Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts • Hacker News Board

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#81

Post by GW150914 » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:40 PM UTC

deadmetheny wrote: post #71

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to challenge their items on a line by line basis. Type it out, I'll wait. There are also lots of other sources. I think playing up a 'no true scotsman' just empowers the liars because at a certain point you're just arguing that truth cannot be verified by anyone.

They have no valid credentials other than having been on the Internet a long time and having an interest in researching urban legends as laymen. One of the founders, David Mikkelson, couldn't answer questions about fact-checking due to legal issues[1]. If you really want to play the "HN says the names of logical fallacies" game, then I'll do you one better and say that challenging me to refute every single line item…

This is a reversed appeal to authority, and the fact that you keep attacking “credentials” rather than anything solid is telling. As Vkou said, they cite their sources. I’ll take that over vague hand-waving around credentials any day. Like people who dismiss Wikipedia, the issue is that you need a case-by-case basis to dismiss cited works.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#82

Post by mabramo » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:42 PM UTC

geggam wrote: post #58

ixtli wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that the phrase "political correctness" can almost always be replaced with "treating people with respect."

Respect is earned, not given. Giving something away demeans it and makes it worthless.

Disagree. Respect is given and removed if proven undeserving.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#83

Post by CompanionCuuube » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

As was witchcraft.

Social scapegoating as an American institution.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#84

Post by smhost » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #73

smhost wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very few citizens of those countries would choose to live in Xi's China instead. But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether the businesses of those countries would choose to do business from within Xi's China.

The Enlightenment was about more than business.

Oh, I'm with you there, but I'm skeptical that the lessons of the Enlightenment mean very much in a context where powerful business interests have actual control of public psychology to such an extent that they can convince people that they came to those conclusions of their own free will.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#85

Post by rayiner » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

wilsonnb wrote: post #39

kristianc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the first amendment we've had 200+ years of nearly untrammeled progress. Before that, we in Europe had absolute monarchy and the divine right of Kings. Now sure, they might have been wrong, and they're weren't infallible, but if you're seeking to overturn that, you probably need something more compelling than 'the internet has increased the flow of information'. It was the increased flow of information with the…

And if you are looking to defend it, you will probably need something more compelling than a correlation between prosperity and free speech. Anyways, I'm not seeking to overturn it. I said specifically in my comment "I'm not saying we should get rid of it". I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The fir…

> I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular.

The Constitution is hard to change precisely because it's hard to get widespread consensus on changes to such fundamental precepts of our society. Especially in a country as big and diverse in viewpoints as the U.S.

Given the current level of division in our society, I'm not open to modifying any part of the Constitution right now.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#86

Post by drzaiusapelord » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

deadmetheny wrote: post #71

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to challenge their items on a line by line basis. Type it out, I'll wait. There are also lots of other sources. I think playing up a 'no true scotsman' just empowers the liars because at a certain point you're just arguing that truth cannot be verified by anyone.

They have no valid credentials other than having been on the Internet a long time and having an interest in researching urban legends as laymen. One of the founders, David Mikkelson, couldn't answer questions about fact-checking due to legal issues[1]. If you really want to play the "HN says the names of logical fallacies" game, then I'll do you one better and say that challenging me to refute every single line item…

Again, you're doing everything but addressing the claims.

Again, if I was to link to WashPo or NYTimes, you'd dismiss them as well.

Again, you're just covering for the liars of the world.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#87

Post by jonbarker » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:45 PM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #70

ixtli wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a concerted effort to discredit expert opinion which the shorter term goal of allowing people to equate their own laymen's understanding with that of someone versed in a subject.

Nate Silver = election expert Me = not an expert on elections Yet, at almost every turn along the path of the 2016 election, I was far more accurate than Nate Silver. Is Nate Silver's expert opinion still more valuable than mine? Is expert opinion valuable even if it is right no more often than coin flipping?

Disclosure: I am a Nate Silver fan. Nate's expert opinion is only valuable if you accept the premise, which is that prediction science involves a range of possible outcomes. If you accept that premise, which I do, his opinion on the 2016 election, in which he stated several times that the odds of a Trump presidency were actually higher than most of the polls suggested, was arguably a more valuable opinion than either a coin toss, or most of the individual polls.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#88

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:45 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #72

icebraining wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this could be a workable model for regulating the news media: you can publish whatever you like, as long as you disclose your entire fact-gathering process (i.e. "cite your sources") in a way where another journalist could do the same research and reach the same conclusions about what happened (i.e. "replicate your study".) Whelp, there goes whistleblowing. Or generally any source that prefers not to be named…

> whistleblowing Keep in mind, I’m not suggesting that the source would need to be named ; I’m only suggesting that the data from the source would need to be able to be independently recollected from the same source. In the example of a whistleblower, that would mean that the journalist would need to ensure that there was some secure anonymous route by which other journalists could get in contact with the same whistl…

Basically, your sources would need to be “made available” in the same way witnesses are made available during a trial: there to be interrogated by interested parties who want to dispute their story, even if also safe from harm (by e.g. witness protection.)

Which is quite unrealistic unless you're talking about blowing a story about the local bakery or something like that. If any journalist can access the witness, they have no real security. Journalists are not all incorruptible angels, and a whistleblower is already in danger by trusting just one or two.

Witness protection works by essentially making the witness and their immediately family cut off everyone they know and restart their lives with new identities. It's a tremendous cost to pay, and the only reason most do it is because they're also implicated, and want to cut a deal. Who in their right mind would completely ruin their good, law-abiding life just to report some corrupt politician?

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#89

Post by geggam » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

mabramo wrote: post #82

geggam wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respect is earned, not given. Giving something away demeans it and makes it worthless.

Disagree. Respect is given and removed if proven undeserving.

That is your choice.

To force it on society is to remove freedom from society.

That is not a choice. That is a consequence and it has consequences.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#90

Post by rayiner » Tue, May 08, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

wilsonnb wrote: post #59

wutbrodo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. I don't know that people are unwilling to _modify_ it, but rather to _violate_ it. I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. The rule of law is simply a lot…

What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? I fully agree that the amendment process has to be used. I would be in favor of a 28th amendment placing well thought out limitations on the 1st or the 2nd amendments. Assuming I thought that the limitations it was placing on them were good limitations.

> What's the difference here between modifying and violating?

The difference is between broad consensus and divided opinion. A Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote of Congress to propose, and ratification by 3/4 of states (which means any Constitutional amendment would require support from both red and blue states). Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority.