Misinformation: The First Digital Drug(ebenezermann.medium.com)
ebenezermann.medium.com
Misinformation: The First Digital Drug
https://ebenezermann.medium.com/misinformation-the-first-digital-drug-2ae184083ef1
107 comments
> Most of the higher-quality longitudinal evidence I've seen does not show that there is an increase in believing in conspiracy theories or misinformation (or, as we used to call it, people simply being incorrect).
Do you have a source for that? Not trying to dispute your claim, just curious.
Do you have a source for that? Not trying to dispute your claim, just curious.
When I googled I found these claims:
"There are no major comprehensive, longitudinal studies on Americans’ attitudes toward conspiracy theories, mostly because it was not rigorously measured until about 10 to 20 years ago."
"...reviewed over 120 years of letters to the editor, from 1890 to 2010, for both The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. In over 100,000 letters, this review showed absolutely no change in the amount of conspiracy theory belief over time. In fact, the percent of letters about conspiracy theories actually declined from the late 1800s to the 1960s and has remained steady since then."
They cite: American Conspiracy Theories - Joseph Uscinski & Joseph Parent.
Quotes from here:
https://theconversation.com/are-conspiracy-theories-on-the-r...
"There are no major comprehensive, longitudinal studies on Americans’ attitudes toward conspiracy theories, mostly because it was not rigorously measured until about 10 to 20 years ago."
"...reviewed over 120 years of letters to the editor, from 1890 to 2010, for both The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. In over 100,000 letters, this review showed absolutely no change in the amount of conspiracy theory belief over time. In fact, the percent of letters about conspiracy theories actually declined from the late 1800s to the 1960s and has remained steady since then."
They cite: American Conspiracy Theories - Joseph Uscinski & Joseph Parent.
Quotes from here:
https://theconversation.com/are-conspiracy-theories-on-the-r...
It seems to me that higher visibility is all but guaranteed to lead to an increase in belief. Simple exposure is one thing: most people aren't going to concoct new conspiracy theories on their own, but they may decide to go in for them when they see them.
Social persuasion/cohesion is another: we're all influenced by the views of the people around us (like it or not). When you see half a dozen people in one of your peer groups talking about $WEIRD_THING, you're naturally inclined to give it some time, and maybe some credence.
I don't disagree about the deep problems with regulating it, though.
Social persuasion/cohesion is another: we're all influenced by the views of the people around us (like it or not). When you see half a dozen people in one of your peer groups talking about $WEIRD_THING, you're naturally inclined to give it some time, and maybe some credence.
I don't disagree about the deep problems with regulating it, though.
You’re going to have to back that up with some evidence, especially considering the specious claims you’ve been making over the last few weeks during the capitol terror attack etc.
Definitely not just the internet.
I have things like this showing up in my mailbox unsolicited. People believe what it says because it's coming from a group they're familiar with. I'd say there should probably be real legal action taken against things like this...
http://prntscr.com/wweheo
http://prntscr.com/wwexix
http://prntscr.com/wwf2eg
I have things like this showing up in my mailbox unsolicited. People believe what it says because it's coming from a group they're familiar with. I'd say there should probably be real legal action taken against things like this...
http://prntscr.com/wweheo
http://prntscr.com/wwexix
http://prntscr.com/wwf2eg
What about those do you think should be illegal?
We can only have outright lies being peddled when readily available deadly weapons are involved for so long. Whether or not you care about the consequences, I don't know.
Caring about the consequences and thinking something should be outlawed are entirely different things. Getting the legal system involved is not a good solution.
Well I'd say that the shameless crowds marching to bullshit conspiracies on the streets as well as the support for their head figure who also was spreading shameless bullshit is a quite visible evidence outside the internet.
Some of the things people currently believe are so patently absurd and obviously made up that labeling them as false would not make much difference. It's would be just one more conspiracy vector.
Even if it did, how could the regulators possibly keep up with the gish gallop of misinformation? There are those who seriously examine and rebut the claims of q-anon et al. but can you imagine a more thankless task?
A better approach is to teach good informational hygiene to kids. Pull from a variety of information sources, weight the ones that correct errors, awareness and taxonomy of cognitive biases, stuff like that.
Even if it did, how could the regulators possibly keep up with the gish gallop of misinformation? There are those who seriously examine and rebut the claims of q-anon et al. but can you imagine a more thankless task?
A better approach is to teach good informational hygiene to kids. Pull from a variety of information sources, weight the ones that correct errors, awareness and taxonomy of cognitive biases, stuff like that.
I think in any community that is gratified in some way by a belief, there's a spectrum from actually believing at one end, to enjoying the camaraderie and enjoying the belief as a conscious fantasy at the other end, and I think people who inhabit the "conscious fantasy" end can slide towards the "true believing end" via suspension of disbelief, like people do while enjoying a movie or a role-playing game.
When the community is something like a sci-fi fandom community, people on the actually believing end of the spectrum would be considered mentally ill, while people on the camaraderie-and-fantasy end are considered well-adjusted. In a religious community, it's more complicated, and people on either end of the spectrum might be accepted or stigmatized depending on the religion itself and the point of view of the beholder.
Either way, if you think of fandom communities and religious communities as analogues, you wouldn't expect these communities to go away until people can no longer get gratification they want from them. I don't know how that can be accomplished.
When the community is something like a sci-fi fandom community, people on the actually believing end of the spectrum would be considered mentally ill, while people on the camaraderie-and-fantasy end are considered well-adjusted. In a religious community, it's more complicated, and people on either end of the spectrum might be accepted or stigmatized depending on the religion itself and the point of view of the beholder.
Either way, if you think of fandom communities and religious communities as analogues, you wouldn't expect these communities to go away until people can no longer get gratification they want from them. I don't know how that can be accomplished.
I know it's sensitive times to comment anything but I can't help remembering all the ancient chinese idioms we used to learn and laugh about in class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_men_make_a_tiger https://zh.m.wiktionary.org/zh-hans/%E4%B8%89%E4%BA%BA%E8%A1...
From 'learning from any 3 random wanders' to 'fear the tiger of 3'. Was that actual wisdom or cynical conclusion of human behaviour?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_men_make_a_tiger https://zh.m.wiktionary.org/zh-hans/%E4%B8%89%E4%BA%BA%E8%A1...
From 'learning from any 3 random wanders' to 'fear the tiger of 3'. Was that actual wisdom or cynical conclusion of human behaviour?
Informational hygeine is already part of the high school curriculum in every state I'm familiar with. Maybe we could make it better, but I struggle to think of any specific reforms that'd help.
The current information hygiene and media literacy curriculum as I understand it leans heavily on using 'reputable sources'. This is well and good until those sources start to lose their reputability by publishing stories that stretch credulity (WaPo and the NYT with their 'anonymous intelligence sources familiar with the thinking of people near the matter'), become increasingly partisan, or simply appear too selective in their coverages with the benefit of hindsight. Noticing these things invalidates the majority of the curriculum in a student's mind, and leaves them unequipped to deal with the beasts wandering the information wilderness.
If I were to reform this, I'd place greater emphasis on information composition, and source/author auditing. Acknowledge that mainstream publications often miss things that less reputable outlets will cover (albeit poorly), and teach students to think in degrees of certainty.
If I were to reform this, I'd place greater emphasis on information composition, and source/author auditing. Acknowledge that mainstream publications often miss things that less reputable outlets will cover (albeit poorly), and teach students to think in degrees of certainty.
>This is well and good until those sources start to lose their reputability by publishing stories that stretch credulity (WaPo and the NYT with their 'anonymous intelligence sources familiar with the thinking of people near the matter')
It sounds like maybe we should add courses on journalism then too because there is nothing specific about this approach that stretches credulity if done properly. Unnamed sources are a crucial part of a lot of good journalism.
It sounds like maybe we should add courses on journalism then too because there is nothing specific about this approach that stretches credulity if done properly. Unnamed sources are a crucial part of a lot of good journalism.
They are, and some of the greatest journalists alive, such as Sy Hersh have built their very respectable careers on anonymous tips and having privileged information from those they can never cite.
That being said, it's important to be exceedingly leery of them, and use them sparingly, preferably as supporting evidence for a larger story. Lacking the same degree of accountability, they just as easily can be used to launder political narratives to sympathetic journalists who will breathlessly parrot them as they can be used to inform the public of goings-on behind the curtains of corporation and state.
Used too lightly as the primary crux of nearly inconsequential stories which hammer in too small a number of talking points, 'anonymous x familiar with y' can quickly become shorthand for 'this journalist/publication is in bed with a subfaction, and this is the new talking point'.
