The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation(slowboring.com)
slowboring.com
The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation
https://www.slowboring.com/p/misinformation-myth
337 comments
How come only experts are/should be allowed to speak on a subject? This leads to a technocracy, which while enticing those in the pseudo-aristocracy, it sucks for everybody else involved.
Every time I see someone post this all that goes through my head is this person has an ego and thinks they should speak for the country/world.
Every time I see someone post this all that goes through my head is this person has an ego and thinks they should speak for the country/world.
As others have pointed out, I am not suggesting (nor do I think) that only experts should be allowed to speak on a given subject.
However, it is my (perhaps vain) hope that people understand that there is value in expertise. I highly recommend the following read: it's something so many people get wrong, and it's highly pragmatic.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...
However, it is my (perhaps vain) hope that people understand that there is value in expertise. I highly recommend the following read: it's something so many people get wrong, and it's highly pragmatic.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...
There's value in expertise, but at the end of the day it's not the experts life and decisions should be left to the individual. Once you realize this, these types of comments become meaningless.
The person you replied to said nothing to imply they disagree with you. Perhaps we are forced to choose as a society between technocracy and misinformation. I'm suspicious of that line of argument myself, but "technocracy is bad" and "misinformation isn't a problem" are separate arguments.
Sure they did, it was implied in these three points:
> - The less expert you are at a subject, the more energy is required to sift through the crap.
> - Most people are either not expert at anything, or are expert in a narrow field of interest.
> - Information no longer flows in the same way it once did: it now diffuses through a social graph which is prone to significant network effects. Non-experts can have a bigger influence than experts, even when the information they share is entirely meritless. Echo-chambers form naturally and require a lot of deliberate and conscious effort to get out from. It is very difficult to reach certain pockets of the graph.
> - The less expert you are at a subject, the more energy is required to sift through the crap.
> - Most people are either not expert at anything, or are expert in a narrow field of interest.
> - Information no longer flows in the same way it once did: it now diffuses through a social graph which is prone to significant network effects. Non-experts can have a bigger influence than experts, even when the information they share is entirely meritless. Echo-chambers form naturally and require a lot of deliberate and conscious effort to get out from. It is very difficult to reach certain pockets of the graph.
That only argues that non-experts will be fooled. The universe is under no obligation to make misinformation less bad just because technocracy is even worse. Maybe we're just screwed!
Between you and me I suspect it's not that big of an issue, but no matter how bad technocracy is (and I agree that it's very bad) it still has no bearing on whether non-experts proliferate misinformation.
Between you and me I suspect it's not that big of an issue, but no matter how bad technocracy is (and I agree that it's very bad) it still has no bearing on whether non-experts proliferate misinformation.
what youre really asking is "why do credentials matter and why should randomly samplibg information not result in a appropriate confidence in a result"
after all, we knew for decades that the average guess for a cows weight tends to be more accu4ate than any individual guess.
the probablem as you are responding to, is how cheap messaging is and how effortless it is to both produce information and entrain the body politik in its recitation.
these can be over come by what you deride, credentialling and weighting sources. because in the exam0le od the cown, theres no people interested in giving wrong answers or mani0ulating responders to effecr a skew on the answers.
we know and have directly seen that is a naive point of view. as such, your response takes a simplistic exam0le and broadly interprets everything naively.
after all, we knew for decades that the average guess for a cows weight tends to be more accu4ate than any individual guess.
the probablem as you are responding to, is how cheap messaging is and how effortless it is to both produce information and entrain the body politik in its recitation.
these can be over come by what you deride, credentialling and weighting sources. because in the exam0le od the cown, theres no people interested in giving wrong answers or mani0ulating responders to effecr a skew on the answers.
we know and have directly seen that is a naive point of view. as such, your response takes a simplistic exam0le and broadly interprets everything naively.
> what youre really asking is "why do credentials matter and why should randomly samplibg information not result in a appropriate confidence in a result"
No, not at all. What I'm saying, is that one's ability to speak on ones experiences with some subject should not be gaited by credentials. One should also not create a rank structure based off of credentials. Is it not apparent to you yet that one can be an expert without any formal credentials?
> the probablem as you are responding to, is how cheap messaging is and how effortless it is to both produce information and entrain the body politik in its recitation. > these can be over come by what you deride, credentialling and weighting sources. because in the exam0le od the cown, theres no people interested in giving wrong answers or mani0ulating responders to effecr a skew on the answers.
What are you fighting to hard to protect here? You want more people to take the COVID vaccine? What exactly, as there's many more solutions than just listening to your closets high ranking technocrat.
No, not at all. What I'm saying, is that one's ability to speak on ones experiences with some subject should not be gaited by credentials. One should also not create a rank structure based off of credentials. Is it not apparent to you yet that one can be an expert without any formal credentials?
> the probablem as you are responding to, is how cheap messaging is and how effortless it is to both produce information and entrain the body politik in its recitation. > these can be over come by what you deride, credentialling and weighting sources. because in the exam0le od the cown, theres no people interested in giving wrong answers or mani0ulating responders to effecr a skew on the answers.
What are you fighting to hard to protect here? You want more people to take the COVID vaccine? What exactly, as there's many more solutions than just listening to your closets high ranking technocrat.
> If anything, people seem to be better-informed than in the past
[citation needed]
more information =/ better informed, the same way drinking from a firehose doesn't allow you to ingest more water than drinking slowly from a glass. This point missed ironically by a website called "slowboring.com"
[citation needed]
more information =/ better informed, the same way drinking from a firehose doesn't allow you to ingest more water than drinking slowly from a glass. This point missed ironically by a website called "slowboring.com"
I would suggest that a slightly better firehose analogy is that you're drinking from a firehose that includes multiple streams of good drinking water, urine and poison all combined together. When you drink from that firehose, what do you think the odds are that you'll just get the drinking water part of the stream?
33.3% if they’re all equal parts. But it’s best to give people a chance to decide for themselves.
Hehe I really love the firehose visual, and I think it's quite apt... Except that there's also a "pollution" aspect to information.
If you consume enough misinformation, it doesn't matter who you are or how smart you are, it's going to affect the way you think. Just as in terms of physical fitness, "you are what you eat", in terms of mental fitness, "you are what you read/hear/consume".
If you consume enough misinformation, it doesn't matter who you are or how smart you are, it's going to affect the way you think. Just as in terms of physical fitness, "you are what you eat", in terms of mental fitness, "you are what you read/hear/consume".
So this means we can’t even trust the “experts”, as they would fall victim to the same issue. So listening to experts would be even more detrimental.
I am sorry, your conclusion does not logically follow.
I can see from your other comments that you have some beef against expertise, and all I can say is that I hope you find a way to reason.
I can see from your other comments that you have some beef against expertise, and all I can say is that I hope you find a way to reason.
> If you consume enough misinformation, it doesn't matter who you are or how smart you are
You said it yourself, so how does it not logically follow?
> I can see from your other comments that you have some beef against expertise, and all I can say is that I hope you find a way to reason.
No, I have a problem with ego and narcissism.
You said it yourself, so how does it not logically follow?
> I can see from your other comments that you have some beef against expertise, and all I can say is that I hope you find a way to reason.
No, I have a problem with ego and narcissism.
I believe he was using the source article. One example was a leap in public polling around how our government functions (33% jump in being able to identify the three branches of the US federal government).
Congratulations to us all on the bump in basic civics knowledge.
Meanwhile, on more important matters, acceptance of vaccines (which used to be nearly universally viewed as safe and effective) have plummeted.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...
Similar numbers can be found about faith in democracy, views toward fellow citizens, etc. It's not just lack of knowledge, it's the embracing and polarizing extremes.
Meanwhile, on more important matters, acceptance of vaccines (which used to be nearly universally viewed as safe and effective) have plummeted.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...
Similar numbers can be found about faith in democracy, views toward fellow citizens, etc. It's not just lack of knowledge, it's the embracing and polarizing extremes.
Have you read the article? He talks specifically about this very subject, and why this narrative is wrong.
> When I asked Twitter followers to suggest the best evidence they had that misinformation has become worse than it was 30 years ago, a lot of people expressed their frustration with the people who won’t get Covid-19 vaccines. I also find this extremely frustrating.
> That said, vaccination rates for kids have actually risen since the mid-1990s [...]
> A lot of people know that the licensing of the polio vaccine in the 1950s was widely greeted with celebratory headlines and the ringing of church bells. [...] Eighteen months after authorization, vaccine uptake was still slow, and that was after a much longer development process.
> When I asked Twitter followers to suggest the best evidence they had that misinformation has become worse than it was 30 years ago, a lot of people expressed their frustration with the people who won’t get Covid-19 vaccines. I also find this extremely frustrating.
> That said, vaccination rates for kids have actually risen since the mid-1990s [...]
> A lot of people know that the licensing of the polio vaccine in the 1950s was widely greeted with celebratory headlines and the ringing of church bells. [...] Eighteen months after authorization, vaccine uptake was still slow, and that was after a much longer development process.
The COVID vaccine is not the same as other vaccines. One can have hesitancy towards the COVID and other mRNA vaccines and go get the flu shot the same day. If you want to solve the hesitancy problem you must recognize this first, otherwise you’ll be stuck in a loop like you are now, demanding they’re safe just like every other vaccine in history.
mRNA isn't new (it was discovered in the 90s), and has been arguably studied far more than other types of vaccines. Also, there are non-mRNA COVID19 vaccines available as well, if that is your issue.
Accounting for both these facts, how is vaccine hesitancy justified ?
Accounting for both these facts, how is vaccine hesitancy justified ?
> mRNA isn't new (it was discovered in the 90s)
Actually the 1960s, and yet I’m still not wrong as the first mRNA vaccine approved for use was Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. So an actual large scale usage of an mRNA vaccine just happened.
> and has been arguably studied far more than other types of vaccines
Gonna need a source for that.
> Also, there are non-mRNA COVID19 vaccines available as well, if that is your issue.
> Accounting for both these facts, how is vaccine hesitancy justified ?
And this is covered by a lack of fear of the virus. Many people have caught it and recovered, substantially more than have died. So therefore the vaccine is not needed.
Actually the 1960s, and yet I’m still not wrong as the first mRNA vaccine approved for use was Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. So an actual large scale usage of an mRNA vaccine just happened.
> and has been arguably studied far more than other types of vaccines
Gonna need a source for that.
> Also, there are non-mRNA COVID19 vaccines available as well, if that is your issue.
> Accounting for both these facts, how is vaccine hesitancy justified ?
And this is covered by a lack of fear of the virus. Many people have caught it and recovered, substantially more than have died. So therefore the vaccine is not needed.
The article itself is the citation, and provides plenty of evidence and arguments for this.
The internet has become a confirmation bias machine (as platforms figured out giving people want they want to hear keep them on platform longer).
The result is, people are becoming more confident in false conclusions.
https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1493987804442812416
The promise of the internet is more information will help our accuracy, this doesn't take into account the nature of some to want information that confirms their beliefs, not info that is confirmed accurate.
The result is, people are becoming more confident in false conclusions.
https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1493987804442812416
The promise of the internet is more information will help our accuracy, this doesn't take into account the nature of some to want information that confirms their beliefs, not info that is confirmed accurate.
The poll backing that tweet appears to be exactly the problem you're highlighting though. It's a bunch of academics in which they poll people on questions selected specifically to target a minority of right wing people, which they then use to "prove" that Democrats are better informed. And also that young parents are less informed than older non-parents, which they discover for reasons we'll get to in a moment.
But hey, anyone can do that. Here's a poll that shows the opposite - that right wing people are better informed about COVID than left wing people:
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat...
Except that's actually a professionally done poll.
The "Covid State Project" is an academic consortium (so we can guess that their work won't replicate anyway), and these people REALLY want to believe that left wing academics sit at the top of the informational totem pole. This sort of polling is a waste of time because you can get any result you like, it has confirmation bias all over its design. Want to show that <outgroup> is stupid and dumb? Find the most extreme and stupid beliefs held only by a tiny minority of members of that outgroup and poll everyone on only those questions (an actual question they asked about, "do vaccines contain microchips").
In fact not all of their questions are even correct. They only asked four, and one of them was "is there any impact on fertility" which was rated false. This is itself a lie and I know this, because my fiancés best friend lost her period for nearly six months. No periods = no fertility, so I have seen with my own eyes that this can happen. Not surprisingly, this is the question in which the highest number of people said yes to, yet they rated this belief false and claimed anyone who believes it is "misinformed".
This probably explains their otherwise unexplainable finding that young parents are amongst the "wrongest" people. Young parents are exactly the sort of people who are most likely to know lots of women who are caring about periods and fertility, and thus who will be the first to pick up on widespread disruption to menstrual cycles. When they answer correctly that vaccination can affect cycles and thus fertility, they get graded as misinformed.
It's garbage-grade research like this which makes academics look so corrupt and terrible. 14 academics worked on this and a poll with four questions, one of which has the wrong answer, is the best they can do.
But hey, anyone can do that. Here's a poll that shows the opposite - that right wing people are better informed about COVID than left wing people:
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat...
Except that's actually a professionally done poll.
The "Covid State Project" is an academic consortium (so we can guess that their work won't replicate anyway), and these people REALLY want to believe that left wing academics sit at the top of the informational totem pole. This sort of polling is a waste of time because you can get any result you like, it has confirmation bias all over its design. Want to show that <outgroup> is stupid and dumb? Find the most extreme and stupid beliefs held only by a tiny minority of members of that outgroup and poll everyone on only those questions (an actual question they asked about, "do vaccines contain microchips").
In fact not all of their questions are even correct. They only asked four, and one of them was "is there any impact on fertility" which was rated false. This is itself a lie and I know this, because my fiancés best friend lost her period for nearly six months. No periods = no fertility, so I have seen with my own eyes that this can happen. Not surprisingly, this is the question in which the highest number of people said yes to, yet they rated this belief false and claimed anyone who believes it is "misinformed".
This probably explains their otherwise unexplainable finding that young parents are amongst the "wrongest" people. Young parents are exactly the sort of people who are most likely to know lots of women who are caring about periods and fertility, and thus who will be the first to pick up on widespread disruption to menstrual cycles. When they answer correctly that vaccination can affect cycles and thus fertility, they get graded as misinformed.
It's garbage-grade research like this which makes academics look so corrupt and terrible. 14 academics worked on this and a poll with four questions, one of which has the wrong answer, is the best they can do.
> The "Covid State Project" is an academic consortium (so we can guess that their work won't replicate anyway)
I'm not sure what you mean by that (perhaps just a simple case of discrediting the messenger in order to ignore the message), but this fact:
> The single biggest predictor, by far, of belief in vaccine misinformation? Identifying as a Republican, reflecting the widespread misinformation and conspiracy theorizing about Covid on the right.
Is supported by polling, hospital rates, death rates, etc. Denying it because it makes your 'side' look bad is not only silly, but dangerous. People are dying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/briefing/covid-red-states...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/29/covid-19-is...
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
I'm not sure what you mean by that (perhaps just a simple case of discrediting the messenger in order to ignore the message), but this fact:
> The single biggest predictor, by far, of belief in vaccine misinformation? Identifying as a Republican, reflecting the widespread misinformation and conspiracy theorizing about Covid on the right.
Is supported by polling, hospital rates, death rates, etc. Denying it because it makes your 'side' look bad is not only silly, but dangerous. People are dying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/briefing/covid-red-states...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/29/covid-19-is...
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
I wish I could upvote this 10x though I see atm that is not necessarily.
A very nice summary of priors and predicates that need to be grokked!
To these I myself often add several aspects looking more specifically what "social graph" means and what the so-called algorithm means, with lemmas about "engagement" and its industry...
...and the underbelly of how the algorithm works, the constellation of surveillance tracking entity resolution and targeting that make up the actual functioning of "teh algorithm."
These regularly lead me back to trying to find pithy summations of specific paths through this mire, such as "deplatforming is not censorship, it is failure to provide or sell a megaphone," and, "we need to reason about 1A the way we do about 2A," (ie in terms of understood liberty vs aggregate societal harms).
Another such summation is simply to observe that the subset of "the information out there" that any individual sees, and which is amplified within their own social circles online and off-, is the most hotly contested property in the market today. In many markets.
Against this individual integrity and good faith often appears to be but a reed in the wind.
A very nice summary of priors and predicates that need to be grokked!
To these I myself often add several aspects looking more specifically what "social graph" means and what the so-called algorithm means, with lemmas about "engagement" and its industry...
...and the underbelly of how the algorithm works, the constellation of surveillance tracking entity resolution and targeting that make up the actual functioning of "teh algorithm."
These regularly lead me back to trying to find pithy summations of specific paths through this mire, such as "deplatforming is not censorship, it is failure to provide or sell a megaphone," and, "we need to reason about 1A the way we do about 2A," (ie in terms of understood liberty vs aggregate societal harms).
Another such summation is simply to observe that the subset of "the information out there" that any individual sees, and which is amplified within their own social circles online and off-, is the most hotly contested property in the market today. In many markets.
Against this individual integrity and good faith often appears to be but a reed in the wind.
> These regularly lead me back to trying to find pithy summations of specific paths through this mire, such as "deplatforming is not censorship, it is failure to provide or sell a megaphone," and, "we need to reason about 1A the way we do about 2A," (ie in terms of understood liberty vs aggregate societal harms).
This is one of the scariest paragraphs I’ve seen on HN in some time.
