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

Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

royalsociety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#91

Post by throwaway22032 »

iamben wrote: post #69
throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time. So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc. We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Be…

I don't disagree, and it's probably the right option - but most people are lazy thinkers. You want the simplest answer that explains the problem in a way you understand. If someone is trying to take advantage of a situation that's inherently complicated or unpleasant - it's easy to do so with a simple message that makes it digestible, even if it's wrong or harmful. We've seen this time and time again over the last fe…

You could be right, and as far as I can tell - that's what we've done.

But is it sustainable to lie to people in order to effect a desired (even if positive) change? How long can it go on for before people just turn off?

Maybe the answer is indefinitely. Empirically at least in my country this doesn't seem to be the case.

I've heard this been described as "pandemic fatigue", but it seems to more revolve around taking orders than believing in or being concerned about the pandemic itself.

People are willing to follow counterintuitive rules for a while, but eventually they need to understand some sort of final benefit derived.

The vast majority of people don't get "not drinking bleach fatigue" because they know it's bloody awful and that if they don't drink it, they're gone.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#92

Post by wcerfgba »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time. So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc. We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Be…

Thanks for your comment. I broadly agree with your points and find them insightful.

In particular I appreciate that you model authority as an analogue for trust, and trust as an analogue for independent verification.

I think trust is a prerequisite for successful convincing, because it is hard for human brains to overcome the emotional and relational elements of discourse, and we need to be in a receptive frame of mind. [citation needed]

We should study how authorities have built and lost trust, but I don't think we should be rebuilding those authorities using this knowledge. Instead I think focusing on how members of the public and different experts and scholars can build more diverse networks of trust relationships would create a more resilient system in the Internet age.

For example, instead of "I trust the CDC because they are an authority on disease" or "I trust Fauci on COVID because he is an immunologist", what if the common relationship was "I trust Fauci on COVID because his work on Zika and HIV was very interesting".

A related problem is what I call the 'knowledge gap'. Researchers develop a very comprehensive understanding of their chosen subjects, whereas members of the public have only a lay-person level of understanding. As experts become increasingly experienced and knowledgeable, the gap between lay-person understanding and expert comprehension grows. This means researchers are not always able to understand what a member of the public needs to know or how to explain it: how do you compress years of learning into a few minutes of talking, as part of a conversation? Good science communication skills are essential for experts if they want to develop trust relationships with members of the public, and if we as a society want to move from authority and coercion and towards education.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#93

Post by fvdessen »

zzyzz wrote: post #22

I always think about this. If you can't trust people with the ability to see or hear certain information, how can you even trust them to vote?

For some people democracy means letting people chose from options pre-approved by experts, because the people, in their view, can’t be trusted with being correctly informed, or coming up with useful options.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#94

Post by chronofar »

Barrin92 wrote: post #48
zzyzz wrote: post #22

I always think about this. If you can't trust people with the ability to see or hear certain information, how can you even trust them to vote?

because people don't need to be scientifically literate to express their desires in the form of a vote, which is mainly concerned with tasking representatives with what people want, not how they're going to get it. It's perfectly coherent to think that voting is a good mechanism to express preferences while at the same time thinking that your average person can't really validate scientific claims.

I don’t think there’s nearly as much daylight between these as you’re suggesting. Just look at how current beliefs in COVID or climate science fall along political preference lines. Scientific literacy is absolutely important to express coherent preferences on how policy should address these matters.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#95

Post by rob_c »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #50
throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time. So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc. We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Be…

Let people draw their own conclusions and don’t censor or otherwise penalize them for questioning one interpretation of data vs another. Encourage people to do their own research and investigate who is funding the sources used for that research. There is no need for conspiracy theories when financial incentives exist.

I think unfortunately we also need to protect science from idiots making very bad conclusions based on not understanding a paper... That's how we end up with 'bacon cures cancer' headlines in the daily fail...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#96

Post by rob_c »

1270018080 wrote: post #57
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let people draw their own conclusions and don’t censor or otherwise penalize them for questioning one interpretation of data vs another. Encourage people to do their own research and investigate who is funding the sources used for that research. There is no need for conspiracy theories when financial incentives exist.

Do you mean "Do their own research" like make up conspiracy theories out of thin air and parrot nonsense deep state rhetoric? Completely divorcing yourself from reality? You want more of that?

This is often people not understanding the technical details of the science so fall for the logical mistake of "person on YouTube explained it so simply it must be true"... Obviously this isn't helped when the people who are supposed to be trustworthy and unbiased in presenting the science to people are repeatedly caught lying that drives people to that simpler world view.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#97

Post by rob_c »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #72
1270018080 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean "Do their own research" like make up conspiracy theories out of thin air and parrot nonsense deep state rhetoric? Completely divorcing yourself from reality? You want more of that?

The world will always have heathens and heretics. Some people will always come to the wrong conclusion some of the time. Skepticism of any claims is a pretty good heuristic, but should be equally applied to counter claims.

Amen!

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#98

Post by [deleted] »

bmc7505 wrote: post #59

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Regardless of where you stand on specific issues like censorship, public health and misinformation, I think it’s really dangerous how counter-consensus opinions cannot be expressed in the open without individuals facing intense public scrutiny. There needs to be some kind of correction mechanism in case the consensus opinion is misinformed. Maybe it would help to put in term…

[deleted]

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#99

Post by throwaway894345 »

1270018080 wrote: post #57
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let people draw their own conclusions and don’t censor or otherwise penalize them for questioning one interpretation of data vs another. Encourage people to do their own research and investigate who is funding the sources used for that research. There is no need for conspiracy theories when financial incentives exist.

Do you mean "Do their own research" like make up conspiracy theories out of thin air and parrot nonsense deep state rhetoric? Completely divorcing yourself from reality? You want more of that?

You have it backwards. Discussing controversial issues in the clear minimizes conspiracy theories (no, it doesn't completely eliminate them). The volume of conspiracy theories was driven up precisely because our epistemological institutions (e.g., media, academy, etc) abandoned the pursuits of objectivity and neutrality. To get back to a semi-rational state of affairs, we need to get the ideology out of our institutions (or at least diversify it).

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#100

Post by c-cube »

colechristensen wrote: post #33
toolz wrote: post #12

So many "misinformation censorship" proponents seem to have quickly forgotten just how much literally everyone in public health has spread misinformation this pandemic. It's unavoidable being wrong and often the cost of making claims without unimpeachable evidence is higher than the cost of being wrong. Name me a public health official who regularly made recommendations this pandemic and I'll show you misinformation.…

There is a difference between "malice" and "intentional misinformation". Authority figures are not accurately representing risks and rewards of different actions and have deliberately shaped their messaging to achieve outcomes. Direct from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 "CDC does not currently recommend the use of facemasks to help prevent novel #coronavirus. Take everyday pr…

Ok then, why is it bad to prioritize healthcare workers, who put their lives on the line in the face of a new unknown disease? That was only for a very short while. I think the behavior of people rushing to buy toilet paper shows that, indeed, had the CDC promoted masks at that point, it would have prevented nurses and doctors from getting the most basic protection while exposing themselves to infection to an incomparable degree.
Post reply on HN