That being said, it's important to be exceedingly leery of them, and use them sparingly, preferably as supporting evidence for a larger story. Lacking the same degree of accountability, they just as easily can be used to launder political narratives to sympathetic journalists who will breathlessly parrot them as they can be used to inform the public of goings-on behind the curtains of corporation and state.
Used too lightly as the primary crux of nearly inconsequential stories which hammer in too small a number of talking points, 'anonymous x familiar with y' can quickly become shorthand for 'this journalist/publication is in bed with a subfaction, and this is the new talking point'.
Anonymous sources are a tool that is neither inherently good or bad. You singled them out in your previous comment as being linked to untrustworthy reporting.
That’s because anonymous sources been particularly abused in the past few years - reporters taking a source at their word while doing a minimum of verification.
Properly used unnamed sources are a crucial part of good journalism, but much of the problem we've seen recently is that media outlets aren't using them properly. I'd point to the Miles Taylor essay as a good concrete example of what goes wrong:
* They granted him journalistic anonymity for an opinion piece, which is very much not a common practice.
* The NYT published no corroboration of Taylor's claims, and their descriptions of how the editorial got published suggest they didn't even attempt to find corroboration.
* Their description of him as a "senior administration official" substantively misled people - the phrase is generally understood, and was understood at the time, to refer to people like agency heads or cabinet secretaries with direct accountability to the President.
And this is from an uncommonly responsible outlet! Many others will happily publish detailed claims of fact attributed only to "one person with knowledge of the matter".
* They granted him journalistic anonymity for an opinion piece, which is very much not a common practice.
* The NYT published no corroboration of Taylor's claims, and their descriptions of how the editorial got published suggest they didn't even attempt to find corroboration.
* Their description of him as a "senior administration official" substantively misled people - the phrase is generally understood, and was understood at the time, to refer to people like agency heads or cabinet secretaries with direct accountability to the President.
And this is from an uncommonly responsible outlet! Many others will happily publish detailed claims of fact attributed only to "one person with knowledge of the matter".
The Miles Taylor column was not a journalist citing an "unnamed source". It was a publisher allowing an anonymous opinion column. Those are different things. It is also important to realize the fundamental differences between reporting and opinion pieces including the expectations on fact checking.
Once again, another reason people should learn more about journalism in school.
Once again, another reason people should learn more about journalism in school.
This seems like an incredibly bad faith argument to me.
Do you feel that the "Anonymous" op-ed was published in a manner that encouraged any sort of critical consumption?
Do you feel that the "Anonymous" op-ed was published in a manner that encouraged any sort of critical consumption?
My point is the '"Anonymous" op-ed' was in fact an op-ed which comes with a different set of publishing standards than reporting. Most people either are ignorant of or refuse the recognize the differences between the two from a journalistic point of view. Fundamentally a bad op-ed in the NYT shouldn't have anyone questioning the quality of reporting that the NYT puts out.
I don't know. I understand the journalistic theory behind it, but as applied here, it feels like the equivalent of an investment bank explaining that it's unfair to hold it accountable for its false Libor submissions. The NYT's institutional reputation was a fundamental part of what made this op-ed work - nobody would have believed it if it were on a random anonymous Blogspot - and that reputation can't be cleanly divided according to the company's internal firewalls.
There's a point where you have to hold organizations accountable under normal standards, rather than letting them set up special rules to define their bad conduct out of existence.
There's a point where you have to hold organizations accountable under normal standards, rather than letting them set up special rules to define their bad conduct out of existence.
You still aren't delaminating the differences between opinion and reporting. This would have been an egregious column to post as part of NYT's news coverage. It isn't among the worst columns the NYT has published as part of its opinion columns. There are different standards for the two and different reputations for each department inside the company.
Basically what you are doing is blaming Alphabet because it doesn't hold YouTube and Google Search to the same standards and Trump was banned from one and not the other. Those products serve separate purposes and therefore need to have their own independent expectations and practices.
Basically what you are doing is blaming Alphabet because it doesn't hold YouTube and Google Search to the same standards and Trump was banned from one and not the other. Those products serve separate purposes and therefore need to have their own independent expectations and practices.
Wow. I'm a huge consumer of news media and I never saw that this source was revealed. I'm only now learning the identity of the author, but you're absolutely correct that the portrayal was incredibly misleading and I'm infuriated at the attempted deceit.
I'll try to cite some hypothesis, hope it helps...
'Within limted thought-processes; which can be owed by censorship, selfcensoring or sure a lack of information, one thought may be proceeding linear.'
"If you may give this one moment more, associating happens within a 'certain' time as well it may make 'a career' and runs on a limited tracks."
Now you may imagine conflicts - as unexpected consequence, resulting in a quiet retreat, in its simplest form to shut up, hardened resulting in isolation - just to reenter a thoughtloop of to rest, to became keeping calm... now add promiscuous, rash, screenwork and you have qualified for obsession and addiction, maybe... ^^
edited: eh! ther was way too many chars and text to 'translate' to round the full -too drunk- picture in this little textbox...so... (-; recursion
'Within limted thought-processes; which can be owed by censorship, selfcensoring or sure a lack of information, one thought may be proceeding linear.'
"If you may give this one moment more, associating happens within a 'certain' time as well it may make 'a career' and runs on a limited tracks."
Now you may imagine conflicts - as unexpected consequence, resulting in a quiet retreat, in its simplest form to shut up, hardened resulting in isolation - just to reenter a thoughtloop of to rest, to became keeping calm... now add promiscuous, rash, screenwork and you have qualified for obsession and addiction, maybe... ^^
edited: eh! ther was way too many chars and text to 'translate' to round the full -too drunk- picture in this little textbox...so... (-; recursion
I think that's a fair assessment. I don't know if it's still true, but for at least the first decade after Wikipedia went mainstream, I did see a lot of schools compromising their credibility by insisting that it wasn't a "reliable source" so you shouldn't read it to learn about things.
The problem with labeling a source with a "reliability score" is the ad hominem fallacy.
It's less than a single semester of content, and you don't really practice it, since you're pretty much guaranteed to be spoonfed authoritative information anyway.
That's very interesting!
I have a pet theory that Informational Hygiene is going to be one of the most important classes in the upcoming years, taking a similar place to sex ed.
Are there any resources on classes in the space? I did a quick Google and didn't see anything that stood out.
I have a pet theory that Informational Hygiene is going to be one of the most important classes in the upcoming years, taking a similar place to sex ed.
Are there any resources on classes in the space? I did a quick Google and didn't see anything that stood out.
> taking a similar place to sex ed
That's a great analogy, and sadly why I don't think these classes will help as much as we'd like.
The places where they are needed the most are the places that are going to alter the content of the classes to fit their agenda. Just look at sex ed classes in strongly conservative areas.
That's a great analogy, and sadly why I don't think these classes will help as much as we'd like.
The places where they are needed the most are the places that are going to alter the content of the classes to fit their agenda. Just look at sex ed classes in strongly conservative areas.
But the first thing to suspect would be state school. A lot of politics happens in what gets taught to kids.
I recall being taught that the civil war was about "state's rights" -- even the teacher rolled her eyes on that one.
I recall being taught that the civil war was about "state's rights" -- even the teacher rolled her eyes on that one.
Teaching will not solve the problem with incentives - QAnon is just more fun.
> QAnon is just more fun.
As a counter-example, to me being right or approaching truth consistently and in a repeatable manner is much more fun than believing whatever I want to believe.
I know which beliefs I'd like to be true, but self-deception isn't as fun as being right; right as in claims made within an independently validated methodological framework that makes my claims reproducible.
That's isn't inherent, I assume, but learned.
> Teaching will not solve the problem with incentives -
Citation desperately needed!
The, arguably, oldest human system of hierarchical organization called Church would like to have a word with you: a system based purely on psychological and social incentives, nothing else, giving relevance to itself and propagating certain world-views, beliefs and thought-systems.
As a counter-example, to me being right or approaching truth consistently and in a repeatable manner is much more fun than believing whatever I want to believe.
I know which beliefs I'd like to be true, but self-deception isn't as fun as being right; right as in claims made within an independently validated methodological framework that makes my claims reproducible.
That's isn't inherent, I assume, but learned.
> Teaching will not solve the problem with incentives -
Citation desperately needed!
The, arguably, oldest human system of hierarchical organization called Church would like to have a word with you: a system based purely on psychological and social incentives, nothing else, giving relevance to itself and propagating certain world-views, beliefs and thought-systems.
> > QAnon is just more fun.
> Citation desperately needed!
You might find this take on QAnon from a game designer's perspective interesting:
https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analy...
> It uses many of the same gaming mechanisms and rewards [as ARGs and LARPing].