Who exactly gets to reason about these changes? How do we change 1A and no cause censorship? Our political parties have thrown the entire nation into division and one side wants to limit speech while the other doesn’t. So what do we do? Implement a dictatorship?
While we’re here, 2A has not cause societal harms, the humans did. Separate them already. The amount of gun owners vs those shooting up places have a very very very wide margin.
This is one of the scariest paragraphs I’ve seen on HN in some time.
Who exactly gets to reason about these changes? How do we change 1A and no cause censorship? Our political parties have thrown the entire nation into division and one side wants to limit speech while the other doesn’t. So what do we do? Implement a dictatorship?
While we’re here, 2A has not cause societal harms, the humans did. Separate them already. The amount of gun owners vs those shooting up places have a very very very wide margin.
By "we" I mean, we as a society. Me, you, all of us.
By "reason" I mean, we need to have open debate about where the appropriate line today is in various domains between competing goods and aims.
The conflict is often as here, between collective interest, and individual liberty.
Not the time or place reopen/rehash well-trod arguments,
but I will observe that from the perspective of someone who believes in gun control, and to my point about the analogy,
our collective problem actually is precisely that humans are regardless of good faith intentions, defined by predictably acting out of accord with those intentions,
and hence we as society have reason to seek to regulate and mitigate the impact of force multipliers.
In the US, guns are the most well-known force multiplier in the domain of interpersonal conflict.
But today the force multiplier which arguably has orders of magnitude more impact, is "speech."
The distinction between "people" and their tools is IMO specious. Humans have agency; what is at issue is that given that agency, what do we agree about tool use?
Reasoning about "free speech" does not === censorship. It means, we need to educate people to have a better mental model of what our industry (here on HN) is capable of doing and is doing, in the feedback system which marries surveillance and the construction of personalized information streams.
The short-hand way for describing this is a good start: it amounts to stochastic mind control. No individual may be "programmed," but our industry and its clients put billions of dollars and literal and political fortunes among other resources, into the presumption that our current tooling is capable of producing discernible changes in collective behavior.
We argue here and elsewhere regularly as professionals about the ethics and consequences of using this system to e.g. provoke consumption.
When I say we need to reason about speech, I am myself most interested in us coming to terms with, and finding a way to survive as a society which e.g. values individual agency (call it liberty if you prefer), when that same tooling over the last decade especially has increasingly been used and with exponentially increasing power, to drive social and political behavior.
In the US this is most evident and most clearly a present danger wrt the fomentation of tribalism, in specific tribes which are largely defined by their anti-democratic, anti-communitarian, authoratarianism, married by convenience and inclination to racism, homophobia, misogyny, and the exhausting catalog of other permanent social horrors.
Twitter, or the online ad market, are no more "free speech" in an Originalist sense than a contemporary semi-automatic weapon is a musket.
In bother cases, we need to understand and apply Constitutional law to find the appropriate balance between collective and individual interests,
and what I saying is, we need to do so with an honest discussion of evolving power dynamics given that individuals now have at least hypothetical access to force multipliers.
To make this concrete: the 2016 and 2020 elections were subject to asymmetrical information warfare. Asymmetry in the terrorist sense: a small but motivated group, such as the GRU, is capable of provoking catastrophic disruption.
I do not posit any particular answers.
But we need to have the hard discussion, the sooner the better.
By "reason" I mean, we need to have open debate about where the appropriate line today is in various domains between competing goods and aims.
The conflict is often as here, between collective interest, and individual liberty.
Not the time or place reopen/rehash well-trod arguments,
but I will observe that from the perspective of someone who believes in gun control, and to my point about the analogy,
our collective problem actually is precisely that humans are regardless of good faith intentions, defined by predictably acting out of accord with those intentions,
and hence we as society have reason to seek to regulate and mitigate the impact of force multipliers.
In the US, guns are the most well-known force multiplier in the domain of interpersonal conflict.
But today the force multiplier which arguably has orders of magnitude more impact, is "speech."
The distinction between "people" and their tools is IMO specious. Humans have agency; what is at issue is that given that agency, what do we agree about tool use?
Reasoning about "free speech" does not === censorship. It means, we need to educate people to have a better mental model of what our industry (here on HN) is capable of doing and is doing, in the feedback system which marries surveillance and the construction of personalized information streams.
The short-hand way for describing this is a good start: it amounts to stochastic mind control. No individual may be "programmed," but our industry and its clients put billions of dollars and literal and political fortunes among other resources, into the presumption that our current tooling is capable of producing discernible changes in collective behavior.
We argue here and elsewhere regularly as professionals about the ethics and consequences of using this system to e.g. provoke consumption.
When I say we need to reason about speech, I am myself most interested in us coming to terms with, and finding a way to survive as a society which e.g. values individual agency (call it liberty if you prefer), when that same tooling over the last decade especially has increasingly been used and with exponentially increasing power, to drive social and political behavior.
In the US this is most evident and most clearly a present danger wrt the fomentation of tribalism, in specific tribes which are largely defined by their anti-democratic, anti-communitarian, authoratarianism, married by convenience and inclination to racism, homophobia, misogyny, and the exhausting catalog of other permanent social horrors.
Twitter, or the online ad market, are no more "free speech" in an Originalist sense than a contemporary semi-automatic weapon is a musket.
In bother cases, we need to understand and apply Constitutional law to find the appropriate balance between collective and individual interests,
and what I saying is, we need to do so with an honest discussion of evolving power dynamics given that individuals now have at least hypothetical access to force multipliers.
To make this concrete: the 2016 and 2020 elections were subject to asymmetrical information warfare. Asymmetry in the terrorist sense: a small but motivated group, such as the GRU, is capable of provoking catastrophic disruption.
I do not posit any particular answers.
But we need to have the hard discussion, the sooner the better.
> in the feedback system which marries surveillance and the construction of personalized information streams.
You've continued to terrify me. How can we construct "personalized information streams" without censorship? By definition you either allow someone to view information outside their stream, or you don't. It clearly sounds like you're saying we shouldn't allow people to construct their own streams, but have someone else do it for them. Therefore censorship.
> I do not posit any particular answers. > But we need to have the hard discussion, the sooner the better.
And again, what would the results of this conversation be? You have one side demanding control over speech, and the other demanding no control over it. One side, once some perceived threat arises, wants total control and extermination of the perceived threat. Yet the other side doesn't perceive this threat. The other side believes this threat to be an authoritarian attempt to stifle non-aligned speech and thoughts.
What great societal damage has you wanting to control speech so much? COVID? Vaccine hesitancy?
You've continued to terrify me. How can we construct "personalized information streams" without censorship? By definition you either allow someone to view information outside their stream, or you don't. It clearly sounds like you're saying we shouldn't allow people to construct their own streams, but have someone else do it for them. Therefore censorship.
> I do not posit any particular answers. > But we need to have the hard discussion, the sooner the better.
And again, what would the results of this conversation be? You have one side demanding control over speech, and the other demanding no control over it. One side, once some perceived threat arises, wants total control and extermination of the perceived threat. Yet the other side doesn't perceive this threat. The other side believes this threat to be an authoritarian attempt to stifle non-aligned speech and thoughts.
What great societal damage has you wanting to control speech so much? COVID? Vaccine hesitancy?
Exactly. The fundamental difference in advertising today compared to 30 years ago is that for the entire of history until the last 2 decades, it was expensive to target individuals. Ads on TV and newspapers have to adhere to standards established by organizations like the Advertising Standards Council. Malicious ads or propaganda that target individuals with misinformation or malware or phishing can be bought on modern platforms for pennies or mere fractions of a penny. Nobody is being held to account for the damage they are doing to our society. In the past at least the cost of postage was a barrier to entry, but today? This desperately needs to be fixed.
What misinformation have you been convinced of because you saw a targeted advertisement? Or a slightly different version: What views do you hold that originated from a targeted ad?
Or for some more specific examples: In elections, do you start out looking to elect one candidate and then you see a targeted ad and you change your vote because of it?
For COVID vaccines, did you start off with a stance and then you see a targeted ad and you change your stance because of that ad?
Or for some more specific examples: In elections, do you start out looking to elect one candidate and then you see a targeted ad and you change your vote because of it?
For COVID vaccines, did you start off with a stance and then you see a targeted ad and you change your stance because of that ad?
As I post every so often here on Hacker News, have a look at this ad my elderly father got a couple of years ago just before COVID hit: https://imgur.com/a/Lk85lST . It's a perfectly innocent search by someone looking for help with a problem that directs towards an ad for a phishing site. The worst part is that it's highly targeted. I tried doing EXACTLY the same search from my own phone and laptop and got completely different results despite coming in from the same wifi network at the same location and the same time. This isn't acceptable. If malicious ads couldn't be targeted like that so that more people saw the same unacceptable content, it sure as hell would be reported a lot more. Instead, someone has made a decision that nobody should be held accountable. It generates a profit, so it's OK, right?
Oh totally, that ad seems malicious. I was just curious about the misinformation angle that you mentioned and how you in particular have been duped or had your opinions changed because of a targeted ad.
I don't see those ads. My filter bubble is completely different. Personally, I think it would be beneficial for society if all of us were exposed to information that falls outside of what our individual filter bubble normally shows us from time to time.
Another example that came up in my life yesterday relates to the trucker protest here in Ottawa. One of the news stories from last month about restrictions is being heavily promoted by people sympathetic to the cause. However, in the intervening 4 weeks since this particular story was published, those restrictions were lifted and are no longer being enforced. The people promoting the old article do so because it benefits their narrative, but they are effectively spreading misinformation now by failing to acknowledge that the content is no longer true. That's a problem, and that kind of behaviour is not easy to solve. Maybe someday our web browsers will have the ability to flag content that is obsolete, but that's a pipe dream at present.
Another example that came up in my life yesterday relates to the trucker protest here in Ottawa. One of the news stories from last month about restrictions is being heavily promoted by people sympathetic to the cause. However, in the intervening 4 weeks since this particular story was published, those restrictions were lifted and are no longer being enforced. The people promoting the old article do so because it benefits their narrative, but they are effectively spreading misinformation now by failing to acknowledge that the content is no longer true. That's a problem, and that kind of behaviour is not easy to solve. Maybe someday our web browsers will have the ability to flag content that is obsolete, but that's a pipe dream at present.
I've also noticed that the term "willful ignorance" gets thrown around a lot more nowadays. There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that what they believe is the absolute truth that any disagreement or critique must therefore be out of malice rather than genuine disagreement.
Most peoples' conclusions are based on some kind of logical deduction. Where people differ is the fundamental "beliefs" which are treated axiomatically (taken on faith) on which the logical superstructure is built.
Edit: people also assign different "comparative value" to different things. Most value judgements involve comparing apples and oranges, but one person might have a preference for oranges and someone else might prefer the apples. Not for any "rational" reason.
Edit: people also assign different "comparative value" to different things. Most value judgements involve comparing apples and oranges, but one person might have a preference for oranges and someone else might prefer the apples. Not for any "rational" reason.
I've always used the terms "lens" or "worldview" to describe that starting point, and I think the most fruitful conversations with people I don't agree with usually stem around understanding that we do our personal calculus differently, and that doesn't make them a terrible human being. We both certainly believe that we have the correct view (or we wouldn't hold it), we're not diminishing that there is a reality where one of us is likely correct and the other is wrong, but that we don't have all of the information to say that someone is being willfully ignorant, as other replies have stated.
A more rigorous version of this can be found in the book, Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. What you're calling a lens or worldview, he calls a "vision". He precisely defines two visions that are at opposite ends of an axis and which differ only in a single assumption: an intuition about the span of human nature. He then proceeds to show how this single intuition leads by logical extrapolation when combined with unambiguous facts to lead people to opposing policy preferences.
It's really a very powerful analysis, because it's Occam's Razor compliant. The theory is simple yet has great explanatory power.
It's really a very powerful analysis, because it's Occam's Razor compliant. The theory is simple yet has great explanatory power.
> Most peoples' conclusions are based on some kind of logical deduction. Where people differ is the fundamental "beliefs" which are treated axiomatically (taken on faith) on which the logical superstructure is built.
This doesn’t align very well with my observations. I can’t read minds so I don’t truly know anyone else’s beliefs. However, to the extent that I can infer possible beliefs from behavior, deductive or any other form of dialectic reasoning doesn’t appear to play much of a role. Social proof and other such phenomena appear to dominate belief formation.
I’ve found that an honest and rigorous examination of one’s own beliefs reveals that they are predominantly held for emotional reasons. Often it’s as simple as avoiding the emotional discomfort of being shunned for deviating from whatever your group’s particular dogma is.
This doesn’t align very well with my observations. I can’t read minds so I don’t truly know anyone else’s beliefs. However, to the extent that I can infer possible beliefs from behavior, deductive or any other form of dialectic reasoning doesn’t appear to play much of a role. Social proof and other such phenomena appear to dominate belief formation.
I’ve found that an honest and rigorous examination of one’s own beliefs reveals that they are predominantly held for emotional reasons. Often it’s as simple as avoiding the emotional discomfort of being shunned for deviating from whatever your group’s particular dogma is.
To be fair, there are a lot of logical hiccups in people's reasoning too. But when you boil those away, often there is still a different value system underneath, as you suggest.
I don't think we follow rigorous logic. Rather, we follow chains of inferences that are plausible to us.
> Most peoples' conclusions are based on some kind of logical deduction.
"Some kind" is doing a lot of work there, but I think there's some truth to what you're saying. My father-in-law will pop out with some bizarro story about how global warming was invented to cover up government collaboration with aliens, or Covid-19 was created in a lab using Vince Foster's stem cells, and when my wife asks where he heard it, it'll be from some guy he met last week and talked to for a total of half an hour while he was buying a motorcycle from him. Or maybe he didn't buy the motorcycle because he didn't totally trust the guy, but he believed him about the aliens. If you or me repeated information from a source like that, we'd be doing it in bad faith, but my father-in-law does it with a kind of innocent sincerity.
There are a lot of people like my father-in-law, but there are also a lot of people who are aware that what they're saying isn't literally true, but it's a way of supporting a system that they believe is wholesome for society, or at wholesome to their own interests. So there's a spectrum much like religion, with true believers on one end, and complete unbelievers on the other end who outwardly speak and behave as if they believe, because they think it's a good story for little kids to grow up with and because they think it's an effective shared fiction to structure society around.
In a sense you could say that both my father-in-law and the college-educated conspiracy theorists are willfully ignorant. My father-in-law sincerely believes a lot of sketchy things about politics and the government, but his lack of skepticism is not completely symmetrical. He is nominally in the "they're all crooks" camp, but he is not as quick to believe really crazy stuff about Republicans as about Democrats. Against Republicans, he'll believe that they invent reasons to use military hardware because they have a cozy relationship with defense contractors. Against Democrats, he'll believe that the military invented and perfect flying saucers in the 1950s, and then Barbara Bush and Anton Levay opened a portal to hell by having butt sex in a church and we gave the flying saucers to the demons so if they crash people will just think they're aliens. (Barbara Bush was a secret Demoncrat, of course -- she was pro-abortion!)
There's a lot about my father-in-law's internal mental state that I can't figure out from the outside. When he "believes" something crazy about Democrats, he's aware that he enjoys believing and repeating it, he seems to be aware that there's a certain kind of scrutiny that it won't hold up under, but he also regards it as actionable information in the sense that he votes based on his distaste for the Democrats and he cites crazy conspiracy stuff as supporting his distaste for the Democrats.
tl;dr Most people's conclusions are based on "some kind of logical deduction" in the sense that almost any cognitive process can be described as "some kind of logical deduction."
"Some kind" is doing a lot of work there, but I think there's some truth to what you're saying. My father-in-law will pop out with some bizarro story about how global warming was invented to cover up government collaboration with aliens, or Covid-19 was created in a lab using Vince Foster's stem cells, and when my wife asks where he heard it, it'll be from some guy he met last week and talked to for a total of half an hour while he was buying a motorcycle from him. Or maybe he didn't buy the motorcycle because he didn't totally trust the guy, but he believed him about the aliens. If you or me repeated information from a source like that, we'd be doing it in bad faith, but my father-in-law does it with a kind of innocent sincerity.
There are a lot of people like my father-in-law, but there are also a lot of people who are aware that what they're saying isn't literally true, but it's a way of supporting a system that they believe is wholesome for society, or at wholesome to their own interests. So there's a spectrum much like religion, with true believers on one end, and complete unbelievers on the other end who outwardly speak and behave as if they believe, because they think it's a good story for little kids to grow up with and because they think it's an effective shared fiction to structure society around.
In a sense you could say that both my father-in-law and the college-educated conspiracy theorists are willfully ignorant. My father-in-law sincerely believes a lot of sketchy things about politics and the government, but his lack of skepticism is not completely symmetrical. He is nominally in the "they're all crooks" camp, but he is not as quick to believe really crazy stuff about Republicans as about Democrats. Against Republicans, he'll believe that they invent reasons to use military hardware because they have a cozy relationship with defense contractors. Against Democrats, he'll believe that the military invented and perfect flying saucers in the 1950s, and then Barbara Bush and Anton Levay opened a portal to hell by having butt sex in a church and we gave the flying saucers to the demons so if they crash people will just think they're aliens. (Barbara Bush was a secret Demoncrat, of course -- she was pro-abortion!)
