the numbers provided by the other party (something like "millions of people died in Europe from RNA vaccines") were actually wrong.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the USA there is tolerance for the job not getting done, but not for stealing. Well, at that level it's playing loosely with semantics.. The money didn't get pocketed directly, but it got misused to pay a vast amount of costs and salaries with no result. As there are no results, the costs covered can be considered fictional. Which brings us back to bribery and stealing..

This is exactly what I mean. Take the Obamacare exchange website for example. It cost $800 million, didn't work, and nobody got so much as fired for it because that money was wasted, not stolen, and the contract was given out in accordance to procedure. If the execs had pocketed any of that money, they would be in jail. In China it would have been given to a friend of the bureaucrat in charge of giving out the contra…

The F-35 program also comes to mind. Or the high speed train effort in California coming in at 10x the price per mile compared to European equivalents..

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#68
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like you are attacking the source and not the content of the article. Are you saying that he lied under oath and that there was scientific reasoning behind the social distancing directive?

He didn't lie under oath, but both you and the article are extrapolating quite a bit from the testimony of one guy who's not an authoritative source of anything, absence of evidence and all that. The 6ft (really the 2 meter) rule didn't come from nowhere and does have research backing -- a lot of it going back to the late 1800's. Here's a great overview of the research and history surrounding it: https://www.ncbi.nlm…

Ah, so before or at the dawn of germ theory is part of your point? OK, I’ve heard enough.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's to do with the idea the fact checkers appeared to move in lockstep with social media trust and safety teams, rather than being independent sources of actual facts. I don't know if that's true, but that was the reason. It's not about not liking facts. It's about not trusting people who claim to be fact checkers.

I don't disagree with you about the situation regarding fact checking initiatives from social media moderation and safety teams and how their social capital and brand image play out against them. In that particular case though the sources I provided were (1) an fact checking piece from a well known and respected information household and (2) a detailed and documented rebuttal of how the numbers provided by the other…

Yeah, at that point people are too far gone. But it's taken a lot of small steps over decades to get them there.
Post reply on HN