> When players arrive at the “correct” answers they are showered with adoration, respect, and social credit.
> ... the breadcrumbs [from Q] are not facts, they are [...] Puzzles and clues for the “investigators” to uncover. [...] solving puzzles is extremely rewarding from a biochemical standpoint and the thoughts we gain from them are special to us.
> Citation desperately needed!
You might find this take on QAnon from a game designer's perspective interesting:
https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analy...
> It uses many of the same gaming mechanisms and rewards [as ARGs and LARPing].
> When players arrive at the “correct” answers they are showered with adoration, respect, and social credit.
> ... the breadcrumbs [from Q] are not facts, they are [...] Puzzles and clues for the “investigators” to uncover. [...] solving puzzles is extremely rewarding from a biochemical standpoint and the thoughts we gain from them are special to us.
“ Media firms work backward. They first ask, “How does our target demographic want to understand what’s just unfolded?” Then they pick both the words and the facts they want to emphasize.”
From Matt Taibbi’s https://taibbi.substack.com/p/we-need-a-new-media-system
From Matt Taibbi’s https://taibbi.substack.com/p/we-need-a-new-media-system
> Most progressive thinking is moving towards more legalization and treatment, vs banning and punishment... Treat it like we’re starting to treat drugs
I'm all for the direction that drug policy is going (towards more treatment, less prison time - I live in Oregon and we're on the forefront of this in the US) but I'm not sure how this would work in regards to misinformation. How do we get conspiracy theorists into treatment? Won't they just figure that's part of the conspiracy to re-educate them? And a lot of this disinformation is coming from bad actors with intent to harm.
The epistemic gap is, I think the most serious problem we face now. We can't address other serious problems like climate change or even getting COVID vaccines out to people because there's disinformation. We seem to be completely unprepared to deal with this. The immune system offers an analogy - we need a societal immune system that attacks disinformation in some way. No idea how we get there, though.
I'm all for the direction that drug policy is going (towards more treatment, less prison time - I live in Oregon and we're on the forefront of this in the US) but I'm not sure how this would work in regards to misinformation. How do we get conspiracy theorists into treatment? Won't they just figure that's part of the conspiracy to re-educate them? And a lot of this disinformation is coming from bad actors with intent to harm.
The epistemic gap is, I think the most serious problem we face now. We can't address other serious problems like climate change or even getting COVID vaccines out to people because there's disinformation. We seem to be completely unprepared to deal with this. The immune system offers an analogy - we need a societal immune system that attacks disinformation in some way. No idea how we get there, though.
> even getting COVID vaccines out to people because there's disinformation.
During the last year, we have seen the following claims from public health authorities affiliated with well-regarded scientific institutions:
At what point have the "experts" been right this year? Which of those things should we have labelled misinformation? Attempting to install a technocratic version of truth has never worked, and we should have the grace to allow "wrong" things to be said. The experts, so-called, have been inconsistent and wrong through this whole debacle.
During the last year, we have seen the following claims from public health authorities affiliated with well-regarded scientific institutions:
- Vitamin D does nothing
- Vitamin D helps
- You should wear masks
- Masks are not actually that helpful
- The Trump attempts to stop travel from China are racist and terrible (Schumer, Pelosi)
- We need to shut down most transportation and not just airports
- We need to lockdown all non-essential businesses
- Hollywood is an essential business, but churches and restaurants aren't
- Lethality of COVID-19 is 2-5%
- Lethality of COVID-19 is ~0.2-0.4%
At what point have the "experts" been right this year? Which of those things should we have labelled misinformation? Attempting to install a technocratic version of truth has never worked, and we should have the grace to allow "wrong" things to be said. The experts, so-called, have been inconsistent and wrong through this whole debacle.
Institutions and experts have always been inconsistent. Just look at nutrition science - we've gone from fats are bad, to no carbs are bad, to no wine is actually good. The expectation that the scientific community would find consensus on a novel virus in a matter of months is unreasonable. Personally I've taken @nntaleb reasoning on it - whether or not masks work with certainty is irrelevant; we have good enough data to suggest it works so we take the insurance and wear them. There is nothing wrong with a healthy amount of skepticism; and claims are often muddied through the low pass filter that is Twitter (ex. experts warned that singling out China was racist when American cases came from Italy; we needed far more policy than single out the Chinese).
That said, there a mountainous gap between "we are unsure if masks work" to "the president is fighting an underground shadow cabal of pedophiles and blood drinkers." COVID deniers aren't suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are unsure of the effectiveness of vaccines - they are suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are actually microchips by Bill Gates designed to track us.
There is a clear difference between misinformation and just plain being wrong - there's a difference between telling me LeBron James is going to win a championship next year and telling me LeBron is actually an alien from Mars who came here to trick us into watching basketball so they could steal all our water. If the President was wrong about LeBron James winning, he would be wrong. If the President was trying to convince me of the latter, then I think that is misinformation.
That said, there a mountainous gap between "we are unsure if masks work" to "the president is fighting an underground shadow cabal of pedophiles and blood drinkers." COVID deniers aren't suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are unsure of the effectiveness of vaccines - they are suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are actually microchips by Bill Gates designed to track us.
There is a clear difference between misinformation and just plain being wrong - there's a difference between telling me LeBron James is going to win a championship next year and telling me LeBron is actually an alien from Mars who came here to trick us into watching basketball so they could steal all our water. If the President was wrong about LeBron James winning, he would be wrong. If the President was trying to convince me of the latter, then I think that is misinformation.
Some good points! I do think that most people are not used to how science can change over time and that what most science is is just what the majority of scientists have come to conclude from their independent studies. Most people have not had to deal with greys and prefer things to be black and white.
We need a shift towards understanding that the best available information is better than nothing and that the information can change as more better information comes to light.
Another thing we need to move away from is crucifying people for getting things wrong - this just doesn't help in the long run. People are fallible and make mistakes. Granted, don't let them make to many in a row but once in a while needs to be acceptable.
We need a shift towards understanding that the best available information is better than nothing and that the information can change as more better information comes to light.
Another thing we need to move away from is crucifying people for getting things wrong - this just doesn't help in the long run. People are fallible and make mistakes. Granted, don't let them make to many in a row but once in a while needs to be acceptable.
I think the statement that "science can change over time", though true, is improper to use in most cases.
The transition between different models of the atom is a great example of science changing over time. The existing theory explained some things, but not others. The superseding theory explained the previous observations, and made new falsifiable predictions that could not be refuted at the time.
The conflicting claims about fats and carbs is an example of that excuse not holding water. We're talking about a new claim, that is completely incompatible with the prior one. We're taking the old claims that were supposedly evidence-supported, and tossing them in the dumpster. At the very least, this means that overly strong conclusions were drawn from previous experiments.
I think it's a mistake to dismiss such situations as the general public being confused about how science works. Undoubtedly many are, but the reason for that is certainly in large part due to the abuse of "scientific" claims about their everyday life.
The transition between different models of the atom is a great example of science changing over time. The existing theory explained some things, but not others. The superseding theory explained the previous observations, and made new falsifiable predictions that could not be refuted at the time.
The conflicting claims about fats and carbs is an example of that excuse not holding water. We're talking about a new claim, that is completely incompatible with the prior one. We're taking the old claims that were supposedly evidence-supported, and tossing them in the dumpster. At the very least, this means that overly strong conclusions were drawn from previous experiments.
I think it's a mistake to dismiss such situations as the general public being confused about how science works. Undoubtedly many are, but the reason for that is certainly in large part due to the abuse of "scientific" claims about their everyday life.
> most people are not used to how science can change over time
We need more education on the scientific method and how it works.
We need more education on the scientific method and how it works.
> COVID deniers aren't suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are unsure of the effectiveness of vaccines - they are suggesting we don't take vaccines because they are actually microchips by Bill Gates designed to track us.
That is misinformation. It is absolutely the case that people are unwilling to take the vaccine because the effectiveness (and safety) is questionable. You're just throwing up a strawman.
It's also possible you just don't know the reasoning behind any but the most vocal "covid deniers". That wouldn't be surprising, since the standard practice now seems to be to lump everyone who questions the 'official position' in with the most extreme theories, and that makes rational people shut up. Your generalization is only strengthening your echo chamber.
That is misinformation. It is absolutely the case that people are unwilling to take the vaccine because the effectiveness (and safety) is questionable. You're just throwing up a strawman.
It's also possible you just don't know the reasoning behind any but the most vocal "covid deniers". That wouldn't be surprising, since the standard practice now seems to be to lump everyone who questions the 'official position' in with the most extreme theories, and that makes rational people shut up. Your generalization is only strengthening your echo chamber.