There's a lot about my father-in-law's internal mental state that I can't figure out from the outside. When he "believes" something crazy about Democrats, he's aware that he enjoys believing and repeating it, he seems to be aware that there's a certain kind of scrutiny that it won't hold up under, but he also regards it as actionable information in the sense that he votes based on his distaste for the Democrats and he cites crazy conspiracy stuff as supporting his distaste for the Democrats.
tl;dr Most people's conclusions are based on "some kind of logical deduction" in the sense that almost any cognitive process can be described as "some kind of logical deduction."
Yes, and I think there are two things worth considering.
First, people put their identities into their beliefs. Everything is a lifestyle choice anymore. What non-mainstream belief defines me as a person? When you make believing in the flat earth part of your identity, you get a fight or flight response when someone attacks the idea of the flat earth, because in a way, they are attacking you.
Second, it's easy to confirm your misinformation with more misinformation! I don't think people hear something once, like "the earth is flat" and just believe it. They hear it, look it up, see multiple sources saying the same things (weren't we taught to confirm stuff like this?), sprinkle in the smallest amount of plausibility - maybe a source that otherwise prints stuff you know to be true (sports scores, natural disasters, whatever) also prints something about the flat earth, and there you have it. You've done your homework. At this point admitting you're wrong means you must admit you are ignorant and were so easily duped, or that your entire education was a waste of time. It takes a very big person to do that.
First, people put their identities into their beliefs. Everything is a lifestyle choice anymore. What non-mainstream belief defines me as a person? When you make believing in the flat earth part of your identity, you get a fight or flight response when someone attacks the idea of the flat earth, because in a way, they are attacking you.
Second, it's easy to confirm your misinformation with more misinformation! I don't think people hear something once, like "the earth is flat" and just believe it. They hear it, look it up, see multiple sources saying the same things (weren't we taught to confirm stuff like this?), sprinkle in the smallest amount of plausibility - maybe a source that otherwise prints stuff you know to be true (sports scores, natural disasters, whatever) also prints something about the flat earth, and there you have it. You've done your homework. At this point admitting you're wrong means you must admit you are ignorant and were so easily duped, or that your entire education was a waste of time. It takes a very big person to do that.
It's always a little frustrating to me to see this framed as some very recent thing to do with Twitter or whatever.
People have always folded beliefs into their identities and felt embarrassed or defensive when they are challenged. Most high-profile since forever is religion.
Which brings me to another frustration, when it's presumed that there is something wrong with beliefs being involved with identity. I'm not even sure what capital-I Identity is supposed to be if not a system of beliefs about yourself and the world and how they relate.
I don't think any of this is as new as it is often assumed to be. There appears to have been a rise in "identity politics" but even this is wrong; politics has always been about identity, it's just that nationalism or socialism or other principles can be part of someone's identity. Or in other words, they are beliefs.
So maybe we are more individualistic in our politics, and maybe that is bad. Or maybe it isn't... It's probably a mixed bag!
People have always folded beliefs into their identities and felt embarrassed or defensive when they are challenged. Most high-profile since forever is religion.
Which brings me to another frustration, when it's presumed that there is something wrong with beliefs being involved with identity. I'm not even sure what capital-I Identity is supposed to be if not a system of beliefs about yourself and the world and how they relate.
I don't think any of this is as new as it is often assumed to be. There appears to have been a rise in "identity politics" but even this is wrong; politics has always been about identity, it's just that nationalism or socialism or other principles can be part of someone's identity. Or in other words, they are beliefs.
So maybe we are more individualistic in our politics, and maybe that is bad. Or maybe it isn't... It's probably a mixed bag!
Also "disingenuous", which is a fancy way of saying lying.
Edit: that's not quite right, as throwaway894345 and xyzzyz and Sohcahtoa82 have pointed out below. It's also not quite what I meant (I was being hasty). The point is that 'disingenuous', like 'lie', implies intent to deceive.
Edit: that's not quite right, as throwaway894345 and xyzzyz and Sohcahtoa82 have pointed out below. It's also not quite what I meant (I was being hasty). The point is that 'disingenuous', like 'lie', implies intent to deceive.
I think “lying” as more of a “your claim is outright false” while “disingenuous” lends itself to more subjective forms of misleading. For example, if I refer to a given protest as “violent” on the basis that a literal handful (out of tens or hundreds of thousands) were violent, I’m not really lying but I’m certainly misleading people by way of my characterization.
Both imply intent and the common messageboard usage is a kind of pretend-polite way to claim someone is intentionally misleading when they might simply be disagreeing or just unintentionally wrong, misinformed, etc. A strongly held inaccurate belief is not 'disingenuous'. It's a tropey comment-cliche word that is probably best avoided when addressing people you disagree with online.
If you call someone disingenuous, then yeah, you're being offensive. But if you call the idea disingenuous, then it's much less offensive. If you phrase it like, "isn't that a little disingenuous?" it's even less offensive yet (I think "isn't that a lie" would come off a fair bit more offensive). Using "disingenuous" and words like it, I've had a lot of success finding common ground or at least identifying the locus of disagreement.
But of course someone who is set on causing offense can probably manage with any word.
But of course someone who is set on causing offense can probably manage with any word.
Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. Therefore, if an internet comment calls an idea or an argument disingenuous, it's calling the idea-holder or argument-maker disingenuous. It may be a little more indirect, but it's still an attack.
In my observation, that word has the opposite effect of 'finding common ground', so I'm surprised to hear you say that. If finding common ground is what you want to do (which is great), there are other words that should give you even better results.
In my observation, that word has the opposite effect of 'finding common ground', so I'm surprised to hear you say that. If finding common ground is what you want to do (which is great), there are other words that should give you even better results.
> Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with.
I don't think that's required. If I call an idea "disingenuous" (or "misleading" for that matter), it doesn't imply that the arguer intended to mislead, but only that the idea lends itself to misinterpretation ("it seems disingenuous to suggest that the protest was violent on the basis of the actions of one or two out of tens of thousands" <- this seems about as polite as anything IMHO). But any way of suggesting that an idea is incorrect or inaccurate risks causing offense--it's a perilous enterprise and no matter which word you use, ultimately you have to lay a lot of groundwork to demonstrate good faith, common ground, etc.
That's my $0.02, anyway.
I don't think that's required. If I call an idea "disingenuous" (or "misleading" for that matter), it doesn't imply that the arguer intended to mislead, but only that the idea lends itself to misinterpretation ("it seems disingenuous to suggest that the protest was violent on the basis of the actions of one or two out of tens of thousands" <- this seems about as polite as anything IMHO). But any way of suggesting that an idea is incorrect or inaccurate risks causing offense--it's a perilous enterprise and no matter which word you use, ultimately you have to lay a lot of groundwork to demonstrate good faith, common ground, etc.
That's my $0.02, anyway.
Dictionaries define the word in terms of human qualities (dishonesty, insincerity, etc.), so I don't think this argument is on solid ground lexicographically :)
The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous).
The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous).
I don't know man. I've spoken English my whole life and I've never heard of anyone being confused about referring to an idea as 'disingenuous' or similar. :) Certainly no one (except you) has corrected me that it can only apply to people. Indeed, dictionary.com offers examples of "disingenuous" referring to ideas:
> The move has no political chance in a Democratic House, but sends a clear, though disingenuous, message about punishing supposed “extremism.”
> He would rather endorse someone with genuine doubts than someone with disingenuous beliefs.
And there are many examples in which "disingenous" refers to things other than people.
> The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person
I wouldn't be surprised at all if "(dis)ingenuous" originally referred only to people but came to take on a broader meaning. This happens all the time--words are fluid on even very short timespans. Consider the verb form of impact:
> Sense of "strike forcefully against something" first recorded 1916. Figurative sense of "have a forceful effect on" is from 1935.
In only 18 years the word acquired a figurative sense (and I strongly suspect linguistic velocity--the rate of change of language--has much increased in the Internet era--although not uniformly across the lexicon). Considering your Etymonline link dates "disingenuous" to the 1650s, it would be surprising if this figurative sense hadn't developed in the intervening ~370 years.
Anyway, while I do enjoy discussing and learning about language, I have to get back to work. Thanks for the conversation, and enjoy your day! :)
> The move has no political chance in a Democratic House, but sends a clear, though disingenuous, message about punishing supposed “extremism.”
> He would rather endorse someone with genuine doubts than someone with disingenuous beliefs.
And there are many examples in which "disingenous" refers to things other than people.
> The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person
I wouldn't be surprised at all if "(dis)ingenuous" originally referred only to people but came to take on a broader meaning. This happens all the time--words are fluid on even very short timespans. Consider the verb form of impact:
> Sense of "strike forcefully against something" first recorded 1916. Figurative sense of "have a forceful effect on" is from 1935.
In only 18 years the word acquired a figurative sense (and I strongly suspect linguistic velocity--the rate of change of language--has much increased in the Internet era--although not uniformly across the lexicon). Considering your Etymonline link dates "disingenuous" to the 1650s, it would be surprising if this figurative sense hadn't developed in the intervening ~370 years.
Anyway, while I do enjoy discussing and learning about language, I have to get back to work. Thanks for the conversation, and enjoy your day! :)
The first example does refer to people. That's the point of using the word "disingenuous" there. "Sending a disingenuous message" means a message you don't really believe. The second one is hard to make sense of without more context.
Words are sort of statistical meaning clouds—people have different associations and use them differently. Regional variations play a large role. I'm pretty sure the word disingenuous does imply intent to deceive, though, and it's a significant moderation issue because it's extremely popular in internet arguments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
Words are sort of statistical meaning clouds—people have different associations and use them differently. Regional variations play a large role. I'm pretty sure the word disingenuous does imply intent to deceive, though, and it's a significant moderation issue because it's extremely popular in internet arguments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
The second one is very much about disingenuous people (and their dealings), it's from a WaPo piece headlined Deshaun Watson is taking a stand against disingenuous NFL owners. It could change the league.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/01/deshaun-wat...
Just like 'shut your lying mouth' is, in fact, calling someone a liar and not merely an observation about some independent attribute of their piehole.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/01/deshaun-wat...
Just like 'shut your lying mouth' is, in fact, calling someone a liar and not merely an observation about some independent attribute of their piehole.
Yes—there are subtle distinctions between these words ("dissimulation" is another, but that one hasn't become internet-popular). The aspect they have in common, as pvg points out, is that they all imply intent to deceive.
Since internet commenters basically can't ever know that about each other, they're not allowed to direct those words at each other here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Since internet commenters basically can't ever know that about each other, they're not allowed to direct those words at each other here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
A phrase I've heard that demonstrates that concept is "hiding your power level"
It reminds me of the House of Commons where it's permissible to lie but under no circumstances can your opponent respond by calling that lie out as a lie because that would be un-Parliamentary language. As a result, people twist themselves into all kinds of rhetorical contortions to imply someone is a liar without actually making the accusation.
I wouldn't equate them.
I would label a statement that is technically true but highly misleading as disingenuous. For example, the statement "Vaccines won't prevent you from getting COVID" is technically true, because you can still get COVID despite being vaccinated. However, it's misleading because the statement carries a strong implication that the vaccine is worthless, when the truth is that is the vaccine greatly reduces your chances of getting it, while also significantly reducing likelihood of hospitalization and death. The statement isn't a lie, but it's certainly disingenuous.
I would label a statement that is technically true but highly misleading as disingenuous. For example, the statement "Vaccines won't prevent you from getting COVID" is technically true, because you can still get COVID despite being vaccinated. However, it's misleading because the statement carries a strong implication that the vaccine is worthless, when the truth is that is the vaccine greatly reduces your chances of getting it, while also significantly reducing likelihood of hospitalization and death. The statement isn't a lie, but it's certainly disingenuous.
This statement is also disingenuous. Anecdotal but from my experience those I’ve known with COVID that were not vaccinated and we’re not hospitalized.
This is part of where vaccine hesitancy comes from, it seems like you’re injecting something that’s almost useless (I won’t say it is yet) as it seems those who are healthy (read no underlying conditions, known or not) don’t have issues.
This is part of where vaccine hesitancy comes from, it seems like you’re injecting something that’s almost useless (I won’t say it is yet) as it seems those who are healthy (read no underlying conditions, known or not) don’t have issues.
That’s not quite true. Lying is typically understood as actively saying something untrue. What is more typical, especially in media, is selectively sharing true information, but obscuring other true information, which would present the narrative in completely different light. This way, one can manipulate people to have misconception about the reality, without actively saying a single lie. It is still disingenuous, though, if done deliberately.
I agree, and should have known better than to post something so brief about a somewhat subtle point. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30350820.
I'm pretty convinced the Earth is round (or an oblate spheroid if you want to be pedantic about it), and I don't care if flat earthers are malicious or deluded; I'm not going to waste my time arguing with them either way.
> There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that what they believe is the absolute truth that any disagreement or critique must therefore be out of malice rather than genuine disagreement.
I think they are less confident in their own ideas (politicians aren't even required to state what policies they stand for anymore!) than they are confident that the other side (or at least the cartoonish version of it presented to them via allied media) is wrong/evil.
I think they are less confident in their own ideas (politicians aren't even required to state what policies they stand for anymore!) than they are confident that the other side (or at least the cartoonish version of it presented to them via allied media) is wrong/evil.
I think there's some nuance to this terminology, but overall I prefer to use the term "bad faith" when people are saying things that they know are untrue. In general, most people I hear using the term "willful ignorance" are referring to the same phenomenon of people lying to push their own narrative.
Actual ignorance is never willful, by definition of ignorance.
Actual ignorance is never willful, by definition of ignorance.
Willful ignorance doesn't just include lying to push a narrative. It's also an ailment of probably the majority in modern society to both be uninformed about the issues of the day and to have no interest in becoming informed. And no wonder. Being informed is hard work! For any given issue, you have to research a lot, and do it from multiple perspectives and view points, including those you don't agree with. Then you have to sort out which information you trust versus distrust, and finally synthesize your own educated opinion. Actually, you aren't even done then. You have to be willing to continue to consider opposing ideas and be willing to update your views given new information.
Until ~2 years ago, I was one of the uninformed masses. It took the recently-intensifying insanity of American politics and ascendant leftwing ideology in the past few years to wake me up.
Until ~2 years ago, I was one of the uninformed masses. It took the recently-intensifying insanity of American politics and ascendant leftwing ideology in the past few years to wake me up.
> Until ~2 years ago, I was one of the uninformed masses. It took the recently-intensifying insanity of American politics and ascendant leftwing ideology in the past few years to wake me up.
"Red pilling" isn't waking up, it's just becoming a nativist right winger. Although the left wing calls itself "progressive" so I guess the words games are everywhere.
"Red pilling" isn't waking up, it's just becoming a nativist right winger. Although the left wing calls itself "progressive" so I guess the words games are everywhere.
[deleted]
Most people are not willing to have a Socratic style debate let alone admit they could ever be wrong. That is the root of the problem in our society today.
Hacker News is the only large forum where I see anything close to Socratic dialogues: At least a few times a week, I find myself upvoting both sides of a debate because the participants are really listening to each other and (seemingly) making a genuine effort to understand where the other side is coming from.
"...but you can find super-informed people on both sides of the question. That’s why it’s a live debate."
It's just rhetoric. Anything can become a debate, such as who won the 2020 presidential election, if one side is willing to make up facts and repeat them over and over. Proponents of the Big Lie are super-informed, insofar as they have a lot of lies they can say with a straight face that act as stand-ins for actual information. And if they keep asserting those lies, the other side is forced to respond, hence a debate. There is still no merit to the Big Lie, but now it must be discussed as if there was. THAT is why there is a live debate.
And then there is this nonsense: "overall political climate was much more right-wing in the 1990s."
That is so outrageously false I'm not sure why anyone is supposed to think this person is worth reading. Just think of how many mainstream politicians will swear up and down that the election was stolen in 2020. I guess if you pretend "right wing" is about policy you could craft a convoluted argument that today's Republicans are less conservative (as the author does), but that's not what the right wing is about. The right wing is about the Big Lie, it's about illiberalism, it's about demonizing the media and institutions and political opponents - all the policy stuff is just window dressing.
It's just rhetoric. Anything can become a debate, such as who won the 2020 presidential election, if one side is willing to make up facts and repeat them over and over. Proponents of the Big Lie are super-informed, insofar as they have a lot of lies they can say with a straight face that act as stand-ins for actual information. And if they keep asserting those lies, the other side is forced to respond, hence a debate. There is still no merit to the Big Lie, but now it must be discussed as if there was. THAT is why there is a live debate.
And then there is this nonsense: "overall political climate was much more right-wing in the 1990s."
That is so outrageously false I'm not sure why anyone is supposed to think this person is worth reading. Just think of how many mainstream politicians will swear up and down that the election was stolen in 2020. I guess if you pretend "right wing" is about policy you could craft a convoluted argument that today's Republicans are less conservative (as the author does), but that's not what the right wing is about. The right wing is about the Big Lie, it's about illiberalism, it's about demonizing the media and institutions and political opponents - all the policy stuff is just window dressing.
I don't think that's what the right wing is about at all. All the conservative pundits I listen to think Trump behaved disgracefully after the election and that there is still no evidence of sufficient voter irregularities to turn the election.
Many still believe it's a major problem that states like Pennsylvania violated their own laws during the election, which should be illegal, but handling that is a separate issue. Many also believe it's a problem that our election processes are so insecure and that we need more election security. That's separate from believing the 2020 election was stolen in the sense that provably illegal voting activity swung the election.
Many still believe it's a major problem that states like Pennsylvania violated their own laws during the election, which should be illegal, but handling that is a separate issue. Many also believe it's a problem that our election processes are so insecure and that we need more election security. That's separate from believing the 2020 election was stolen in the sense that provably illegal voting activity swung the election.