>It is absolutely the case that people are unwilling to take the vaccine because the effectiveness (and safety) is questionable.
Effectiveness is one thing; I take the same exact reasoning for wearing masks - you take the insurance especially when it costs you nothing. However, you are welcome to enlighten me on well supported arguments against vaccine safety. You can't just tell me that I'm throwing up strawman, then make 0 actual arguments except "I'm not doing enough research". If you are asking me to doubt vaccine safety on no data except some vague claims on there being "less extreme" positions, then I would argue you are spreading misinformation; especially when there are decades of research showing the safety otherwise.
Effectiveness is one thing; I take the same exact reasoning for wearing masks - you take the insurance especially when it costs you nothing. However, you are welcome to enlighten me on well supported arguments against vaccine safety. You can't just tell me that I'm throwing up strawman, then make 0 actual arguments except "I'm not doing enough research". If you are asking me to doubt vaccine safety on no data except some vague claims on there being "less extreme" positions, then I would argue you are spreading misinformation; especially when there are decades of research showing the safety otherwise.
I think you've completely misunderstood me. I'm not attempting to persuade you of anything.
You're misrepresenting the positions of the people who disagree with you. You're making it sound like the only alternative to your position is rediculous. You're throwing up a strawman.
Disagree with me; that's fine. But this is my point: be intellectually honest about it, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who disagree with you are not well-reasoned.
You're misrepresenting the positions of the people who disagree with you. You're making it sound like the only alternative to your position is rediculous. You're throwing up a strawman.
Disagree with me; that's fine. But this is my point: be intellectually honest about it, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who disagree with you are not well-reasoned.
>be intellectually honest about it, and don't fool yourself into thinking that the people who disagree with you are not well-reasoned.
You have me 100% correct; I don't think the people who disagree with me, on this specific point, are well reasoned and are infact misled by deliberate misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories. If you know something I don't, then let me know - but don't accuse me of making a strawman if you can't correct my viewpoint of the opposing argument. Why is it a strawman? Do people have reasons for not taking the vaccines other than amorphous distrust of billionaires? If I'm wrong, explain why, I genuinely want to know. Otherwise I'm led to believe that you aren't being intellectually honest and you are only acting as a foil to provide an air of legitimacy to dangerous arguments; which is also a form of misinformation.
You have me 100% correct; I don't think the people who disagree with me, on this specific point, are well reasoned and are infact misled by deliberate misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories. If you know something I don't, then let me know - but don't accuse me of making a strawman if you can't correct my viewpoint of the opposing argument. Why is it a strawman? Do people have reasons for not taking the vaccines other than amorphous distrust of billionaires? If I'm wrong, explain why, I genuinely want to know. Otherwise I'm led to believe that you aren't being intellectually honest and you are only acting as a foil to provide an air of legitimacy to dangerous arguments; which is also a form of misinformation.
> I don't think the people who disagree with me, on this specific point, are well reasoned and are infact misled by deliberate misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories.
If you're unwilling to see the people who disagree with you as equally intelligent, and equally capable of reasoned decisions, then what can I possibly say to change your mind? And how can you tell me that others of equal mental capacity are misled, while you yourself are untouched by misinformation? If that's what you claim, your hubris is impressive.
You've effectively insulated yourself from any counterargument.
In the chance you're willing to consider that I'm not misled, this is why I'm skeptical of the vaccine. mRNA vaccines are an extremely new technology, and very different from any previous type of vaccine; there has been no time for extensive testing, and we don't know the long-term side effects.
> Given the novel nature of the mechanism of action of RNA vaccines, and their drug delivery vehicles, little is known about the medium and longer-term side effects....Up until December 2020, no mRNA vaccine, drug, or technology platform, had ever been approved for use in humans, and before 2020, mRNA was only considered a theoretical or experimental candidate for use in humans. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&oldid... The wikipedia article about mRNA has been altered a lot in the past month, and is now much more focused on COVID-19. Last time I read or quoted from it was prior to those alterations, so that's what I'm citing. No reason to think the data has changed since then, just the interpretation.
If you're unwilling to see the people who disagree with you as equally intelligent, and equally capable of reasoned decisions, then what can I possibly say to change your mind? And how can you tell me that others of equal mental capacity are misled, while you yourself are untouched by misinformation? If that's what you claim, your hubris is impressive.
You've effectively insulated yourself from any counterargument.
In the chance you're willing to consider that I'm not misled, this is why I'm skeptical of the vaccine. mRNA vaccines are an extremely new technology, and very different from any previous type of vaccine; there has been no time for extensive testing, and we don't know the long-term side effects.
> Given the novel nature of the mechanism of action of RNA vaccines, and their drug delivery vehicles, little is known about the medium and longer-term side effects....Up until December 2020, no mRNA vaccine, drug, or technology platform, had ever been approved for use in humans, and before 2020, mRNA was only considered a theoretical or experimental candidate for use in humans. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&oldid... The wikipedia article about mRNA has been altered a lot in the past month, and is now much more focused on COVID-19. Last time I read or quoted from it was prior to those alterations, so that's what I'm citing. No reason to think the data has changed since then, just the interpretation.
>If you're unwilling to see the people who disagree with you as equally intelligent, and equally capable of reasoned decisions, then what can I possibly say to change your mind?
Up until this point, you haven't even tried. Within the context of misinformation I don't believe that opponents of the vaccine are making them in good faith, which is why they reach for dubious arguments. When someone says, like I've seen mainly on the blue site, that vaccines are tools of the wealthy to keep us at home and to be tracked, I don't think that person is making a reasoned decision on well researched information; I see someone who is probably being misled by someone else for some other person (ex. downplaying the need to take COVID precautions).
However, your reasoning for not taking the vaccine is perfectly valid and reasoned and is something I've discussed with others - mRNA vaccines are a new technology and we don't know the side-effects. At the very least I can assume you are willing to accept that COVID is real and are making arguments with empirical data.
Circling back to my original argument however, there's a difference between "the COVID vaccine may not be fully tested yet" and "the COVID vaccine is going to be used to track you". Anyone can do the calculus and understand, that while the COVID vaccine may not 100% safe at this moment, that doesn't mean that the government, or the scientific community at large, is completely untrustworthy, or trying to deceive you; they are simply trying to make the appropriate trade offs. In other words, your argument implies a lack of certainty, and the other, and arguably more popular one, implies malice. Our institutions aren't acting on complete malice, so given that they will be wrong sometimes, I think it's unreasonable to abandon our intuitions just because they weren't 100% correct.
Up until this point, you haven't even tried. Within the context of misinformation I don't believe that opponents of the vaccine are making them in good faith, which is why they reach for dubious arguments. When someone says, like I've seen mainly on the blue site, that vaccines are tools of the wealthy to keep us at home and to be tracked, I don't think that person is making a reasoned decision on well researched information; I see someone who is probably being misled by someone else for some other person (ex. downplaying the need to take COVID precautions).
However, your reasoning for not taking the vaccine is perfectly valid and reasoned and is something I've discussed with others - mRNA vaccines are a new technology and we don't know the side-effects. At the very least I can assume you are willing to accept that COVID is real and are making arguments with empirical data.
Circling back to my original argument however, there's a difference between "the COVID vaccine may not be fully tested yet" and "the COVID vaccine is going to be used to track you". Anyone can do the calculus and understand, that while the COVID vaccine may not 100% safe at this moment, that doesn't mean that the government, or the scientific community at large, is completely untrustworthy, or trying to deceive you; they are simply trying to make the appropriate trade offs. In other words, your argument implies a lack of certainty, and the other, and arguably more popular one, implies malice. Our institutions aren't acting on complete malice, so given that they will be wrong sometimes, I think it's unreasonable to abandon our intuitions just because they weren't 100% correct.
It's nice we seem to be on the same page re: mRNA vaccine. However, I don't think you're totally reasonable in how you're dealing with people who are skeptical of it. It seems like you've drawn a line where people who are too skeptical, or skeptical for the wrong reasons, are suddenly -- definitely -- misled by others for some nefarious reason. And no longer rational. That's nice, when there's an overload of information and it's not worth the time to evaluate everything; but blanket statements like the ones you made aren't reasonable.
From what I've seen, most skepticism of that sort has a pretty simple source: they are far less trusting of their government, and of people in power (political or monetary). I notice you won't definitely claim there is no malice, or that the people in power are definitely trustworthy. The less trust you express, the more might not be copacetic. I saw the same thing happen over the last 15 years with Google: the folks who don't trust Gates overlap by a large margin with the ones who didn't trust Google when they had their "Don't be evil" slogan. Pessimists are rarely disappointed.
> Up until this point, you haven't even tried.
Like I noted before, I wasn't trying. I don't like it when people do not acknowledge the mental capacity of those who disagree with them. It's not up to me to prove to you that I or anyone else is rational; it's up to you to have the intellectual honesty to admit that someone who disagrees with you could be rational. As I asked you already: how can you claim, among intellectual equals, to be the one who is uninfluenced by misinformation?
- Because most people think the way you do? Bandwagon Fallacy.
- Because the experts say so? Appeal to Authority.
- Because it's just so strange? Personal Incredulity.
From what I've seen, most skepticism of that sort has a pretty simple source: they are far less trusting of their government, and of people in power (political or monetary). I notice you won't definitely claim there is no malice, or that the people in power are definitely trustworthy. The less trust you express, the more might not be copacetic. I saw the same thing happen over the last 15 years with Google: the folks who don't trust Gates overlap by a large margin with the ones who didn't trust Google when they had their "Don't be evil" slogan. Pessimists are rarely disappointed.
> Up until this point, you haven't even tried.
Like I noted before, I wasn't trying. I don't like it when people do not acknowledge the mental capacity of those who disagree with them. It's not up to me to prove to you that I or anyone else is rational; it's up to you to have the intellectual honesty to admit that someone who disagrees with you could be rational. As I asked you already: how can you claim, among intellectual equals, to be the one who is uninfluenced by misinformation?
- Because most people think the way you do? Bandwagon Fallacy.
- Because the experts say so? Appeal to Authority.
- Because it's just so strange? Personal Incredulity.
The grace to be wrong has been increasing replaced by some sort of fight or flight response to being challenged. It’s not wrong to say that there are life and death consequences w/r/t to the important issues. That said, the increasingly emotional response to that is detrimental to discourse. The more hysterical people become advocating their point of view, the more difficult it is to hear their arguments. When someone is extremely emotional it triggers a natural skepticism. Not because we think they are wrong per se, rather because we know that when we are emotionally distressed it is more difficult to be rational.
Basically: everyone needs to calm down.
Basically: everyone needs to calm down.
> The more hysterical people become advocating their point of view
All the examples I provided have been very calmly, very thoroughly promulgated in popular, mainstream media. They're not a matter of my opinion (and my opinion on them was not stated). According to their own standards, the experts have been spreading misinformation this year. The same people saying one thing and then retracting a few months later.
All the examples I provided have been very calmly, very thoroughly promulgated in popular, mainstream media. They're not a matter of my opinion (and my opinion on them was not stated). According to their own standards, the experts have been spreading misinformation this year. The same people saying one thing and then retracting a few months later.
This is a part of the positive feedback loop. People have isolated bubbles of sensational information, lots of little positive reinforcements for consuming it (social proof, widgets, dings and badges, etc), and it all feeds back into their personal and political identity. In terms of the drug analogy, telling someone to “calm down” is like telling a junkie to “just quit”. It’s not going to break the feedback loop.
It's certainly not a good idea to identify anything that deviates from the public expert consensus as "misinformation", but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem of verifiably wrong claims spreading. For example, Chicago and San Francisco have not fully opened their economy. I'm skeptical that the resolution to this problem looks anything like "information control", but it seems terribly naive to expect the problem will resolve itself when it's so easy to be ensnared by it.
I think there's a very clear line between "Best guess" political policies with imperfect information and Q-anon.
Another log for your fire: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/many-scientists-citi...
> Won't they just figure that's part of the conspiracy to re-educate them?
I mean, it would literally be re-education.
I mean, it would literally be re-education.
Re-education is a tainted word, sadly. If someone is indoctrinated and fed only lies and half truths then the only real solution is to be educated on truth. Learning from the work of others is easiest, but doing ones own experiments is certainly possible.
> the only real solution is to be educated on truth
The key part of re-education that's so distasteful is when someone else decides what truth is, and makes others learn it.
The key part of re-education that's so distasteful is when someone else decides what truth is, and makes others learn it.
I don't mean to condone trying to force people to change their minds. Just trying to point out the negative association is unfortunate.
Everyone works from whatever information they have, past experience, natural tendencies, etc. And people _can_ break out of an poorly-informed viewpoint. (I grew up in one for many years.) But the process must be cooperative or internally motivated.
BTW, it's interesting how misinformation can overwhelm proven information. Much like spam and bot activity accounts for email and Internet traffic it's easy to lose the signal among the noise. We're all trying to adapt to find the signal. (At least those of us who aren't intentionally producing noise.)
Everyone works from whatever information they have, past experience, natural tendencies, etc. And people _can_ break out of an poorly-informed viewpoint. (I grew up in one for many years.) But the process must be cooperative or internally motivated.
BTW, it's interesting how misinformation can overwhelm proven information. Much like spam and bot activity accounts for email and Internet traffic it's easy to lose the signal among the noise. We're all trying to adapt to find the signal. (At least those of us who aren't intentionally producing noise.)
I would classify this (and much of the current discourse about mis/disinformation) as "not even wrong".
It's difficult for me to express my thoughts on the matter without writing a huge, unintelligible screed.
The author, like many others, considers misinformation a disease that can be cured by using authority to administer objective information.
I feel strongly that we no longer have any choice but to accept all information is based in trust. This is not meant to be a metaphysical statement. Perhaps at the metaphysical level, objective truth exists. Regardless, at the scale society needs to verify information, objectivity is inaccessible.
Consider how long it took Russel's Principia to add 1+1. For the claims we encounter in our everyday lives, an appeal to objectivity will only add another layer of obfuscation.
In the case of current crisis in the US, the government claims that the crisis is an attack by the Russians. Perhaps this is true on a superficial level, but the attack is only possible because sources of power in our society abuse that society's trust so heavily. This isn't only limited to the government, but the entire structure of power.
The Q conspiracy is on its face absurd and easily contradicted by reliable observations. Why do adherents engage in it? At some point when you're surrounded by lies on every side and no way to understand your environment, your brain just melts.
Unfortunately there is no sign that society will even stop digging itself into this hole.
It's difficult for me to express my thoughts on the matter without writing a huge, unintelligible screed.
The author, like many others, considers misinformation a disease that can be cured by using authority to administer objective information.
I feel strongly that we no longer have any choice but to accept all information is based in trust. This is not meant to be a metaphysical statement. Perhaps at the metaphysical level, objective truth exists. Regardless, at the scale society needs to verify information, objectivity is inaccessible.
Consider how long it took Russel's Principia to add 1+1. For the claims we encounter in our everyday lives, an appeal to objectivity will only add another layer of obfuscation.
In the case of current crisis in the US, the government claims that the crisis is an attack by the Russians. Perhaps this is true on a superficial level, but the attack is only possible because sources of power in our society abuse that society's trust so heavily. This isn't only limited to the government, but the entire structure of power.
The Q conspiracy is on its face absurd and easily contradicted by reliable observations. Why do adherents engage in it? At some point when you're surrounded by lies on every side and no way to understand your environment, your brain just melts.
Unfortunately there is no sign that society will even stop digging itself into this hole.
> Unfortunately there is no sign that society will even stop digging itself into this hole.
I think that for things to change they will need to reach a breaking point. I hope and pray that we will be able to get through this breaking point and to the other side to a better civilization before some x-level threat destroys us.
I think that for things to change they will need to reach a breaking point. I hope and pray that we will be able to get through this breaking point and to the other side to a better civilization before some x-level threat destroys us.
Dear fellow HNers, this is some of the most dangerous rhetoric I've seen all week.
It's philosophically true that all information is based in trust. Yet, I should warn you that all trust is reliant on assumption. Thus, we end up in a paradoxically, revolving door-esque statement which has no end.
Please ignore this poor lad, this comment is unintelligible, and unreasonable... I'd honestly respect anyone who can seek the truth out for themselves.
It's philosophically true that all information is based in trust. Yet, I should warn you that all trust is reliant on assumption. Thus, we end up in a paradoxically, revolving door-esque statement which has no end.
Please ignore this poor lad, this comment is unintelligible, and unreasonable... I'd honestly respect anyone who can seek the truth out for themselves.
I don't feel that I'm particularly unreasonable. I'm certainly interested in understanding your perspective.
I hope I'm not misinterpreting your statements, but it appears you agree that information is rooted in trust. In fact, you say it's philosophically so, while I make a weaker claim about practicality.
A paradox would arise if I were to say "information is based in trust, trust no one". But I would instead say "information is based in trust, empirically evaluate your basis for trust".
I'm not sure I recognize what's dangerous about the claim, or what your proposed alternative is.