I'm not asserting every single conservative fits this mold, or that you can't cherry-pick pundits who still play fair. But most of what the right wing is oriented around today is attacking the free press, stifling public education, making voting more difficult for urban citizens and pretending, loudly and constantly, that the last election was stolen.
Where are the policy proposals? What major legislation did conservatives pass during the previous Republican administration when they had a trifecta? What was the Republican Party platform in 2020? And why is the RNC choosing not to allow a debate in 2024? This is not a party with lots of ideas ready to fight for the hearts and minds of voters.
Where are the policy proposals? What major legislation did conservatives pass during the previous Republican administration when they had a trifecta? What was the Republican Party platform in 2020? And why is the RNC choosing not to allow a debate in 2024? This is not a party with lots of ideas ready to fight for the hearts and minds of voters.
Yes, and I'm asserting that 90+% of conservatives don't fit the mold you are casting. That was the point of my response. You can find crazies on both sides of the political aisle.
One of trump's failures is that he isn't a good statesman and so failed to unite his own party, which caused a lot of failures in the legislative process as people like John McCain voted against him just because they hated him. I sincerely wish Trump doesn't run in 2024, not because I think he would do worse than Biden (he would have been 100x better than Biden), but because his greatest strengths are also his biggest flaws, and I don't think he can lead the country effectively.
The general platform of conservatives is: "this is the greatest civilization in history we've inherited. Please stop screwing it up so badly!" That may be different from the RNC platform, but Republicans at least align with conservative values more closely than democrats, so we don't have much choice but to vote for them. Unfortunately, conservatives have rarely been dominant even within the Republican party, and many anti-conservative measures have been perpetrated by Republican presidents.
I agree we need new and better ideas to go mainstream in the party, though not that these ideas don't exist. Among the weaknesses of the Republican party in the past decade have been the unwillingness of the party elites to sense the times and pay attention to their constituents or to the looming culture wars.
As it is most of the time, the strongest argument to vote for a party is not that that party is great, but that the other party is worse. I have no solution for that.
One of trump's failures is that he isn't a good statesman and so failed to unite his own party, which caused a lot of failures in the legislative process as people like John McCain voted against him just because they hated him. I sincerely wish Trump doesn't run in 2024, not because I think he would do worse than Biden (he would have been 100x better than Biden), but because his greatest strengths are also his biggest flaws, and I don't think he can lead the country effectively.
The general platform of conservatives is: "this is the greatest civilization in history we've inherited. Please stop screwing it up so badly!" That may be different from the RNC platform, but Republicans at least align with conservative values more closely than democrats, so we don't have much choice but to vote for them. Unfortunately, conservatives have rarely been dominant even within the Republican party, and many anti-conservative measures have been perpetrated by Republican presidents.
I agree we need new and better ideas to go mainstream in the party, though not that these ideas don't exist. Among the weaknesses of the Republican party in the past decade have been the unwillingness of the party elites to sense the times and pay attention to their constituents or to the looming culture wars.
As it is most of the time, the strongest argument to vote for a party is not that that party is great, but that the other party is worse. I have no solution for that.
Polling consistently shows that the majority of Republican voters do not think Biden won the 2020 election. In my mind, that proves your theory false. A recent UMass poll found that 71% of Republicans think Biden's election was definitely (46%) or probably (25%) not legitimate. In an Ipsos poll last year, 53% of Republicans when asked who "the true President is right now" said Donald Trump. There are dozens of polls showing the exact same thing.
You're also ignoring the 147 elected members of Congress that voted against certifying the election results, and the countless mainstream conservatives politicians and pundits who are constantly promoting provably false conspiracy theories, and not just the Big Lie, often it's even far more nonsensical garbage. This is not a fringe movement, this is the mainstream Republican Party.
You're also ignoring the 147 elected members of Congress that voted against certifying the election results, and the countless mainstream conservatives politicians and pundits who are constantly promoting provably false conspiracy theories, and not just the Big Lie, often it's even far more nonsensical garbage. This is not a fringe movement, this is the mainstream Republican Party.
I don’t think the stats agree with you. A December 2021 poll by UMass Amherst showed only 21% of Republicans thought Biden’s election was legitimate[1] and 54% blamed the Jan6 violence on Democrats or the Capitol Police.[2]
The numbers are almost the same when broken up by ideology (conservative/independant/liberal) instead of party affiliation.
It’s not an issue of “crazies on both sides” — mainstream conservative views of recent events are detached from reality. There’s a pipeline of misinformation that starts with white nationalists, runs through InfoWars and their ilk, and eventually leads to OANN and Fox News. Keeping the audience’s attention is the top priority, so facts matter less than feelings.
[1]: https://polsci.umass.edu/toplines-and-crosstabs-december-202... [2]: https://polsci.umass.edu/sites/default/files/Jan6thAnniversa... (page 5)
The numbers are almost the same when broken up by ideology (conservative/independant/liberal) instead of party affiliation.
It’s not an issue of “crazies on both sides” — mainstream conservative views of recent events are detached from reality. There’s a pipeline of misinformation that starts with white nationalists, runs through InfoWars and their ilk, and eventually leads to OANN and Fox News. Keeping the audience’s attention is the top priority, so facts matter less than feelings.
[1]: https://polsci.umass.edu/toplines-and-crosstabs-december-202... [2]: https://polsci.umass.edu/sites/default/files/Jan6thAnniversa... (page 5)
Hillary Clinton thought Donald Trump's election was "illegitimate", does that mean she's a "crazy"? What is a "legitimate" election anyway? Does it require a certain level of participation, imply a certain bound on fraudulent voting, limits on intimidation, or perhaps propaganda, or maybe it just means that the winner of the popular vote carried the day?
If you ask a vague question, the answer isn't meaningful.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
If you ask a vague question, the answer isn't meaningful.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
And the majority of young adults in 2016 thought Trump was illegitimate: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/majority-young-american...
I don't, however, take either poll seriously. Also, the word "illegitimate" can be interpreted multiple ways. One meaning is "not genuine". Many Republicans are unhappy with, among other things:
* the shameful lying and misinformation spread by corporate media outlets during election season. These organizations outright lied and just didn't care. The ends justified the means: https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-staffer-networks-trump-off...
* Shameful outsized influence and suppression of stories by big tech. For instance, The Hunter Biden story got completely quashed by Twitter. It turns out the story is mostly true and could have affected the election. There is significant evidence that Joe Biden was involved in corrupt deals as well. In a more just world, Biden would probably be out of office and in jail: https://news.yahoo.com/might-not-hunter-biden-shenanigans-08....
* Corrupt influence by wealthy democrats like Mark Zuckerburg, who spent millions to potentially influence the outcome of the election: https://bbc-edition.com/entertainment/the-2020-election-wasn...
* States like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin breaking their own laws at election time.
They are plenty of ways to justify using the word "illegitimate" without claiming anything overtly illegal was done to successfully change the results of the election.
It’s not an issue of “crazies on both sides” — mainstream conservative views of recent events are detached from reality. There’s a pipeline of misinformation that starts with white nationalists, runs through InfoWars and their ilk, and eventually leads to OANN and Fox News
I don't follow Fox News or Infowars, but I know of numerous examples of lies and misinformation coming from NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, NPR, and so on. Maybe both sides peddle in misinformation. Maybe one side peddles in it a lot more than the other. I'm going to need to see more than this UMass poll to convince me that it's the republican side that's the bigger problem.
I don't, however, take either poll seriously. Also, the word "illegitimate" can be interpreted multiple ways. One meaning is "not genuine". Many Republicans are unhappy with, among other things:
* the shameful lying and misinformation spread by corporate media outlets during election season. These organizations outright lied and just didn't care. The ends justified the means: https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-staffer-networks-trump-off...
* Shameful outsized influence and suppression of stories by big tech. For instance, The Hunter Biden story got completely quashed by Twitter. It turns out the story is mostly true and could have affected the election. There is significant evidence that Joe Biden was involved in corrupt deals as well. In a more just world, Biden would probably be out of office and in jail: https://news.yahoo.com/might-not-hunter-biden-shenanigans-08....
* Corrupt influence by wealthy democrats like Mark Zuckerburg, who spent millions to potentially influence the outcome of the election: https://bbc-edition.com/entertainment/the-2020-election-wasn...
* States like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin breaking their own laws at election time.
They are plenty of ways to justify using the word "illegitimate" without claiming anything overtly illegal was done to successfully change the results of the election.
It’s not an issue of “crazies on both sides” — mainstream conservative views of recent events are detached from reality. There’s a pipeline of misinformation that starts with white nationalists, runs through InfoWars and their ilk, and eventually leads to OANN and Fox News
I don't follow Fox News or Infowars, but I know of numerous examples of lies and misinformation coming from NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, NPR, and so on. Maybe both sides peddle in misinformation. Maybe one side peddles in it a lot more than the other. I'm going to need to see more than this UMass poll to convince me that it's the republican side that's the bigger problem.
Doesn't a majority of Republican voters believe the 2021 election was stolen?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-...
The poll you are citing looks like it asked if Republicans thought trump was the "true president". I could see a lot of republicans responding flippantly just to poke fun and see some feathers get ruffled.
Also, N = ~750 Republicans polled over 2 days but they extrapolate the results to the entire country? Not exactly rigorous science here.
Also, N = ~750 Republicans polled over 2 days but they extrapolate the results to the entire country? Not exactly rigorous science here.
Does "more election security" mean less black people voting?
I mean the Republican party has argued in court that it should be legal for them to prevent black democrats from voting as long as it targets them as Democrat voters, rather than by race, so it's not like this is a big secret conspiracy or anything.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
I mean the Republican party has argued in court that it should be legal for them to prevent black democrats from voting as long as it targets them as Democrat voters, rather than by race, so it's not like this is a big secret conspiracy or anything.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
Thomas Sowell has been debunking the "disparate outcome means racism" fallacy for decades. I wish more people were listening. He's the most underrated genius of his time.
https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sow...
In short, if voter ID laws cause some groups of people to vote less than others, that doesn't make the law discriminatory or make the law bad. Scanning over this ACLU article, I see nothing to convince me that voter ID laws are bad. Many of us here are programmers and understand there is a tradeoff between usability and security. Our current voting process errs far too heavily on the side of usability at the expense of security.
https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sow...
In short, if voter ID laws cause some groups of people to vote less than others, that doesn't make the law discriminatory or make the law bad. Scanning over this ACLU article, I see nothing to convince me that voter ID laws are bad. Many of us here are programmers and understand there is a tradeoff between usability and security. Our current voting process errs far too heavily on the side of usability at the expense of security.
I don't really see how that applies to a well documented history of voter suppression?
Yes, in theory, you could have a color blind system and some random change could have a negative impact on some group randomly.
That's not what happened in reality though.
"In theory, I might not have killed him" isn't a great argument for someone found standing over a body with a knife, you're generally looking for something a bit more concrete.
Someone standing on top of a giant pile of bodies and saying "As I've said for decades, I theoretically might not have killed them" is even less convincing.
Yes, in theory, you could have a color blind system and some random change could have a negative impact on some group randomly.
That's not what happened in reality though.
"In theory, I might not have killed him" isn't a great argument for someone found standing over a body with a knife, you're generally looking for something a bit more concrete.
Someone standing on top of a giant pile of bodies and saying "As I've said for decades, I theoretically might not have killed them" is even less convincing.
Similarly, I don't see how "a well documented history of voter suppression" applies to increasing election security. I don't see that phrase in your first link, but I found it here: https://www.studioatao.org/post/understanding-the-u-s-govern....
From there I found a link to the evil Brian Kemp who dared to purge voter rolls! https://newrepublic.com/article/151858/americas-relentless-s...
Many believe that one of the greatest opportunities for fraud come from outdated voter rolls. We need more effort to purge them, not less. Again, I am not hearing a single thing from you that convinces me laws like voter ID laws are more harmful than beneficial. If this weren't a deeply partisan issue for an insanity-driven culture of divisiveness, there would be little argument against voter ID laws in this day and age.
Lastly, it is very partisan to focus on efforts of republicans to suppress democrat votes while ignoring democrat efforts to continuously game the system in their favor, like:
* Making Washington D.C. a state, which makes zero sense unless you just want to win.
* Stacking the supreme court, which, again, makes zero sense unless you just want to win.
* Abolishing the filibuster, which completely undermines the purpose of the senate. The founders of the constitution purposely did not set up a pure democracy and they had many good reasons for it.
* Federalizing election laws, obviously in ways that favor democrats, even ignoring the complete unconstitutionality of the law. if anything is obvious about the democrats, they see the constitution as an obstacle more than as a founding document.
* Purposely not enforcing existing immigration laws (this should be illegal and Biden should be in jail for it), and then fighting to allow non-citizens to vote (this is already legal in NYC), or to grant citizenship to illegal entrants. Fortunately, the Hispanic vote seems to be shifting right, so we can hope this evil strategy will backfire against the democrats.
* Gerrymandering that rivals or exceeds republican gerrymandering efforts. But, when it's the democrats doing it, the corporate media like to call it "redistricting".
The democrats have long ago made it clear that they will fight as dirty as possible to win. If anything, Republicans need to start fighting dirtier back.
From there I found a link to the evil Brian Kemp who dared to purge voter rolls! https://newrepublic.com/article/151858/americas-relentless-s...
Many believe that one of the greatest opportunities for fraud come from outdated voter rolls. We need more effort to purge them, not less. Again, I am not hearing a single thing from you that convinces me laws like voter ID laws are more harmful than beneficial. If this weren't a deeply partisan issue for an insanity-driven culture of divisiveness, there would be little argument against voter ID laws in this day and age.
Lastly, it is very partisan to focus on efforts of republicans to suppress democrat votes while ignoring democrat efforts to continuously game the system in their favor, like:
* Making Washington D.C. a state, which makes zero sense unless you just want to win.
* Stacking the supreme court, which, again, makes zero sense unless you just want to win.
* Abolishing the filibuster, which completely undermines the purpose of the senate. The founders of the constitution purposely did not set up a pure democracy and they had many good reasons for it.
* Federalizing election laws, obviously in ways that favor democrats, even ignoring the complete unconstitutionality of the law. if anything is obvious about the democrats, they see the constitution as an obstacle more than as a founding document.
* Purposely not enforcing existing immigration laws (this should be illegal and Biden should be in jail for it), and then fighting to allow non-citizens to vote (this is already legal in NYC), or to grant citizenship to illegal entrants. Fortunately, the Hispanic vote seems to be shifting right, so we can hope this evil strategy will backfire against the democrats.
* Gerrymandering that rivals or exceeds republican gerrymandering efforts. But, when it's the democrats doing it, the corporate media like to call it "redistricting".
The democrats have long ago made it clear that they will fight as dirty as possible to win. If anything, Republicans need to start fighting dirtier back.
It appears we dont really have enough commonly accepted facts to have a fruitful conversation.
The article you linked to talks about a lot of really horrible things, which I guess you agree with based on your linking to it and describing removing voters from the voters role for simply not voting in the previous election as no big deal?
My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad. If thats partisan then I'm glad I'm not in the party fighting to reduce democracy.
The article you linked to talks about a lot of really horrible things, which I guess you agree with based on your linking to it and describing removing voters from the voters role for simply not voting in the previous election as no big deal?
My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad. If thats partisan then I'm glad I'm not in the party fighting to reduce democracy.
It appears we dont really have enough commonly accepted facts to have a fruitful conversation.
Welcome to American politics. That you were willing to have a dialog at all with someone who disagrees with you might set you above the average.
My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad.
How about this big picture take? Democracy is good, and citizen votes deserve protection. Every fraudulent vote dilutes a legitimate vote. Even the appearance of insecurity undermines faith in the democracy.
And yes, it's incredibly partisan for you to claim that republicans are trying to "reduce democracy." An attitude like that will both fail to convince anyone who disagrees with you, and also keep you in the dark about truths your party in general are unwilling to accept.
Welcome to American politics. That you were willing to have a dialog at all with someone who disagrees with you might set you above the average.
My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad.
How about this big picture take? Democracy is good, and citizen votes deserve protection. Every fraudulent vote dilutes a legitimate vote. Even the appearance of insecurity undermines faith in the democracy.
And yes, it's incredibly partisan for you to claim that republicans are trying to "reduce democracy." An attitude like that will both fail to convince anyone who disagrees with you, and also keep you in the dark about truths your party in general are unwilling to accept.
> And yes, it's incredibly partisan for you to claim that republicans are trying to "reduce democracy."
Is it, though?
My belief is that voter fraud is basically a non-issue, that it doesn't really happen very much at all, and that it is a bogus argument put forth by the Republicans to give an excuse for why they are so consistently fighting to not allow people to vote.
Google search "does voter fraud really happen", and "how bad is voter fraud":
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+voter+fraud+really+happ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+bad+is+voter+fraud
I can't find any results that don't back up my belief. Can you?
The Heritage Foundation, a far-right think tank, has a page on voter fraud: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
But, in my opinion, it's kind of amazing that they leave the page up. The purpose of this page is to document and expose how bad voter fraud is, and they provide a searchable database on all the cases they have found and confirmed. Their database goes back to 1982, and they have found... 1340 cases of voter fraud.
This is an embarrassingly low number, isn't it? A few thousand fraudulent votes over the last 40 years?
Also, it's not like these cases are cases of people manufacturing thousands of votes. You can check for yourself, the entire list is here:
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search
These are overwhelmingly on the order of "a single extra vote was cast" because someone voted in two districts, or mailed in an absentee ballot for a deceased relative.
Meanwhile, do Republicans work to suppress votes? I think it's hard to argue otherwise in good faith:
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+republicans+suppress+vote...
Why does Mitch McConnell say that the idea of making election day a national holiday is a "naked power grab" for Democrats? Shouldn't making it easier for people to vote be a "good idea that strengthens our democracy"?
https://www.google.com/search?q=mitch+mcconnell+election+day...
Another belief of mine is that it's common knowledge in politics that the more people who vote, the worse Republicans fare in elections.
The Republican professional politicians are usually better at not openly admitting such things, but Trump gave us another example of "saying the quiet part out loud" with his usual eloquence: "They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again"
https://www.google.com/search?q=They+had+levels+of+voting%2C...
Why would Trump say that?
The Republicans are trying to reduce democracy. They lost the support of the people. They have only won the popular vote once in the past 30 years. Rather than changing their platform to try to appeal to more voters, they've decided that the people are their enemy.
Is it, though?
My belief is that voter fraud is basically a non-issue, that it doesn't really happen very much at all, and that it is a bogus argument put forth by the Republicans to give an excuse for why they are so consistently fighting to not allow people to vote.
Google search "does voter fraud really happen", and "how bad is voter fraud":
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+voter+fraud+really+happ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+bad+is+voter+fraud
I can't find any results that don't back up my belief. Can you?
The Heritage Foundation, a far-right think tank, has a page on voter fraud: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
But, in my opinion, it's kind of amazing that they leave the page up. The purpose of this page is to document and expose how bad voter fraud is, and they provide a searchable database on all the cases they have found and confirmed. Their database goes back to 1982, and they have found... 1340 cases of voter fraud.
This is an embarrassingly low number, isn't it? A few thousand fraudulent votes over the last 40 years?
Also, it's not like these cases are cases of people manufacturing thousands of votes. You can check for yourself, the entire list is here:
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search
These are overwhelmingly on the order of "a single extra vote was cast" because someone voted in two districts, or mailed in an absentee ballot for a deceased relative.
Meanwhile, do Republicans work to suppress votes? I think it's hard to argue otherwise in good faith:
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+republicans+suppress+vote...
Why does Mitch McConnell say that the idea of making election day a national holiday is a "naked power grab" for Democrats? Shouldn't making it easier for people to vote be a "good idea that strengthens our democracy"?
https://www.google.com/search?q=mitch+mcconnell+election+day...
Another belief of mine is that it's common knowledge in politics that the more people who vote, the worse Republicans fare in elections.
The Republican professional politicians are usually better at not openly admitting such things, but Trump gave us another example of "saying the quiet part out loud" with his usual eloquence: "They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again"
https://www.google.com/search?q=They+had+levels+of+voting%2C...
Why would Trump say that?
The Republicans are trying to reduce democracy. They lost the support of the people. They have only won the popular vote once in the past 30 years. Rather than changing their platform to try to appeal to more voters, they've decided that the people are their enemy.
I'm not going to take the time to go through all your links, so I just picked one I thought was interesting: McConnell's "naked power grab" comment. Here is the view from the other side: https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-democratic-bill-el...
From what I read, McConnell thinks most federal workers vote democrat. This makes sense in that if you work for the government you are probably pro-big-government. If they got a week off, they would just use that time to campaign for democrats, giving democrats an extra advantage. Also, it would result in an undue burden on the taxpayer, apparently to the tune of 4 billion a year: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/04/18/new...
Here is a more comprehensive rebuttal of this H.R. 1 bill: https://republicans-cha.house.gov/democrat-politician-protec...
And here is the an op-ed written by McConnell himself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/call-hr-1-what-it-is...
I'm not going to claim McConnell is right, but I will claim that from a quick search I can find there is a reasonable other side to this story different from "Republicans want less voters".
Since I've already spent too much time on this thread, I'll just say I have convinced someone to be more open-minded in the future and be willing to research more than one side of the issue.
From what I read, McConnell thinks most federal workers vote democrat. This makes sense in that if you work for the government you are probably pro-big-government. If they got a week off, they would just use that time to campaign for democrats, giving democrats an extra advantage. Also, it would result in an undue burden on the taxpayer, apparently to the tune of 4 billion a year: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/04/18/new...
Here is a more comprehensive rebuttal of this H.R. 1 bill: https://republicans-cha.house.gov/democrat-politician-protec...
And here is the an op-ed written by McConnell himself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/call-hr-1-what-it-is...
I'm not going to claim McConnell is right, but I will claim that from a quick search I can find there is a reasonable other side to this story different from "Republicans want less voters".
Since I've already spent too much time on this thread, I'll just say I have convinced someone to be more open-minded in the future and be willing to research more than one side of the issue.
Why does how they're going to vote or who they campaign for matter? The federal government respects citizens' free speech.
This sounds like a pretty dismissive response, I thought the parent raised some good points and I was hoping for a substantive discussion.
I've never understood why discussion around voting laws / election integrity is always either somehow racist or harmful. Seems like a lazy rebuttal against a strawman but I'm open to having my mind changed. Gonna need more than "democracy good, laws bad" though.
I've never understood why discussion around voting laws / election integrity is always either somehow racist or harmful. Seems like a lazy rebuttal against a strawman but I'm open to having my mind changed. Gonna need more than "democracy good, laws bad" though.
I'd suggest reading the article that they linked to, it says it in much more depth and detail than I could.
> Similarly, I don't see how "a well documented history of voter suppression" applies to increasing election security
Because "election security" - applied strategically and unequally (such as removing ballot boxes and voting stations in areas that are strongholds for your political opponents) is nothing but suppression tactics. Even voter ID laws, when applied only in places where gov ID is not common, can be weaponized.
You know this.
Because "election security" - applied strategically and unequally (such as removing ballot boxes and voting stations in areas that are strongholds for your political opponents) is nothing but suppression tactics. Even voter ID laws, when applied only in places where gov ID is not common, can be weaponized.
You know this.
Please point out one person in power who suggests selectively applying voter ID laws in a state. If this discussion weren't partisan, your concern would simply translate to: "voter ID laws make sense; let's make sure the laws are written and enforced fairly", and not, "we can't do voter ID laws because it's possible to be unfair with them!"
It's possible to be unfair with every law, and every law will have disparate impact. What a silly argument to make!
It's possible to be unfair with every law, and every law will have disparate impact. What a silly argument to make!
You must not follow these issues closely, because there are many examples of states picking and choosing which IDs "count", with student IDs usually not counting under many Republican-crafted laws, but other IDs, such as gun licenses, being permitted. Further examples include reducing the hours/days of the offices that issue IDs and shrinking voter registration windows.
Roughly 11% of Americans don't have a valid government-issued ID and many of these individuals are lonely, ill, disabled, destitute, and are now being forced for the first time in their life to provide an ID to vote while at the same time their states are making it harder to get an ID. The Republican party is pushing these policies in almost every state, and prioritizing them over most other legislative concerns. This could not be less subtle.
Roughly 11% of Americans don't have a valid government-issued ID and many of these individuals are lonely, ill, disabled, destitute, and are now being forced for the first time in their life to provide an ID to vote while at the same time their states are making it harder to get an ID. The Republican party is pushing these policies in almost every state, and prioritizing them over most other legislative concerns. This could not be less subtle.
So I googled for 2 minutes ( actually I used a different search engine because I don't trust google much for politics anymore), and I found this:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-gun-license-accepted-as-a-vot...
"Your university I.D. was issued by a university compared to a government issued one. The license to carry contains your verified address, dob and all that. What does your University one have? The LTC required compete fingerprints and a background check. Seeing some differences here?"
Also:
"I cannot be 100% certain but its because Texas requires Social Security Numbers, Background checks and proof of citizenship to obtain a license to carry. So its a valid form of state issue ID. Not unlike a drivers license. Anyone could get a University ID. so long as they’re a student there. Including those on VISA’s or non-us residents."
At some point, I hope some of you all break out of your narrative bubble and start seeing that people on the other side aren't insane, racist, and power-hungry, and that we often have good reasons for what we do.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-gun-license-accepted-as-a-vot...
"Your university I.D. was issued by a university compared to a government issued one. The license to carry contains your verified address, dob and all that. What does your University one have? The LTC required compete fingerprints and a background check. Seeing some differences here?"
Also:
"I cannot be 100% certain but its because Texas requires Social Security Numbers, Background checks and proof of citizenship to obtain a license to carry. So its a valid form of state issue ID. Not unlike a drivers license. Anyone could get a University ID. so long as they’re a student there. Including those on VISA’s or non-us residents."
At some point, I hope some of you all break out of your narrative bubble and start seeing that people on the other side aren't insane, racist, and power-hungry, and that we often have good reasons for what we do.
The government controls who it wants to grant these licenses to, so these restrictions mean you need the governments permission to vote, when it's your right to vote.
Why not get better integration with universities so it is a valid id?
Why not get better integration with universities so it is a valid id?
The government controls who it wants to grant these licenses to, so these restrictions mean you need the governments permission to vote, when it's your right to vote.
This is Texas, not Massachusetts or New Jersey. The government does not get any more discretion in granting an LTC in TX than they do in issuing any other form of ID. Meet the requirements and they are legally obligated to give you one.
As an aside, getting an LTC in the shall-issue states is easier than getting a non-driver's license ID. In both cases it's just "meet requirements, show up, do paperwork, wait for them to check your computer records" but the police/sheriff issue it and they don't deal with nearly as many people wanting to file paperwork with them so they haven't optimized those processes for treating people like cattle the way the DMV has so it's a little easier.
This is Texas, not Massachusetts or New Jersey. The government does not get any more discretion in granting an LTC in TX than they do in issuing any other form of ID. Meet the requirements and they are legally obligated to give you one.
As an aside, getting an LTC in the shall-issue states is easier than getting a non-driver's license ID. In both cases it's just "meet requirements, show up, do paperwork, wait for them to check your computer records" but the police/sheriff issue it and they don't deal with nearly as many people wanting to file paperwork with them so they haven't optimized those processes for treating people like cattle the way the DMV has so it's a little easier.
Anyone proposing it that doesn't also legislate for every voter to be issued with one is being selective.
> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread
> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread
Yes, they are selecting for citizens with a valid ID. That's the point!
And, no, the law doesn't need to ensure every citizen gets a voting ID. How would one even do that? The voter rolls are out of date and don't contain every citizen. Also, how would you ensure the right IDs get to the right people?
You, as a citizen, do not have an inherent right to vote without having the ability to prove you are who you claim to be. You, as a citizen, may have to experience some inconvenience to get a valid ID if you don't have one already. As long as the inconvenience is reasonable, it should not prevent the creation of voter ID laws.
And, no, the law doesn't need to ensure every citizen gets a voting ID. How would one even do that? The voter rolls are out of date and don't contain every citizen. Also, how would you ensure the right IDs get to the right people?
You, as a citizen, do not have an inherent right to vote without having the ability to prove you are who you claim to be. You, as a citizen, may have to experience some inconvenience to get a valid ID if you don't have one already. As long as the inconvenience is reasonable, it should not prevent the creation of voter ID laws.
> You, as a citizen, do not have an inherent right to vote
Incorrect. Every citizen can vote, without any additional barriers designed to prevent them from doing so. Poll tax, literacy tests, ID laws, etc. They are all illegal in that they deny the RIGHT to vote.
If voter fraud were common, you might have a point about needed to "prove you are who you claim to be". The problem is, it's incredibly rare. And there are checks and audits done after the fact to ensure fraud is low. You simply do not need to check ID at the polls to ensure someone is not voting fraudulently.
And you know this.
Incorrect. Every citizen can vote, without any additional barriers designed to prevent them from doing so. Poll tax, literacy tests, ID laws, etc. They are all illegal in that they deny the RIGHT to vote.
If voter fraud were common, you might have a point about needed to "prove you are who you claim to be". The problem is, it's incredibly rare. And there are checks and audits done after the fact to ensure fraud is low. You simply do not need to check ID at the polls to ensure someone is not voting fraudulently.
And you know this.
If you're worried about getting the ids in the right hands, why not delegate to the Democrat party? The republicans set the requirements and the Democrats get the budget to make sure "the right people" meet them?
> Many believe that one of the greatest opportunities for fraud come
And where is the abuse that fuels this belief? What are the numbers?
And more importantly, how many people does doing so prevent from voting, which is just as fraudulent as allowing an extra vote?
And where is the abuse that fuels this belief? What are the numbers?
And more importantly, how many people does doing so prevent from voting, which is just as fraudulent as allowing an extra vote?
> Many believe that one of the greatest opportunities for fraud come
And where is the abuse that fuels this belief? What are the numbers?
And where is the abuse that fuels this belief? What are the numbers?
I don't know how things work in the US, but what you describe would be legally considered "indirect discrimination" in Canada, and it would be treated exactly the same way as "direct discrimination". In fact many scholars argue that indirect discrimination can be just as problematic, if not more, than direct discrimination. [1]
[1] https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2019CanLIIDocs1747
[1] https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2019CanLIIDocs1747
This is just a weak attempt at re-framing the issue. There is a much simpler way to approach suffrage - are governments making it more difficult or less difficult for voters to lawfully cast a ballot in elections? If you apply that simple question to the scores of voter suppression laws being proposed and passed all over the country, it becomes painfully obvious that these laws are by and large making it more difficult for citizens to lawfully cast a vote. Which makes sense since that is the goal of these laws.
No, the goal of the laws is to make it more difficult for non citizens to vote. Claiming otherwise is, um (re-reads up thread), disingenuous.
How does criminalizing providing food and water to people standing in line support that goal?
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot...
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot...
It's amazing that in every democratic country other than the US this stuff is uncontroversial, yet has to be explained here on HN. You can't have partisan activists hanging around outside voting booths all day and "helping" people no more than you can have votes being cast by having voters step up to a loudspeaker and announcing their preference to the crowd. I live outside the US and was honestly quite surprised to learn just now that such practices are tolerated outside of Georgia?!
Voting is meant to be a private activity free of all external influence. The solution to long queues is to set up more voting booths so the queues are smaller. The solution to getting thirsty standing in line is the same as for any other queue - bring a bottle of water with you. The solution to people not having ID they can use to prove citizenship is to get them that ID, not eliminate citizenship requirements for voting. This is, like, Intro To Civics level stuff.
Voting is meant to be a private activity free of all external influence. The solution to long queues is to set up more voting booths so the queues are smaller. The solution to getting thirsty standing in line is the same as for any other queue - bring a bottle of water with you. The solution to people not having ID they can use to prove citizenship is to get them that ID, not eliminate citizenship requirements for voting. This is, like, Intro To Civics level stuff.
I'm not sure what the scare quotes around "helping" mean here. The volunteers in question are literally providing snacks and water to everyone in the line outside the polling places who asks.
Can you clarify your meaning?
> The solution to long queues is to set up more voting booths so the queues are smaller.
Yes. Laws are also being passed to intentionally decrease the number of polling places available, especially in counties dominated by the party that is not in power.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-geo...
> This is, like, Intro To Civics level stuff
I agree, but only because Intro to Civics probably skips over the more advanced topics like America's fraught history of use of land ownership, poll taxes, and literacy tests to deprive people of their citizen-guaranteed right to vote. As an American citizen, I'm not actually required to carry ID; therefore, imposing an ID requirement on my right to vote can be interpreted as a stealth literacy test ("Oh, you didn't know you needed an ID? No vote for you."). It is a reasonable position to treat any new such requirement as suspect (and a reasonable position to disagree).
Can you clarify your meaning?
> The solution to long queues is to set up more voting booths so the queues are smaller.
Yes. Laws are also being passed to intentionally decrease the number of polling places available, especially in counties dominated by the party that is not in power.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-geo...
> This is, like, Intro To Civics level stuff
I agree, but only because Intro to Civics probably skips over the more advanced topics like America's fraught history of use of land ownership, poll taxes, and literacy tests to deprive people of their citizen-guaranteed right to vote. As an American citizen, I'm not actually required to carry ID; therefore, imposing an ID requirement on my right to vote can be interpreted as a stealth literacy test ("Oh, you didn't know you needed an ID? No vote for you."). It is a reasonable position to treat any new such requirement as suspect (and a reasonable position to disagree).
> America's fraught history of use of land ownership, poll taxes, and literacy tests to deprive people of their citizen-guaranteed right to vote.
I think most are aware of this history, voter ID is just the argument they can make in public. Because denying your political enemies the vote (largely along racial lines) isn't something you can advocate for without some kind of spin.
I think most are aware of this history, voter ID is just the argument they can make in public. Because denying your political enemies the vote (largely along racial lines) isn't something you can advocate for without some kind of spin.
By what metric is there not enough security? If we go by documented fraud then there's no problem. If we go by the ability of powerful sore losers to bend the system to their will then, again, things seem fine.
What's missing from these voter id laws is provisions to make it easy to get voter id, and to pay people to spend time getting it.
They aren't bad on the face of it, other than being chosen specifically because black people are less likely to have an ID, or be able to get one.
A new restriction like "you aren't allowed to give out water anymore" because black people were sharing water in the ultra long lines in the heat black people are forced to wait in to vote doesn't impact security at all though, only useability
They aren't bad on the face of it, other than being chosen specifically because black people are less likely to have an ID, or be able to get one.