I hope I'm not misinterpreting your statements, but it appears you agree that information is rooted in trust. In fact, you say it's philosophically so, while I make a weaker claim about practicality.
A paradox would arise if I were to say "information is based in trust, trust no one". But I would instead say "information is based in trust, empirically evaluate your basis for trust".
I'm not sure I recognize what's dangerous about the claim, or what your proposed alternative is.
Took me too long to realize following: when a person says “there’s too many lies in the media and I can’t believe anything anymore”, they do not have anything concrete about said lies but sheer volume of apocryphal narratives thrown at them is causing erratic behaviors.
It’s a known incorrect error message that human interpret statements as “baseless”, “false” or “lie” in certain corner cases, like how some computer GUI shows “disk full” or “permission denied” or “irrecoverable hardware error” for running out of inodes or exceeding filesize limits. It should not be taken literally.
I can’t immediately point at a solution but overloading them further by giving more precise informations isn’t one.
It’s a known incorrect error message that human interpret statements as “baseless”, “false” or “lie” in certain corner cases, like how some computer GUI shows “disk full” or “permission denied” or “irrecoverable hardware error” for running out of inodes or exceeding filesize limits. It should not be taken literally.
I can’t immediately point at a solution but overloading them further by giving more precise informations isn’t one.
The article fails to make a distinction between misinformation (untruthful, false information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead) and disinformation (dishonest, deliberately misleading or biased information). All disinformation is misinformation *, but not all misinformation is disinformation. And I don't see how a comparison with drugs is helpful.
There are two things that can be done:
One is requiring misinformation to be corrected, with penalties for disinformation. This won't be popular with free speech advocates, but maybe they should reconsider whether malicious lies (which have adverse consequences) ought to be protected. There's also the more practical problem that the disinformation might not be detected, or detected too late.
The other is to ensure that people are educated from an early age to spot dubious information and fallacious reasoning, and learn how to fact-check sources. An understanding of science (along with its acceptance of being proven wrong), history, and folklore is also helpful.
* There are rare exceptions to this.
There are two things that can be done:
One is requiring misinformation to be corrected, with penalties for disinformation. This won't be popular with free speech advocates, but maybe they should reconsider whether malicious lies (which have adverse consequences) ought to be protected. There's also the more practical problem that the disinformation might not be detected, or detected too late.
The other is to ensure that people are educated from an early age to spot dubious information and fallacious reasoning, and learn how to fact-check sources. An understanding of science (along with its acceptance of being proven wrong), history, and folklore is also helpful.
* There are rare exceptions to this.
The article title is a bit of a misnomer. Television has been with us for about a century now, and although it was not digital until more recently, TV likewise fits the definition of “a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.”
Misinformation has always been a part of television, whether knowingly or not. Most people will fall down when shot: not because a bullet actually knocks you over, but because you’ve learned that that’s what happens from watching TV shows and movies.
Even without that, the parallels are clear, especially if we take “drug” to mean a recreational or illicit drug. Terence McKenna (who had lots of wild ideas that must be individually evaluated; you can’t trust him) said decades ago that if there was a pill you could take that encouraged you to sit on your couch for 4+ hours a day and “blot out the real world,” they’d have made it illegal ages ago.
I am not dismissing the dramatic rise of misinformation over the past decade or so. To me, it looks a lot more like the spiking of heroin with fentanyl than the heroin itself. The addiction was already present; it’s just gotten a lot more dangerous to consume.
Misinformation has always been a part of television, whether knowingly or not. Most people will fall down when shot: not because a bullet actually knocks you over, but because you’ve learned that that’s what happens from watching TV shows and movies.
Even without that, the parallels are clear, especially if we take “drug” to mean a recreational or illicit drug. Terence McKenna (who had lots of wild ideas that must be individually evaluated; you can’t trust him) said decades ago that if there was a pill you could take that encouraged you to sit on your couch for 4+ hours a day and “blot out the real world,” they’d have made it illegal ages ago.
I am not dismissing the dramatic rise of misinformation over the past decade or so. To me, it looks a lot more like the spiking of heroin with fentanyl than the heroin itself. The addiction was already present; it’s just gotten a lot more dangerous to consume.
A big part of the issue is the economics.
Disinforomation can be funded through all sorts of ways. The truth needs a patron.
https://blog.nillium.com/news-was-never-meant-for-social-pla...
Disinforomation can be funded through all sorts of ways. The truth needs a patron.
https://blog.nillium.com/news-was-never-meant-for-social-pla...
How myopic. Insane beliefs have existed long before Internet-enabled information spread. Over half of the US believes that astrology is real. I remember reading in the early 2000's a survey showing a majority of Americans believing angels exist. Should we talk about religion?
I'll tell you what's happening, here. Journalists are encouraging a Zeitgeist of censorship, prepping us all for Internet censorship to protect us from ourselves. That's because the young people who are behind Medium blogs and WP op eds and Vox articles are too young to have a collective memory of censorship in the West jn and before WWII, the McCarthy years, the wars to decriminalize porn, and much more.
Because of myopia we want to go backwards in our liberal democracies. All this because you're worried that your neighbor will believe Alex Jones or not get a vaccine?
I have bad news: History shows this will not go away despite all the censorship in the world.
I'll tell you what's happening, here. Journalists are encouraging a Zeitgeist of censorship, prepping us all for Internet censorship to protect us from ourselves. That's because the young people who are behind Medium blogs and WP op eds and Vox articles are too young to have a collective memory of censorship in the West jn and before WWII, the McCarthy years, the wars to decriminalize porn, and much more.
Because of myopia we want to go backwards in our liberal democracies. All this because you're worried that your neighbor will believe Alex Jones or not get a vaccine?
I have bad news: History shows this will not go away despite all the censorship in the world.
Because of myopia we want to go backwards in our liberal democracies. All this because you're worried that your neighbor will believe Alex Jones or not get a vaccine?
I have bad news: History shows this will not go away despite all the censorship in the world.
Why wouldn't deplatforming and muting these sources wouldn't work? The only reason why they spread as well as they did was because the like of youtube and other social media decided to give these people megaphone.
What if we stop giving them these megaphones and give it to someone else instead?
It is wrong to think of these platforms as neutral. They are not. They are always choosing what to show to the public based on selection criteria.
I have bad news: History shows this will not go away despite all the censorship in the world.
Why wouldn't deplatforming and muting these sources wouldn't work? The only reason why they spread as well as they did was because the like of youtube and other social media decided to give these people megaphone.
What if we stop giving them these megaphones and give it to someone else instead?
It is wrong to think of these platforms as neutral. They are not. They are always choosing what to show to the public based on selection criteria.
A very rational set of questions, but it makes me depressed that the answers - in a problem space discussed since at least the 18th century - have not been taught and discussed in philosophy and ethics classes and thus need to be repeated.
The problem is always the same: NOT what value do we have in Alex Jones, conspiracy theories, liars, misinformation spreaders, etc. All the people that you and I already agree that there is a low value to misinformation that they spread. The question is truly: who decides what's true and false. Today you might agree with the current Fact Checker group. What if tomorrow Trump decides to be the fact checker. Rudy Giuliani tried to ban certain art in NYC when he was mayor, because it offended his religion (Catholicism). McCarthyites in the 50's sought to ban anything unpatriotic (from the State Department removing books from libraries to finger-pointing and 'calling out' people accused of communism, to the visa entry forms that may still exist that ask if you were a communist).
We defend the megaphones of the stupid and the fake as an insurance policy. We're wary of giving too much power to those who can yank megaphones away and pick winners and losers, because history itself shows us that the alternatives threaten all of us more than fake information.
>It is wrong to think of these platforms as neutral. They are not. They are always choosing what to show to the public based on selection criteria.
Oh, but the devil is in the details, here. How they choose is the critical question that we should be talking about, debating and thinking through.
The problem is always the same: NOT what value do we have in Alex Jones, conspiracy theories, liars, misinformation spreaders, etc. All the people that you and I already agree that there is a low value to misinformation that they spread. The question is truly: who decides what's true and false. Today you might agree with the current Fact Checker group. What if tomorrow Trump decides to be the fact checker. Rudy Giuliani tried to ban certain art in NYC when he was mayor, because it offended his religion (Catholicism). McCarthyites in the 50's sought to ban anything unpatriotic (from the State Department removing books from libraries to finger-pointing and 'calling out' people accused of communism, to the visa entry forms that may still exist that ask if you were a communist).
We defend the megaphones of the stupid and the fake as an insurance policy. We're wary of giving too much power to those who can yank megaphones away and pick winners and losers, because history itself shows us that the alternatives threaten all of us more than fake information.