A new restriction like "you aren't allowed to give out water anymore" because black people were sharing water in the ultra long lines in the heat black people are forced to wait in to vote doesn't impact security at all though, only useability
> disgracefully
Amazing all the words that some come up with to discount what was a violent attempt at staying in power after losing an election.
Amazing all the words that some come up with to discount what was a violent attempt at staying in power after losing an election.
It was just one word, actually. And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa...
We also know now that the russian collusion hoax was entirely fabricated by Hillary's team: https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-cre...
I don't agree with what Trump did, but what he did was rile up a crowd of people that had zero capability of actually usurping the government, and then waited too long to ask them to leave after they went too far. Politicians on both sides do worse things than that all the time, including our friend Hillary. What she did was worse and far more diabolical, and helped undermine our democracy for four years. What Trump did was to just provide fodder for the democrat party to milk for 2 years in hopes of it saving them from a coming midterm election sweep.
Our government was under zero actual threat on that day. Even the left's own polling shows that moderates aren't buying their narrative: https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-buries-poll-results-showi...
We also know now that the russian collusion hoax was entirely fabricated by Hillary's team: https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-cre...
I don't agree with what Trump did, but what he did was rile up a crowd of people that had zero capability of actually usurping the government, and then waited too long to ask them to leave after they went too far. Politicians on both sides do worse things than that all the time, including our friend Hillary. What she did was worse and far more diabolical, and helped undermine our democracy for four years. What Trump did was to just provide fodder for the democrat party to milk for 2 years in hopes of it saving them from a coming midterm election sweep.
Our government was under zero actual threat on that day. Even the left's own polling shows that moderates aren't buying their narrative: https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-buries-poll-results-showi...
I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish?
Linking to opinion pieces by right wing media isn't a way of making an argument btw, it's outsourcing your thinking to partisans that can tell you want you want to hear.
I don't like a lot of things about politics these days, but excusing political violence because it's "your side", and you assume they would "never be actually violent" is a basic logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said.
Linking to opinion pieces by right wing media isn't a way of making an argument btw, it's outsourcing your thinking to partisans that can tell you want you want to hear.
I don't like a lot of things about politics these days, but excusing political violence because it's "your side", and you assume they would "never be actually violent" is a basic logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said.
> I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish?
The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was never asserted the _content_ of those communications just that _communication occurred_.
This being a technology forum, I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works - DNS logs can show can infer the "who" but not the "what".
Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.
The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was never asserted the _content_ of those communications just that _communication occurred_.
This being a technology forum, I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works - DNS logs can show can infer the "who" but not the "what".
Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.
> I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works
I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice.
> The assertion coming from the Clinton camp
"Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection.
> Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.
Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.
I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice.
> The assertion coming from the Clinton camp
"Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection.
> Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.
Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.
Serious question: Do you really think it's whataboutism to point out what one of the parties we're talking about was publicly saying on the campaign trail at the time in question? The roles could be reversed and I'd still make the same statement.
"Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said." is something you said a few comments up. You should listen to yourself more often.
"Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said." is something you said a few comments up. You should listen to yourself more often.
Yes, because i'm not pushing the political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2016. You however are pushing political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2020 (but will never go away because of a single man's ego).
In retrospect I was being too kind. This claim:
> And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa...
Is false. It's a lie. And giving lies equal time as the truth, to be "debated", is one of the reasons why we are in this collective mess.
First, virtually none of what appeared in the recent filing from Durham’s office is new information. Here’s a New York Times story from over four months ago with basically all of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-ba...
Second, nothing in the filing supports breathless claims technically illiterate cable hosts are making. It does not allege anyone “hacked” Trump computers, or was paid to “infiltrate” networks, or that anyone “intercepted e-mails and text messages."
You mindlessly repeat these claims hoping people aren't looking critically enough to see through them. You either don't understand these matters yourself, or you know they are lies and repeat them anyways. I personally view the second outcome as much worse.
> And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa...
Is false. It's a lie. And giving lies equal time as the truth, to be "debated", is one of the reasons why we are in this collective mess.
First, virtually none of what appeared in the recent filing from Durham’s office is new information. Here’s a New York Times story from over four months ago with basically all of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-ba...
Second, nothing in the filing supports breathless claims technically illiterate cable hosts are making. It does not allege anyone “hacked” Trump computers, or was paid to “infiltrate” networks, or that anyone “intercepted e-mails and text messages."
You mindlessly repeat these claims hoping people aren't looking critically enough to see through them. You either don't understand these matters yourself, or you know they are lies and repeat them anyways. I personally view the second outcome as much worse.
I stand corrected, thank you. I had not seriously dug into where the word "infiltrate" came from or what it exactly meant. This would be a case where the sources I trust are likely sharing misinformation. From this article: https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/the-words-infil...
While some might blur the line between “spying” and “exploit[ing] . . . access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the distinction is, based on what we know right now, critical. Durham has not alleged a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) — all of which are major sources of law as to the prosecutions of federal computer crimes.
I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team, and I still believe that what they did there was worse than what Trump did on January 6, but this latest alleged Clinton scandal might be overblown.
While some might blur the line between “spying” and “exploit[ing] . . . access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the distinction is, based on what we know right now, critical. Durham has not alleged a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) — all of which are major sources of law as to the prosecutions of federal computer crimes.
I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team, and I still believe that what they did there was worse than what Trump did on January 6, but this latest alleged Clinton scandal might be overblown.
> I stand corrected, thank you
Big of you to say.
> I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team
Then you double down on more partisan nonsense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intell...
The GOP-led bipartisan commission concluded Russia attacked the 2016 election in favor of Trump, their words. You are again to the right of your own party. Also nothing in the Steele Dossier has been disproven, and lots of it has been collaborated. If you are still interested in what is true and what isn't, please continue reading with an open mind:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-la...
Big of you to say.
> I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team
Then you double down on more partisan nonsense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intell...
The GOP-led bipartisan commission concluded Russia attacked the 2016 election in favor of Trump, their words. You are again to the right of your own party. Also nothing in the Steele Dossier has been disproven, and lots of it has been collaborated. If you are still interested in what is true and what isn't, please continue reading with an open mind:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-la...
Your argument is that Trump attempted a coup and failed to interrupt it, but that is okay because it wasn't a serious coup and other corruption exists.
I am legitimately not convinced he was attempting a coup. I am willing to admit I am wrong on this. I've read accounts from leftwing media sources and from their wording it sounds like what Trump did was really bad. I've read accounts from rightwing sources and from their wording it doesn't sound bad at all. I have not done a great deal to try to reconcile the two and decide where the truth lies.
Right now, I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen and he wanted Pence to de-certify the election to give time for his lawsuits to go through the courts and show the evidence of the fraud. I absolutely do not think Trump was in any way encouraging people to riot in the capitol, much less stage a coup. I also believe that no such fraud was ever found, putting Trump in the wrong, most likely. If I am wrong, let me see the evidence.
Right now, I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen and he wanted Pence to de-certify the election to give time for his lawsuits to go through the courts and show the evidence of the fraud. I absolutely do not think Trump was in any way encouraging people to riot in the capitol, much less stage a coup. I also believe that no such fraud was ever found, putting Trump in the wrong, most likely. If I am wrong, let me see the evidence.
> I am legitimately not convinced he was attempting a coup
I believe you. No one thinks their guy is the bad guy, it's human nature.
> I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen
Again, this is your blind spot. You give a man who deserves no benefit of doubt infinite rope.
But you are deluding yourself. You are to the right of your own party leadership on this matter: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/593339-mcconnell-breaks-...
You don't refute any of the points, you merely state your opinion over and over "I don't think Trump meant to do anything wrong". Of course, intention cannot be known by anyone, so arguing in favor of what is unknowable brings this whole discussion to a standstill.
Also, people still go to jail for crimes even if they aren't intended (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter). So I don't particularly care if Trump meant to organize a violent attack on the nation's capital at the exact time and place the certification was taking place, he still did it.
I believe you. No one thinks their guy is the bad guy, it's human nature.
> I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen
Again, this is your blind spot. You give a man who deserves no benefit of doubt infinite rope.
But you are deluding yourself. You are to the right of your own party leadership on this matter: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/593339-mcconnell-breaks-...
You don't refute any of the points, you merely state your opinion over and over "I don't think Trump meant to do anything wrong". Of course, intention cannot be known by anyone, so arguing in favor of what is unknowable brings this whole discussion to a standstill.
Also, people still go to jail for crimes even if they aren't intended (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter). So I don't particularly care if Trump meant to organize a violent attack on the nation's capital at the exact time and place the certification was taking place, he still did it.
> I absolutely do not think Trump was in any way encouraging people to riot in the capitol, much less stage a coup. I also believe that no such fraud was ever found.
I think that depends on how you interpret a lot of statements made by Trump and others[0], for instance:
What's certain - and we know this from their own testimony and communications - is that many of the rioters believed they were acting under Trump's orders[1]. Where did this belief come from? Was there simply no relationship between the words coming from Trump and other Republicans, and what Trump supporters were hearing? After four years of paranoid rhetoric amongst the right about vast leftist conspiracies, violent Marxists in the streets, vaccines as fascism and now the election being stolen right before their eyes? Four years of the populist gospel of victimhood and the need to exact revenge upon the elites? When you, as a Trump supporter, see the courts throwing out lawsuit after lawsuit, and Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert suggests on TV that people should "go out and be violent like antifa[2]" how do you react?
On the spectrum of culpability from "Trump had absolutely nothing to do with anything" to "Trump literally planned it himself", I fall somewhere on the latter side. Where seems to depend on just how much Trumpists piss me off that day, I'll admit. Unfortunately, there's no smoking gun here.
But there's also no way Trump didn't at least understand the atmosphere he was creating, or really discourage it (until well after the damage was done, which isn't a good look.) I think at the very least he was hoping the chaos, whatever form it took, would benefit him.
[0]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-incite...
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html?a...
[2]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/louie-go...
I think that depends on how you interpret a lot of statements made by Trump and others[0], for instance:
“We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. …
“You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. …
“We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
What's certain - and we know this from their own testimony and communications - is that many of the rioters believed they were acting under Trump's orders[1]. Where did this belief come from? Was there simply no relationship between the words coming from Trump and other Republicans, and what Trump supporters were hearing? After four years of paranoid rhetoric amongst the right about vast leftist conspiracies, violent Marxists in the streets, vaccines as fascism and now the election being stolen right before their eyes? Four years of the populist gospel of victimhood and the need to exact revenge upon the elites? When you, as a Trump supporter, see the courts throwing out lawsuit after lawsuit, and Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert suggests on TV that people should "go out and be violent like antifa[2]" how do you react?
On the spectrum of culpability from "Trump had absolutely nothing to do with anything" to "Trump literally planned it himself", I fall somewhere on the latter side. Where seems to depend on just how much Trumpists piss me off that day, I'll admit. Unfortunately, there's no smoking gun here.
But there's also no way Trump didn't at least understand the atmosphere he was creating, or really discourage it (until well after the damage was done, which isn't a good look.) I think at the very least he was hoping the chaos, whatever form it took, would benefit him.
[0]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-incite...
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html?a...
[2]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/louie-go...
I can agree with you that trump probably was hoping for chaos of some sort though not explicitly asking for it or knowing what form the chaos would manifest. Thanks for the info!
For the record, the person that lights a small fire that turns into a forrest fire that burns down a town is still criminally libel for that initial spark.
You are literally pushing one side of a flame war topic using biased news articles on an article about misinformation. Unreal. Your lack of self awareness makes the quality of your opinions self-explanatory.
The irony here is the other way around, actually.
The article is about how people have become better informed thanks to the internet, and how increasing political polarization is due to people making political choices based on more sophisticated ideological alliances and deeper held beliefs, rather than ways they might previously have done so. Part of why people are better informed is that the internet makes it easier to bypass 'elite consensus' in a handful of media outlets, and also, easier to link to sources to cite them in arguments.
PathOfEclipse is demonstrating this in action: he is citing sources for his beliefs, including sources from different partisan factions like the CBS poll he quotes at the end.
In response, you're taking a pre-internet approach. Dismissive and without intellectual merit, your post simply asserts that none of PathOfEclipse's sources should be considered legitimate, not even the (hopefully somewhat objective) opinion poll made by a left wing news outlet, that shows widespread bipartisan agreement by voters on the question of what happened on January 6th.
PathOfEclipse clearly wins this round. He uses the internet in the ways people hoped in the 90s it would be used - to cite evidence for calm, level headed beliefs and arguments that boil down to "cool it folks". There's nothing wrong here.
The article is about how people have become better informed thanks to the internet, and how increasing political polarization is due to people making political choices based on more sophisticated ideological alliances and deeper held beliefs, rather than ways they might previously have done so. Part of why people are better informed is that the internet makes it easier to bypass 'elite consensus' in a handful of media outlets, and also, easier to link to sources to cite them in arguments.
PathOfEclipse is demonstrating this in action: he is citing sources for his beliefs, including sources from different partisan factions like the CBS poll he quotes at the end.
In response, you're taking a pre-internet approach. Dismissive and without intellectual merit, your post simply asserts that none of PathOfEclipse's sources should be considered legitimate, not even the (hopefully somewhat objective) opinion poll made by a left wing news outlet, that shows widespread bipartisan agreement by voters on the question of what happened on January 6th.
PathOfEclipse clearly wins this round. He uses the internet in the ways people hoped in the 90s it would be used - to cite evidence for calm, level headed beliefs and arguments that boil down to "cool it folks". There's nothing wrong here.
There's plenty wrong. It's a common tactic of cranks to bring out lots of sources without worrying about the quality of those sources. It's literally impossible to argue with them because they can always trot out something that even an expert in the field under discussion has never heard about before or that ostensibly supports their claim, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Then, when this is dismissed out of hand (in the case of obvious pablum) or a source is found lacking, they either claim victory (as you have done on his behalf here), the entire conversation derails into arguments about the sources themselves, or they trot out additional sources, continually putting the burden on the other party to show why these sources either don't support the claims or are otherwise without merit.
The kind of conversation you are suggesting is being offered here isn't. It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts.
The kind of conversation you are suggesting is being offered here isn't. It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts.
> It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts.
This is what any honest exchange of ideas requires, and these conditions are almost never met online (social media, forums, etc.)
Id also add that source validation is required (as you point out an 'overlapping set of facts.') If you can't agree that a major news media organization with full time fact checking (no matter their political bent) is objectively better than a shiftless blog or single social media personality with a dodgy history of accuracy, then there is no hope for exchange. It's just a boxing match.
The problem comes down to "you don't trust the sources that I trust." Why people tend to trust sources that clearly aren't worthy of anyone's trust largely depends on their own confirmation bias.
This is what any honest exchange of ideas requires, and these conditions are almost never met online (social media, forums, etc.)
Id also add that source validation is required (as you point out an 'overlapping set of facts.') If you can't agree that a major news media organization with full time fact checking (no matter their political bent) is objectively better than a shiftless blog or single social media personality with a dodgy history of accuracy, then there is no hope for exchange. It's just a boxing match.
The problem comes down to "you don't trust the sources that I trust." Why people tend to trust sources that clearly aren't worthy of anyone's trust largely depends on their own confirmation bias.
Again, this is just railing against the turning tide.
Yes, in fact "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct (especially as the latter are perhaps most accurately described as coalitions of the former), and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed. If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange because any evidence or argumentation of the form "news org X said Y which is proven false <here>" will be rejected as an inherently illegitimate challenge to power.
The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. You don't have to do it every time. Patterns will soon become apparent. Once done you can reserve such work for cases where someone disagrees and is citing a source you know to be false.
Yes, it's slow and hard work. The discovery of truth always has been; either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN is just holding society back at this point.
Yes, in fact "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct (especially as the latter are perhaps most accurately described as coalitions of the former), and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed. If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange because any evidence or argumentation of the form "news org X said Y which is proven false <here>" will be rejected as an inherently illegitimate challenge to power.
The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. You don't have to do it every time. Patterns will soon become apparent. Once done you can reserve such work for cases where someone disagrees and is citing a source you know to be false.
Yes, it's slow and hard work. The discovery of truth always has been; either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN is just holding society back at this point.
> "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct
Citation?
> and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed
Now we are getting back into "feelings" about what is true or not, or more plainly "this is what I want to hear" vs. "this is was is factually accurate". I am confident individual social media accounts become better confirmation bias machines than even you most slanted news orgs.
> If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange
I admit it has happened, like you can pull 1 or 2 examples using 30 years of history, but it's extremely uncommon. And you haven't sourced anything in making your arguments. If the statistics say individual social media accounts (or any specific account) have greater accuracy than news organizations with full-time fact checking, now is the time to provide those numbers.
> The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself.
I think I know where this is going.
> Patterns will soon become apparent.
Yep. You are describing how people go down internet rabbit holes and become conspiracy theorists. "Doing your own research" is incredibly hard, we rely on trusted sources to do this work. What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability.
Mike Caulfield's SIFT method is an excellent intro into media (source) literacy: https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/
> Yes, it's slow and hard work
It's literally impossible if you don't use trusted sources. If you attempt to understand vaccine science with no science background, international trade policy with no econ history, etc. You are setting yourself for failure.
> either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people.
Please, you aren't a hero for trusting the wrong people (who are telling you what you want to hear, coincidentally).
> Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN
And you end with a fundamental misrepresentation of what I am saying, not surprising. You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others. Living every moment of your life with "I need to research this" means a standard trip to the shop would take 8 hours.
Citation?
> and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed
Now we are getting back into "feelings" about what is true or not, or more plainly "this is what I want to hear" vs. "this is was is factually accurate". I am confident individual social media accounts become better confirmation bias machines than even you most slanted news orgs.
> If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange
I admit it has happened, like you can pull 1 or 2 examples using 30 years of history, but it's extremely uncommon. And you haven't sourced anything in making your arguments. If the statistics say individual social media accounts (or any specific account) have greater accuracy than news organizations with full-time fact checking, now is the time to provide those numbers.
> The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself.
I think I know where this is going.
> Patterns will soon become apparent.
Yep. You are describing how people go down internet rabbit holes and become conspiracy theorists. "Doing your own research" is incredibly hard, we rely on trusted sources to do this work. What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability.
Mike Caulfield's SIFT method is an excellent intro into media (source) literacy: https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/
> Yes, it's slow and hard work
It's literally impossible if you don't use trusted sources. If you attempt to understand vaccine science with no science background, international trade policy with no econ history, etc. You are setting yourself for failure.
> either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people.
Please, you aren't a hero for trusting the wrong people (who are telling you what you want to hear, coincidentally).
> Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN
And you end with a fundamental misrepresentation of what I am saying, not surprising. You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others. Living every moment of your life with "I need to research this" means a standard trip to the shop would take 8 hours.
"What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability."
And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account and I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name.
Example: you've proven above that whatever sources you are relying on to educate you about vaccines have misled you. You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine, which is a false claim. Nobody has been held to account for misleading you and you probably won't do it yourself. I knew about this incident, but it wasn't from reading the New York Times or watching CNN. It was from venturing outside these untrustworthy sources and reading far more broadly than journalists are comfortable with anyone doing.
"You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others."
Like which ones? If you don't trust CNN (which I'm using here as a token to mean "all similar media outlets"), then where are you getting these false ideas from? Enquiring minds want to know.
And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account and I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name.
Example: you've proven above that whatever sources you are relying on to educate you about vaccines have misled you. You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine, which is a false claim. Nobody has been held to account for misleading you and you probably won't do it yourself. I knew about this incident, but it wasn't from reading the New York Times or watching CNN. It was from venturing outside these untrustworthy sources and reading far more broadly than journalists are comfortable with anyone doing.
"You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others."
Like which ones? If you don't trust CNN (which I'm using here as a token to mean "all similar media outlets"), then where are you getting these false ideas from? Enquiring minds want to know.
> And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account
Perhaps this is a reflection of how little people understand the journalism industry. To get something published on NYT.com, there is a process of fact checking and verification that goes through every comma, every claim. Of course mistakes are made, but they are publicly addressed and accounted for. There is no just thing as a purposeful, objective lie that remains unaccounted for.
> I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name.
The Joe Rogan / Tucker Carlson opinion stuff can be left out of this convo without losing anything.
> You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine
Nope. I said "no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc." not that there weren't an adverse health effects. You project what you think i'm saying so you can argue against that. I don't know if you are aware that you are doing this, but it would make you a perfect cable news guest as that is the tactic of choice.
If you can't even read what I said and accurately respond, there's no point in continuing. This isn't Thanksgiving and i'm not unlucky enough to be at your table.
> Like which ones?
Again, try and educate yourself in the basic differences in journalism, who follows the rules of accountability and accuracy and who blatantly ignores them while still attempting to come across as "news".
If you still want to respond, cite the claim you've made first:
> "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct
Citation?
Perhaps this is a reflection of how little people understand the journalism industry. To get something published on NYT.com, there is a process of fact checking and verification that goes through every comma, every claim. Of course mistakes are made, but they are publicly addressed and accounted for. There is no just thing as a purposeful, objective lie that remains unaccounted for.
> I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name.
The Joe Rogan / Tucker Carlson opinion stuff can be left out of this convo without losing anything.
> You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine
Nope. I said "no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc." not that there weren't an adverse health effects. You project what you think i'm saying so you can argue against that. I don't know if you are aware that you are doing this, but it would make you a perfect cable news guest as that is the tactic of choice.
If you can't even read what I said and accurately respond, there's no point in continuing. This isn't Thanksgiving and i'm not unlucky enough to be at your table.
> Like which ones?
Again, try and educate yourself in the basic differences in journalism, who follows the rules of accountability and accuracy and who blatantly ignores them while still attempting to come across as "news".
If you still want to respond, cite the claim you've made first:
> "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct
Citation?
You are just expressing frustration that other people who care more about winning debates than you are able to do so. Paraphrased, it's "impossible" to argue with other people because they "always" have evidence that supposed experts are somehow unaware of, despite being experts, and weirdly enough when you "dismiss [the evidence] out of hand" they "claim victory".
That's usually how debate works, yes. That's the whole point of evidence-based argumentation.
Your post is kind of the worldview Yglesias is arguing against in his article. His argument, summarized, is that certain types of people are railing in frustration at so-called "misinformation" that, when examined carefully, turns out to simply be information that the current ruling classes don't like, often because it exposes them as hypocrites, intellectually dishonest or not actually expert in their claimed field of expertise. Because they can't rebut the data or facts being presented they instead fall back on logical fallacies like appeals to authority ("experts"), false claims of lacking good faith, blanket assertions that any non-left wing source is illegitimate and so on and so forth.
That's usually how debate works, yes. That's the whole point of evidence-based argumentation.
Your post is kind of the worldview Yglesias is arguing against in his article. His argument, summarized, is that certain types of people are railing in frustration at so-called "misinformation" that, when examined carefully, turns out to simply be information that the current ruling classes don't like, often because it exposes them as hypocrites, intellectually dishonest or not actually expert in their claimed field of expertise. Because they can't rebut the data or facts being presented they instead fall back on logical fallacies like appeals to authority ("experts"), false claims of lacking good faith, blanket assertions that any non-left wing source is illegitimate and so on and so forth.
> so-called "misinformation" that, when examined carefully, turns out to simply be information that the current ruling classes don't like, often because it exposes them as hypocrites
There's the conspiracy language, I had a hunch. Instead of discussing the world in vague platitudes, lets get specific. 20% of the US is avoiding getting a safe and effective vaccine, as a result thousands have died unnecessarily. This is a new problem, no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc.
People don't trust experts at a time when that trust can literally save their lives. The information space is a minefield, expecting every person on earth to have the tool to "make up their own mind" is unrealistic, to put it simply.
There's the conspiracy language, I had a hunch. Instead of discussing the world in vague platitudes, lets get specific. 20% of the US is avoiding getting a safe and effective vaccine, as a result thousands have died unnecessarily. This is a new problem, no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc.
People don't trust experts at a time when that trust can literally save their lives. The information space is a minefield, expecting every person on earth to have the tool to "make up their own mind" is unrealistic, to put it simply.
Why change the subject? We were talking about misinformation and debate in the abstract. But alright, now I will again beat you in debate on a different topic. You claim nobody had issues with the polio vaccine. Are you referring to the polio vaccine that despite a six year development time, accidentally gave 40,000 children polio due to defective manufacturing?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/
"In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10."
I thought the Cutter Labs incident was quite well known, but apparently not.
Now, back on topic. See what I did there? You made a false claim and then asserted that anyone who disagrees with you is the victim of misinformation and engaging in "conspiracy language". You believed there were no issues with the polio vaccine when in fact there were such severe safety issues the first mass vaccination programme had to be abandoned. I responded to this with facts and citations, showing conclusively that it's actually you who is a victim of (pro-vaccine) misinformation in this case, not anyone else.
All this is possible due to the internet. You're claiming the "information space" is a "minefield". But that doesn't seem to hold up. The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. And that's what Yglesia's is saying - people who doggedly stick to what media/government selected "experts" tell them are constantly being trounced in debate and made to look foolish by facts and data. They react to this with a massive case of projection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/
"In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10."
I thought the Cutter Labs incident was quite well known, but apparently not.
Now, back on topic. See what I did there? You made a false claim and then asserted that anyone who disagrees with you is the victim of misinformation and engaging in "conspiracy language". You believed there were no issues with the polio vaccine when in fact there were such severe safety issues the first mass vaccination programme had to be abandoned. I responded to this with facts and citations, showing conclusively that it's actually you who is a victim of (pro-vaccine) misinformation in this case, not anyone else.
All this is possible due to the internet. You're claiming the "information space" is a "minefield". But that doesn't seem to hold up. The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. And that's what Yglesia's is saying - people who doggedly stick to what media/government selected "experts" tell them are constantly being trounced in debate and made to look foolish by facts and data. They react to this with a massive case of projection.
> Why change the subject?
Lol actually getting off of vague platitudes is "changing the subject". Right, enjoy your weekend.
> You made a false claim
No I didn't, you either misunderstood what I said or deliberately lied about it to argue a strawman, because that's easier than actually addressing what i'm saying.
> The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news.
Lol. Truly, you made me laugh out loud. Funny you didn't say "is more accurate" - because that would be an impossible claim. You said "is less dangerous" which is also patently false. This book is the beginning of most study on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d...
It's unequivocal and damning.
Lol actually getting off of vague platitudes is "changing the subject". Right, enjoy your weekend.
> You made a false claim
No I didn't, you either misunderstood what I said or deliberately lied about it to argue a strawman, because that's easier than actually addressing what i'm saying.
> The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news.
Lol. Truly, you made me laugh out loud. Funny you didn't say "is more accurate" - because that would be an impossible claim. You said "is less dangerous" which is also patently false. This book is the beginning of most study on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d...
It's unequivocal and damning.
Your claim:
> no one had any issues with a polio vaccine
Reality:
> 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10
There's no misunderstanding or straw man here. You made a false claim whilst accusing others of misinformation. Which seems to be often the way it goes with "misinformation" - not a vague platitude, of course, but the topic of the entire thread.
> no one had any issues with a polio vaccine
Reality:
> 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10
There's no misunderstanding or straw man here. You made a false claim whilst accusing others of misinformation. Which seems to be often the way it goes with "misinformation" - not a vague platitude, of course, but the topic of the entire thread.
This isn’t about reason and evidence. A crank believes that if an opposing theory is unable to explain his evidence (even if his evidence is completely false or even fabricated) in an immediate manner, then it means his theory is the correct one. Hence why it is impossible to reason with such a person.
If you think that’s how debates work, we probably have nothing to say to each other that the other would find valuable.
In any case, your ascribation of those feelings and ideas to me and my post are baseless and completely false. You’ve failed to comprehend the point.
If you think that’s how debates work, we probably have nothing to say to each other that the other would find valuable.
In any case, your ascribation of those feelings and ideas to me and my post are baseless and completely false. You’ve failed to comprehend the point.
> increasing political polarization is due to people making political choices based on more sophisticated ideological alliances and deeper held beliefs
The irony here (ha) is while people are more polarized, actual ideology has almost completely gone away, replaced with vague slogans (MAGA) that don't actually mean anything and are designed to weaponize nostalgia in a way that is useful for particularly amoral politicians. Keep in mind, the GOP literally had no formal platform for 2020, just "we're with Trump" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/party-no-c...)
The irony here (ha) is while people are more polarized, actual ideology has almost completely gone away, replaced with vague slogans (MAGA) that don't actually mean anything and are designed to weaponize nostalgia in a way that is useful for particularly amoral politicians. Keep in mind, the GOP literally had no formal platform for 2020, just "we're with Trump" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/party-no-c...)
IMO the author displays confirmation bias in the post. He doesn't think about the effects of a higher availability information with a lower ability to seek out other contradicting points of view. If you're deluged with carefully chosen factual information, that's more convincing than outright lies. And this is often the situation we are in more often than not these days. Along with an inability to spot logical fallacies in lines of reasoning.
> If you're deluged with carefully chosen factual information, that's more convincing than outright lies.
I think it's exactly the opposite. It's far easier to convince with outright lies than with carefully chosen facts, because those lies are crafted to match what you want to believe. That's what false conspiracy theories are born of.
Everyone is subject to that bias, even people that consider themselves highly logical.
It starts becoming a problem when it is manipulated to channel broadly held but not expressed resentments.
This is common in ethnically fractured developing societies, where a rumor about something someone in group x did to someone in group y could turn into a coup or war, but it seems that developed societies are no longer immune either.
I think it's exactly the opposite. It's far easier to convince with outright lies than with carefully chosen facts, because those lies are crafted to match what you want to believe. That's what false conspiracy theories are born of.
Everyone is subject to that bias, even people that consider themselves highly logical.
It starts becoming a problem when it is manipulated to channel broadly held but not expressed resentments.
This is common in ethnically fractured developing societies, where a rumor about something someone in group x did to someone in group y could turn into a coup or war, but it seems that developed societies are no longer immune either.
> He doesn't think about the effects of a higher availability information with a lower ability to seek out other contradicting points of view.
This is a baffling claim. Why on earth would you believe that people now have a lower ability to seek out contradicting points of view?
This is a baffling claim. Why on earth would you believe that people now have a lower ability to seek out contradicting points of view?
most americans live insular suburban lives in their bubble and when they get doses of current events they are algorithmically fed confirmation bias and especially confirmation bid that arouses them to click/engage. I.e tabloidizing the cherry picked facts that then framed with the biases that poke the viewers buttons.
None of that changes the fact that it's easier than ever to seek out contradicting points of view. People just don't want to.
The algorithms feed people stuff that confirms their beliefs because that's what they like.
It's all about preferences and choices, not ability.
The algorithms feed people stuff that confirms their beliefs because that's what they like.
It's all about preferences and choices, not ability.
We shouldn’t try to fix obesity, smoking, enforce seatbelts, gangs, local pollution, etc because all those are personal choices to live near or partake in?
Try to help as you wish, but describe the problem accurately. And understand that the people you are trying to help may resist you because you are interfering in their choices.
Some people passionately want to keep drugs like fentanyl out of the country. Others think it's impractical and efforts have done more harm than good. Still others say "hand them a clean needle".
Messing with the choices people make that you think are bad for them isn't easy.
Some people passionately want to keep drugs like fentanyl out of the country. Others think it's impractical and efforts have done more harm than good. Still others say "hand them a clean needle".
Messing with the choices people make that you think are bad for them isn't easy.
I think you meant:
> Messing with the choices people make that scientists, sociologists, and 9 out of 10 dentists think are bad for them and society as a whole isn't easy.
I guess that my more appropriate and more relevant corrected version of the statement didnt sound like it supported the point so the original was phrased as if it’s my own non expert opinion that smoking causes cancer.
fentanyl? Are you saying that should be unregulated and freely purchasable at the local 7/11 or are you saying it should be regulated even although some people choose to do it?
Either way I’m not really sure how that supports the older points about people technically but not practically having the option to avoid misinformation means society should ignore misinformation as it’s “a personal choice”
I guess that my more appropriate and more relevant corrected version of the statement didnt sound like it supported the point so the original was phrased as if it’s my own non expert opinion that smoking causes cancer.
fentanyl? Are you saying that should be unregulated and freely purchasable at the local 7/11 or are you saying it should be regulated even although some people choose to do it?
Either way I’m not really sure how that supports the older points about people technically but not practically having the option to avoid misinformation means society should ignore misinformation as it’s “a personal choice”
You seem to think I'm making every possible point but the one I'm actually making.
I'm not saying it's good for people to have fentanyl or misinformation.
I'm not saying personal choices are above criticism or regulation.
I'm just saying it's hard. You're going to be intruding into how people run their lives. Many of them won't like it.
My personal take is that social media can be awfully like a drug, and we're probably going to need detox programs and support groups. Misinformation is just one small aspect of how today's social media degrades the human mind and spirit.
On the other hand, social media isn't heroin, it's human interaction. Regulating a material thing with no legitimate uses is a lot more straightforward.
And to be honest, I am very skeptical of central authorities arbitrating what is truth. Historically this is a cure worse than the disease.
I'm not saying it's good for people to have fentanyl or misinformation.
I'm not saying personal choices are above criticism or regulation.
I'm just saying it's hard. You're going to be intruding into how people run their lives. Many of them won't like it.
My personal take is that social media can be awfully like a drug, and we're probably going to need detox programs and support groups. Misinformation is just one small aspect of how today's social media degrades the human mind and spirit.
On the other hand, social media isn't heroin, it's human interaction. Regulating a material thing with no legitimate uses is a lot more straightforward.
And to be honest, I am very skeptical of central authorities arbitrating what is truth. Historically this is a cure worse than the disease.
Oops I didn’t realize you agreed with the overall point because I thought it would be, I can’t think of a more political term, being pedantic by trying to correct the higher comment to say that it’s actually not hard to find different viewpoints from a technical standpoint just immensely difficult and challenging considering psychology and human nature such that it’s unrealistic for the majority of people to do. I didn’t really see what the point of making that observation was unless it was to argue against the main point.
It's very important to distinguish things people can't do from things they don't want to do. I can't see how this is mere pedantry.
Thinking that mushes together a clear view of the situation and what we should do about it has a poor chance of success in my experience.
Thinking that mushes together a clear view of the situation and what we should do about it has a poor chance of success in my experience.
Currently, there is a middleman that's looking to present you with "engaging" information wherever you look. There is so much information available that you always need a sorting mechanism
Engaging being straw man arguments to dunk on, with people dunking on them
Engaging being straw man arguments to dunk on, with people dunking on them
Which profit driven advertising based search engine or newsfeed is built around delivering contradicting points of view?