>It is wrong to think of these platforms as neutral. They are not. They are always choosing what to show to the public based on selection criteria.
Oh, but the devil is in the details, here. How they choose is the critical question that we should be talking about, debating and thinking through.
All your examples involve government officials deciding to censor, with historically fewer media sources to comb through. This is different from social media with much wider input.
We defend the megaphones of the stupid and the fake as an insurance policy. We're wary of giving too much power to those who can yank megaphones away and pick winners and losers, because history itself shows us that the alternatives threaten all of us more than fake information.
Except people aren't entitled to megaphones of their own, nor their own newspapers or their own radio station, much less on a platform governed by an uncaring algorithm over literal million of people who might say something else.
And misinformation really do real damage to people. You can't just pretend that conspiracy theorists don't exist and can't influence people to do real damage, regardless of who's in charge and who decides what is true or false and regardless of what damage censorship did or didn't do.
We defend the megaphones of the stupid and the fake as an insurance policy. We're wary of giving too much power to those who can yank megaphones away and pick winners and losers, because history itself shows us that the alternatives threaten all of us more than fake information.
Except people aren't entitled to megaphones of their own, nor their own newspapers or their own radio station, much less on a platform governed by an uncaring algorithm over literal million of people who might say something else.
And misinformation really do real damage to people. You can't just pretend that conspiracy theorists don't exist and can't influence people to do real damage, regardless of who's in charge and who decides what is true or false and regardless of what damage censorship did or didn't do.
I'm not pretending anything with regard to "real damage." Incitement of violence is real and indisputable and no one is defending that. However, "conspiracy theorists" (misinformation) and damage is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's damaging "information"? That is the question you're replying to, and you missed that piece - that is not a nuance, but the critical question we should consider when we call for removal of megaphones, censorship and so forth.
You mentioned government v. private platforms, and reminded me that those examples I gave of government don't apply. But again I wanted to point out the examples of the "who" part, and the same argumentation they had "this _ is harmful" where _ is art, or books, or speech. Who bloody decides what is true and false, how do we choose them, and what credentials makes them the choosers? And what if today's choosers and tomorrow's choosers have completely different notions of True and False?
You're defending censorship using an ancient argument of "harmful information" that has dangerous downstream effects is the point I am driving at.
You mentioned government v. private platforms, and reminded me that those examples I gave of government don't apply. But again I wanted to point out the examples of the "who" part, and the same argumentation they had "this _ is harmful" where _ is art, or books, or speech. Who bloody decides what is true and false, how do we choose them, and what credentials makes them the choosers? And what if today's choosers and tomorrow's choosers have completely different notions of True and False?
You're defending censorship using an ancient argument of "harmful information" that has dangerous downstream effects is the point I am driving at.
No? We're talking about the speeches of private social media platforms, and the fact they choose to promote certain speeches over others. That is not in anyway, neutrality, and they cannot be neutral actors.
History also shows that a majority of people believing in astrology or moon landings not being real is much less harmful than a majority of people believing that the Jews are conspiring to enslave you, vaccines will kill you or even that if you don't force the VP to vote himself back into office, the President won't be able to stop children from being raped. And yes, religions can persuade some average people to do some great things or strange things or be incitement to blow themselves up in the middle of a marketplace or drink the Kool Aid. So keeping an eye on these things is probably a good idea, and if people decide certain stuff should come with content warnings or not be disseminated on their platform thats probably OK. Sure, there are slippery slopes when you start censoring stuff but there are slippery slopes when you stop too, particularly when the actual debate is less about silencing all discussion of misinformation and more about whether misinformation has an inalienable right to a megaphone.
Porn is still censored extensively even in its most inoffensive forms and people under certain ages aren't allowed to watch films with rude words, and yet people are insisting that true liberty means that whilst corporations are entitled to decide boobies and f-bombs are inappropriate for their platform, they must be compelled to host Qanon. I'm not sure that was the lesson we were supposed to take from past battles over obscenity laws.
Porn is still censored extensively even in its most inoffensive forms and people under certain ages aren't allowed to watch films with rude words, and yet people are insisting that true liberty means that whilst corporations are entitled to decide boobies and f-bombs are inappropriate for their platform, they must be compelled to host Qanon. I'm not sure that was the lesson we were supposed to take from past battles over obscenity laws.
> if you don't force the VP to vote himself back into office, the President won't be able to stop children from being raped.
Extreme framing that makes it easy to dismiss. There are people who think this recent election had some very fishy stuff going on, but are not buying the lunatic fringe, q-anon type of stuff.
Extreme framing that makes it easy to dismiss. There are people who think this recent election had some very fishy stuff going on, but are not buying the lunatic fringe, q-anon type of stuff.
'Extreme framing' represents the actual tipping point that resulted in the actual actions (and arguments) being criticised. (Same goes for other examples: Germany has actual laws rather than mere Facebook policies concerning holocaust denial because it views the slippery slope towards Naziism as more plausible and dangerous than the slippery slope towards a unified state version of history)
As for people with concerns about 'fishy stuff', they've been granted plenty of prime time TV hours to talk about it, had fifty lawsuits thrown out by judges often politically aligned with them and are happily posting all over the Internet without fear of any consequences whilst elected officials loudly advocate their cause. Suffice to say this is not the experience of the average 1950s communist or pornographer.
I'm not convinced that the existence of more nuanced arguments about elections means social media should be obliged to broadcast Donald Trump declaring that he won a landslide victory without challenge or Lin Wood making Trump look rational, which all too many 'free speech' arguments have been devoted to.
As for people with concerns about 'fishy stuff', they've been granted plenty of prime time TV hours to talk about it, had fifty lawsuits thrown out by judges often politically aligned with them and are happily posting all over the Internet without fear of any consequences whilst elected officials loudly advocate their cause. Suffice to say this is not the experience of the average 1950s communist or pornographer.
I'm not convinced that the existence of more nuanced arguments about elections means social media should be obliged to broadcast Donald Trump declaring that he won a landslide victory without challenge or Lin Wood making Trump look rational, which all too many 'free speech' arguments have been devoted to.
I think the best way of combatting misinformation is with internet hygiene.
Recently I’ve moved to a mostly text based internet. I’ve changed the sites I go to for entertainment (Reddit, Twitter) to basically only show text by default, and it’s crazy how much less inundated I feel by the news. With less information, I feel much more equipped to separate out what is real and what is fake. I’ve also made an active attempt to separate news and information from entertainment.
There are [studies](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-012-0292-0 ) showing that people are generally ok at dealing with misinformation, but if you show them text on images(especially emotive), or show them misinformation when their guards are down, they are much more likely to believe it.
Recently I’ve moved to a mostly text based internet. I’ve changed the sites I go to for entertainment (Reddit, Twitter) to basically only show text by default, and it’s crazy how much less inundated I feel by the news. With less information, I feel much more equipped to separate out what is real and what is fake. I’ve also made an active attempt to separate news and information from entertainment.
There are [studies](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-012-0292-0 ) showing that people are generally ok at dealing with misinformation, but if you show them text on images(especially emotive), or show them misinformation when their guards are down, they are much more likely to believe it.
Good it worked out for you but it won't for the masses as they've been educated to consume (moving) pictures. So this can't be the answer. It doesn't have to be one too because there are many people out there who do not go so far and still mange to stay sane.
I don’t think it’s as impossible as you might think. Plenty of people right now go in tech “diets” (i.e. going offline for some period of time). The difference is that usually isn’t sustainable over long periods of time.
I also think you’re underestimating how hard it is to avoid basic misinformation. By basic misinformation, I mean stuff that’s verifiably false with a couple of google searches. It’s really easy to recognize misinformation when you already disagree with it. It’s so much harder to do when you agree with the general sentiment. Even on HN, so much bs about Facebook gets upvoted and repeated without critical thought just because most people (and I agree with them) don’t like FB. Images and memes ratchet this up by like 10x.
I also think you’re underestimating how hard it is to avoid basic misinformation. By basic misinformation, I mean stuff that’s verifiably false with a couple of google searches. It’s really easy to recognize misinformation when you already disagree with it. It’s so much harder to do when you agree with the general sentiment. Even on HN, so much bs about Facebook gets upvoted and repeated without critical thought just because most people (and I agree with them) don’t like FB. Images and memes ratchet this up by like 10x.
I think this is just an attempt to temporarily fade out/
suppress. This never solved anything.
It is all text here and there are plenty people who repeat over and over that they are off reddit. They still repeat bs because it's a circle jerk and you're being punished for not following it. But HN is text too and following OPs recommendation won't help at all.
I think the opposite is the way to go. Flood trains you to see bs before it reaches any regions which are relevant for decision. I see that constantly when I watch my parents shopping on amazon and trying to avoid those prime dark patterns the put all over the process. They have to THINK about it. Literally stop and look on all those buttons, links, symbols where I just flow past it without even having to read more than a word. It works.
It is all text here and there are plenty people who repeat over and over that they are off reddit. They still repeat bs because it's a circle jerk and you're being punished for not following it. But HN is text too and following OPs recommendation won't help at all.
I think the opposite is the way to go. Flood trains you to see bs before it reaches any regions which are relevant for decision. I see that constantly when I watch my parents shopping on amazon and trying to avoid those prime dark patterns the put all over the process. They have to THINK about it. Literally stop and look on all those buttons, links, symbols where I just flow past it without even having to read more than a word. It works.
For victimless misinformation (e.g. "Earth is flat") I see no problem with this approach.
For politically motivated misinformation (e.g. "Stop the steal") I think recent events show we should pretty clearly play it extra safe (e.g. ban the dealer) until we figure out how to reduce the risk of it being weaponized against democracy.
For politically motivated misinformation (e.g. "Stop the steal") I think recent events show we should pretty clearly play it extra safe (e.g. ban the dealer) until we figure out how to reduce the risk of it being weaponized against democracy.
It sounds like a good idea. But people are a fractious bunch who can't completely agree on anything. Certainly not on what is and isn't "misinformation".
I don't think giving someone(s) the power to ban information they think is harmful is going to be the net win for democracy you want. The first amendment to the constitution seems to agree with me.
I don't think giving someone(s) the power to ban information they think is harmful is going to be the net win for democracy you want. The first amendment to the constitution seems to agree with me.
Ok. So who decides what gets banned? Consensus? I mean, the consensus back in 2003 was Saddam had nuclear weapons and we needed to invade.
If some conspiracy theorist started spouting off how Saddam didn’t have nuclear weapons and it was all about oil should we have banned them?
If some conspiracy theorist started spouting off how Saddam didn’t have nuclear weapons and it was all about oil should we have banned them?
Uh no. A group of yahoos being let into the Capitol to take selfies is not a valid reason to endorse censorship and giving up our collective freedom of speech.
A robust defense of free speech isn't helped using soft, silly-sounding words like "yahoos" and "selfies" to minimize the threat of a mob that beat an officer to death.
The first “digital drug” moral panic I remember was ASMR... or maybe video games.
In the mid 00s there was this myth that you could listen to mp3 files with specially crafted 'binaural beats' which would supposedly mimic the effect of drugs.
What about porn?
I can't help the feeling that the old world, as slow and imperfect as it was, had a better sense of pace and filters.
Perhaps the first step should be to address the rot and corruption that pervades every major institution of our society. Once that's done we can see how much of a problem remains with misinformation. Just inventing more sophisticated ways to insist to people that "everything is fine and the only real problem is the people like you who won't buy into that party line" isn't going to get anywhere.
You are getting down voted, but this is part of the problem.
For people skeptical of this point, look at mask recommendations in the US. There are only two reasons that masks were not recommended in February. Incompetence or deception to secure mask supply for health care workers. Neither options inspires confidence in the government.
For people skeptical of this point, look at mask recommendations in the US. There are only two reasons that masks were not recommended in February. Incompetence or deception to secure mask supply for health care workers. Neither options inspires confidence in the government.
OP is getting downvoted because this blanket, default distrust is not escapable once you adopt it. Yes, some institutions have a bad track record and can’t be trusted. Others can be trusted. But OP extends distrust to “every major institution of our society” and then proposes we address the corruption. If your default position is that nobody can be trusted, how do you know that you’ve addressed the corruption? Trust someone to tell you that the corruption has been addressed? You can’t because you default to distrust!
I think it's a manifestation of epistemic learned helplessness: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
That was a good read. It's interesting that there are basically three groups that the author focuses on.
1. Smart people who have never been burned by a bad argument. 2. Smart people who have been fallen for a bad argument. 3. Average people who have been been tricked before.
The first two groups as described defer to authority, but the first tends toward extreme ideas while the second relies on institutions as a filter.
The third group is the most interesting in my opinion, tending toward ideas that "feel right". The important point here, that the author stops short of making, is that the second and third groups are very similar, just with different filtering criteria. The difference is that, with less education/training, the filtering of the third group is more easily undermined.
Which brings me back to my original point. Given that the third group comprises the vast majority of the public, governmental institutions have an exceptional burden to not erode trust. If these institutions fail at that, it opens the door for epistemic learned helplessness.
1. Smart people who have never been burned by a bad argument. 2. Smart people who have been fallen for a bad argument. 3. Average people who have been been tricked before.
The first two groups as described defer to authority, but the first tends toward extreme ideas while the second relies on institutions as a filter.
The third group is the most interesting in my opinion, tending toward ideas that "feel right". The important point here, that the author stops short of making, is that the second and third groups are very similar, just with different filtering criteria. The difference is that, with less education/training, the filtering of the third group is more easily undermined.
Which brings me back to my original point. Given that the third group comprises the vast majority of the public, governmental institutions have an exceptional burden to not erode trust. If these institutions fail at that, it opens the door for epistemic learned helplessness.
I just don't think the problem of misinformation has much to do with trusting the government. Even people who distrust the government can, should, and often do avoid falling victim to misinformation.
That is a fair point, but I'm not sure what causes it to go off the rails.
It seems like a certain degree is of apathy is necessary. As in, yes there are problems with ~INSTITUTION~, but changing it would be hard and it is good enough for now.
Could be that conspiracies are trending so hard now because people do not have other worthwhile personal pursuits to focus on, due to lock downs.
It seems like a certain degree is of apathy is necessary. As in, yes there are problems with ~INSTITUTION~, but changing it would be hard and it is good enough for now.
Could be that conspiracies are trending so hard now because people do not have other worthwhile personal pursuits to focus on, due to lock downs.
I think this comment is a prime example of why this problem is so difficult. Misinformation often caters to people's cynicism, creating a sort of positive feedback loop. How do you reach the chronically cynical person who's essentially trained to look for the most sinister explanation to all phenomena?
If you haven't studied hypnosis and something called Neurolinguistic Programming (the other NLP) you are basically out-of-the-loop when it comes to what's going on today.
The simplest way to put it is that we're caught in "a war between rival gangs of hypnotists."
(You know the old saw about poker? "If you don't know who the sucker at the table is, it's you."? Along the same lines, if you don't know what I'm talking about, you're the sucker at the table.)
"Misinformation" isn't a drug, it's a kettle of viruses. Hypnotic programs. The messed up thing is that it doesn't matter if they come from alien or homegrown cultures: once the virus is here it (really "they": a virus is legion) becomes everyone's problem, and it can mutate.
How do you fight hypnotists? I can't tell you in a brief post like this. (And I'm not actually qualified anyway.) But I can leave you with a simple spell that works pretty well:
"A trance is only as deep as you are."
Good luck, and God bless
The simplest way to put it is that we're caught in "a war between rival gangs of hypnotists."
(You know the old saw about poker? "If you don't know who the sucker at the table is, it's you."? Along the same lines, if you don't know what I'm talking about, you're the sucker at the table.)
"Misinformation" isn't a drug, it's a kettle of viruses. Hypnotic programs. The messed up thing is that it doesn't matter if they come from alien or homegrown cultures: once the virus is here it (really "they": a virus is legion) becomes everyone's problem, and it can mutate.
How do you fight hypnotists? I can't tell you in a brief post like this. (And I'm not actually qualified anyway.) But I can leave you with a simple spell that works pretty well:
"A trance is only as deep as you are."
Good luck, and God bless
If misinformation is a drug by that definition, then truth would be a drug too. A potentially even more potent one at that.
We've already seen some drugs be restricted for political reasons. Do we wish risking that with truth also?
We've already seen some drugs be restricted for political reasons. Do we wish risking that with truth also?
If truth was generally more potent than lies, people wouldn’t have much incentive to lie.
iDoser was the first digi-drug
Most of the higher-quality longitudinal evidence I've seen does not show that there is an increase in believing in conspiracy theories or misinformation (or, as we used to call it, people simply being incorrect). It's simply much more visible now due to the Internet being widely adopted, whereas in the past you'd never know what people across the world (or even your own city) may have been thinking about.
Since there is no stable nor global solution to the problem of deciding who gets to label/regulate information, nor any evidence showing that even with the regulation of information, people actually change their beliefs to the 'correct' ones, I don't personally see merit in this path. The temptation to find a solution is sensible prima facie, but history and human psychology show us that this is a fool's errand.