Replace "profit driven such-and-such" with "print newspaper" and the rhetorical question works equally well.
I think the worst you can say against social media is that it feeds you low-quality highly-partisan sources if you seem to like such sources. But your ability to seek out better or contradicting information is not diminished. If anything it is far greater than it has ever been. "Stuff that is against $my_favorite_belief" is a Google search away. Wikipedia alone will usually give you a fairly balanced treatment of a topic with extensive references to diverse perspectives and evidence.
I think the worst you can say against social media is that it feeds you low-quality highly-partisan sources if you seem to like such sources. But your ability to seek out better or contradicting information is not diminished. If anything it is far greater than it has ever been. "Stuff that is against $my_favorite_belief" is a Google search away. Wikipedia alone will usually give you a fairly balanced treatment of a topic with extensive references to diverse perspectives and evidence.
Amusingly, I fail to see how such an engine would resolve the problem. Groups of people would just choose the point of view they liked, and label the other as misinformation and... we're back to the original topic.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Not all contradicting points of view are created equal. Just because someone can make up a contradicting position doesn't mean it's got any relevance or merit. Couching a meritless position in pseudoscience doesn't make it any better.
The problem we too often see is people, mass media especially, trying to appear "fair" by airing statistically unrepresentative positions just because they are contrary to some mainstream position. There's not two equal sides to all positions. Even when there are two (multiple) sides not all of them have statistically significant representation or are equally rigorous.
Just because I'm not seeking out arguments claiming COVID vaccines have 5G or the Earth is flat doesn't mean I have a lower ability to seek out contrary opinions. It just means I've got some basic scientific literacy and a bullshit filter.
The problem we too often see is people, mass media especially, trying to appear "fair" by airing statistically unrepresentative positions just because they are contrary to some mainstream position. There's not two equal sides to all positions. Even when there are two (multiple) sides not all of them have statistically significant representation or are equally rigorous.
Just because I'm not seeking out arguments claiming COVID vaccines have 5G or the Earth is flat doesn't mean I have a lower ability to seek out contrary opinions. It just means I've got some basic scientific literacy and a bullshit filter.
we have higher ability to seek out contradicting views.
just most humans nerver do so
they at most look for badly done cintradicting arguments to confirm their few
just most humans nerver do so
they at most look for badly done cintradicting arguments to confirm their few
We are talking about Matthew Yglesias. Confirmation bias is basically his entire brand.
Ever since a high school current events class, I have questioned the motives of the media. This was circa 2008 after the stock market crash. The common question of "why is significantly more negative news highlighted than happy news?"
What matters to me is the truth. In times of FUD(fear, uncertainty, doubt), the information dials are all set to 11. It's an absolute firehose of all the above. It's less misinformation to me, but rather too much information.
The internet does not make me feel better informed. I feel more informed when I read books or scientific articles from credible authors, not opinion columnists. The internet makes me confused. Confusion gives me FUD. FUD makes the truth hard to decipher.
Although debate and dissent may help get to the truth earlier, only time will be the judge. It's unfortunate that we live in the present and can't have the truth earlier, but that's just life for ya.
What matters to me is the truth. In times of FUD(fear, uncertainty, doubt), the information dials are all set to 11. It's an absolute firehose of all the above. It's less misinformation to me, but rather too much information.
The internet does not make me feel better informed. I feel more informed when I read books or scientific articles from credible authors, not opinion columnists. The internet makes me confused. Confusion gives me FUD. FUD makes the truth hard to decipher.
Although debate and dissent may help get to the truth earlier, only time will be the judge. It's unfortunate that we live in the present and can't have the truth earlier, but that's just life for ya.
> The internet does not make me feel better informed. I feel more informed when I read books or..
100% this, excellent observation.
> FUD makes the truth hard to decipher
One thing I try to do now is "filter out the FUD". I think I'm succeeding, but I don't know how to teach others to do it, so maybe I'm not, haha. Anyway! I filter out the FUD and then look at what's left.
To, perhaps, step in it: my current case study for this is pro/anti-vax. "Both sides" definitely use and spread FUD. But, when I filter out the FUD, there's almost nothing left on the anti side, and still piles of stuff left on the pro side.
100% this, excellent observation.
> FUD makes the truth hard to decipher
One thing I try to do now is "filter out the FUD". I think I'm succeeding, but I don't know how to teach others to do it, so maybe I'm not, haha. Anyway! I filter out the FUD and then look at what's left.
To, perhaps, step in it: my current case study for this is pro/anti-vax. "Both sides" definitely use and spread FUD. But, when I filter out the FUD, there's almost nothing left on the anti side, and still piles of stuff left on the pro side.
Would love to learn how you filter out the FUD!
Like I said, I'm not sure how to describe it. You kind of have to... identify, and then strip out, the emotional content of a message. (Note: don't do this all the time, but if the emotions are FUD, most of the time is a good rubric). A big part of that is identifying how someone is saying something, as opposed to what they're saying. This can be word choice, italics/bold/caps; grammatical structures, narrative structures.
That last one is large and subtle - I once called someone an "active psychological hazard" for the manipulation within their "narrative" structure; think about how good comedians build a kind of meandering story, and then apply that to an affect aside from humor, and you've got the right idea.
It's... I don't know. People tell me things, or I read them, and it forms a sort of multidimensional "shape" inside my mind. Then I lop off / rotate the shape so the emotional affects aren't present, or aren't significant, or aren't "in view". But also like I said, I don't actually know if it's working; but I think it is. I know that before I do whatever it is, I feel things; afterwards, I feel them, but at a remove, so they're more like things I could feel, if I chose to.
Does that all make any kind of sense, even a little bit?
That last one is large and subtle - I once called someone an "active psychological hazard" for the manipulation within their "narrative" structure; think about how good comedians build a kind of meandering story, and then apply that to an affect aside from humor, and you've got the right idea.
It's... I don't know. People tell me things, or I read them, and it forms a sort of multidimensional "shape" inside my mind. Then I lop off / rotate the shape so the emotional affects aren't present, or aren't significant, or aren't "in view". But also like I said, I don't actually know if it's working; but I think it is. I know that before I do whatever it is, I feel things; afterwards, I feel them, but at a remove, so they're more like things I could feel, if I chose to.
Does that all make any kind of sense, even a little bit?
I think the "take the emotion out" part really resonates. The idea of avoiding people who artificially "raise the stakes" is pretty interesting too, it seems like you have a sound process for this.
It sounds like you might enjoy comedy theory as this is where I learned majority of what you're talking about. Specifically improv comedy.
It sounds like you might enjoy comedy theory as this is where I learned majority of what you're talking about. Specifically improv comedy.
Thank you, I've wanted to poke into comedy for awhile now! Didn't realize there was established theory, but that makes sense.
Note that I do think "raising the stakes" is a valid explorative method - you can use it to make small details much more visible, for example - even it's not so valid as an argument. So it's not so much about avoiding people who do that, as much as it about zeroing out the impact of them doing that.
Note that I do think "raising the stakes" is a valid explorative method - you can use it to make small details much more visible, for example - even it's not so valid as an argument. So it's not so much about avoiding people who do that, as much as it about zeroing out the impact of them doing that.
In my opinion, the "misinformation problem" breaks down into a couple of separate causes. Mainly the odd inability of people not being able to view a comment that they disagree with and not try to "correct" that person (highly related to the inability people have to let the other person have the last word) and simple tribalism.
I don't know what to do about the "inability not to respond" issue, I suffer from that myself. On the tribalism issue, I strongly suggest becoming the equivalent of a nomadic wanderer. When someone posts something about a topic I strongly agree with, I don't assume I will agree with everything else they might say. The same goes for posts about something I strongly disagree with. Being too caught up in tribalism leads to inoffensive posts from the other tribe causing a knee-jerk reaction to say something, anything, to put them in their place even if the person completely agree with what the other person just posted. Hence, the rise of "whataboutism".
I try to take on a view of comments posted in which I don't care who the other person is, what other beliefs they might have good or bad, and just reply to the comment at hand. If the comment is full of insults I just ignore them and pick out the pieces of their posts related to the discussion topic and reply to those. This would seem to be a good way to have less conflict in conversations on the internet but in my experience you need very thick skin to go this route because you are an outsider to all groups, meaning you are a target for everyone. There are people who will stop insulting you when you calmly reply to their points and ignore their jibes, but not as many as a younger more naive version of myself would have expected, unfortunately.
This is what I try to do, anyway. I'm unfortunately as human as everyone else, so I slip at times.
I don't know what to do about the "inability not to respond" issue, I suffer from that myself. On the tribalism issue, I strongly suggest becoming the equivalent of a nomadic wanderer. When someone posts something about a topic I strongly agree with, I don't assume I will agree with everything else they might say. The same goes for posts about something I strongly disagree with. Being too caught up in tribalism leads to inoffensive posts from the other tribe causing a knee-jerk reaction to say something, anything, to put them in their place even if the person completely agree with what the other person just posted. Hence, the rise of "whataboutism".
I try to take on a view of comments posted in which I don't care who the other person is, what other beliefs they might have good or bad, and just reply to the comment at hand. If the comment is full of insults I just ignore them and pick out the pieces of their posts related to the discussion topic and reply to those. This would seem to be a good way to have less conflict in conversations on the internet but in my experience you need very thick skin to go this route because you are an outsider to all groups, meaning you are a target for everyone. There are people who will stop insulting you when you calmly reply to their points and ignore their jibes, but not as many as a younger more naive version of myself would have expected, unfortunately.
This is what I try to do, anyway. I'm unfortunately as human as everyone else, so I slip at times.
> pick out the pieces of their posts related to the discussion topic and reply to those
100% this. AFAICT, part of where this is coming from is formal debate style, where (IMHO) there's a subtle pressure to address everything the other side said. But in a conversation, you don't have to do that. You can pick up just the parts you want to reply to.
100% this. AFAICT, part of where this is coming from is formal debate style, where (IMHO) there's a subtle pressure to address everything the other side said. But in a conversation, you don't have to do that. You can pick up just the parts you want to reply to.
A lot of commenters here seem to want to define "misinformation" to mean something like "selectively presented information to promote a perspective at odds with what I think is a balanced and informed perspective".
With this inherently subjective definition, I'm not sure we'll be able to agree on much about the existence or nature of a misinformation epidemic.
With this inherently subjective definition, I'm not sure we'll be able to agree on much about the existence or nature of a misinformation epidemic.
As someone that works on moderation of an online platform I can tell you that lots and lots of misinformation exists and is read by millions of people. On vaccines many people actually believe the microchip, 5G, magnetic, secret ingredients, fetal tissue, vaccines shedding, Bill Gates stuff. Misinformation affects real people's actions in dangerous ways, I don't know what downplaying its existence accomplishes.
Of course, the author doesn't downplay its existence, only its impact. But to know that we'd have to read the post.
I don't quite get where the author is coming from.
>And on the basics of civic life, that doesn’t seem to be the case. A survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that in 2006, only 33 percent of people could correctly identify the three branches of government. By 2021, that was up to 56 percent. That’s way higher than 33 percent!
Is that really what anyone means about misinformation? I don't think so...
As for say the Joe Rogan examples, are knowing factoids that someone thinks support their other opinions really knowledge, or are they things they just like to gather to support public statements?
Often I get those factoids tossed at me on the internet and even links to pages that someone thinks supports their opinions but if you read 3 paragraphs in clearly doesn't.
That's not being knowledgeable...
In fact celebrating those little factoids seem right up the alley of misinformation where someone announces that "5 men were discovered to be impotent after getting the vaccine!" where that might be true, but the intent of the misinformation is obviously to push something else.
>And on the basics of civic life, that doesn’t seem to be the case. A survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that in 2006, only 33 percent of people could correctly identify the three branches of government. By 2021, that was up to 56 percent. That’s way higher than 33 percent!
Is that really what anyone means about misinformation? I don't think so...
As for say the Joe Rogan examples, are knowing factoids that someone thinks support their other opinions really knowledge, or are they things they just like to gather to support public statements?
Often I get those factoids tossed at me on the internet and even links to pages that someone thinks supports their opinions but if you read 3 paragraphs in clearly doesn't.
That's not being knowledgeable...
In fact celebrating those little factoids seem right up the alley of misinformation where someone announces that "5 men were discovered to be impotent after getting the vaccine!" where that might be true, but the intent of the misinformation is obviously to push something else.
And factoids don't mean that there is analysis being done on those facts. I can state partial facts or misleading facts all day long that might get upvotes/retweets. That doesn't mean that it is properly conveying information that is needed to analyze the subject.
The Covid19 vaccine discussion isn't: "There are side effects that are worse than you think". There are hundreds if not thousands of data points that have to be analyzed together to understand the negatives or benefits of something as complex as this. Cherry-picking on factoid to back up your bias does not make you smart.
The Covid19 vaccine discussion isn't: "There are side effects that are worse than you think". There are hundreds if not thousands of data points that have to be analyzed together to understand the negatives or benefits of something as complex as this. Cherry-picking on factoid to back up your bias does not make you smart.
The biggest change is how aware we are of others' views. The internet thrives on showing you people who are "wrong".
I wish we would do away with public opinion polling as news. It does nothing to actually inform or help people, but it makes us obsessed with culture wars.
Only 60 something percent of Americans believed the moon landings were real the year they happened. Imagine if someone flashed on the screen to tell you "40% of Americans don't believe this happened, and here are all of their political views". That's what modern journalism feels like.
I wish we would do away with public opinion polling as news. It does nothing to actually inform or help people, but it makes us obsessed with culture wars.
Only 60 something percent of Americans believed the moon landings were real the year they happened. Imagine if someone flashed on the screen to tell you "40% of Americans don't believe this happened, and here are all of their political views". That's what modern journalism feels like.
> Only 60 something percent of Americans believed the moon landings were real the year they happened.
What is your basis for this? Were you alive then? I was. I watched the first Moon landing on television. Nobody was talking about how it was faked.
What is your basis for this? Were you alive then? I was. I watched the first Moon landing on television. Nobody was talking about how it was faked.
I sm skeptical on that number as well. I looked for the source. In the 10 minutes that I was willing to spend on it, I only found this:
"A July1970 poll found 30% of Americans declaring Apollo 11 to be a fake."
https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_millions-still-believe-1969-mo...
Couldn't find the original source.
It looks to be something like US 6% of the population at the moment (Gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/3712/Landing-Man-Moon-Publics-V... )
"A July1970 poll found 30% of Americans declaring Apollo 11 to be a fake."
https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_millions-still-believe-1969-mo...
Couldn't find the original source.
It looks to be something like US 6% of the population at the moment (Gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/3712/Landing-Man-Moon-Publics-V... )
Another issue is that polling is often fucked around with by the respondents, especially if the poll wasn't well written.
On average, about 4%.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...
Same here, I was 7. Nobody was saying "did you see that fake moon landing?". It was only years later that I became aware that there were people on the fringe who thought it was faked, but I never personally met anyone with that opinion.
>"It was only years later that I became aware that there were people on the fringe who thought it was faked..."
Certain groups (namely the Soviets) ran a number of conspiratorial propaganda campaigns, which were much more effective outside 'the West' (NATO-affiliated countries).
Certain groups (namely the Soviets) ran a number of conspiratorial propaganda campaigns, which were much more effective outside 'the West' (NATO-affiliated countries).
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Conspiracy theories have an incredible ability to self sustain, it is entirely possible the "moon landings were faked" theory is an old bit of Soviet propaganda that refused to die.
Conspiracy theories have an incredible ability to self sustain, it is entirely possible the "moon landings were faked" theory is an old bit of Soviet propaganda that refused to die.
[deleted]
>I think the only sensible thing to say about all this is that discerning the truth is hard, and it requires debate and dissent. Functional expert communities and well-run journalism institutions are open to new information, to changing their minds, and to correcting the record. But that process doesn’t work if the fact-check squad slaps a “misinformation” label on you for saying the CDC is wrong about masks.
I just wanted to highlight this part really quickly. IMO this is one of the most concerning things to come out of this epidemic of misinformation. We have allowed a handful of for-profit companies to build a system for determining what is true or false. I suppose this isn't meaningfully different than the world before the internet, but that's a huge wasted potential.
I just wanted to highlight this part really quickly. IMO this is one of the most concerning things to come out of this epidemic of misinformation. We have allowed a handful of for-profit companies to build a system for determining what is true or false. I suppose this isn't meaningfully different than the world before the internet, but that's a huge wasted potential.
“Misinformation” appears to be a term used by people who don’t want to take on the burden of proof when accusing someone of lying.
To me it seems like they are a pot calling the kettle brown so as to divert attention from the fact that their own blackness is the larger offense.
'these guys are just stupid' as they engage in overt deception and manipulation to even make such an accusation.
'these guys are just stupid' as they engage in overt deception and manipulation to even make such an accusation.
Some people refuse to look at the truth. Then again, it should be assumed that a random person, more often than not, actually cared and spent some time thinking or learning what most people take to be true. Throwing conspiracy theories to see what sticks is a lazy form of destructive behavior. Pointing fingers at people who don't explicitly disprove your claims, whether or not you know them to be true, is just a continuation of the same.
I think it is more useful to describe the situations where:
- accusing someone of lying has no restraining impact on the person or the lie, and indeed where it might have a magnifying effect
or
- the lie is being shared by someone who has been lied to and does not know it; they aren't a liar but they are misinformers.
Calling the "Covid hasn't even been isolated" misinformation a lie, for example, requires knowing that the teller is aware they are lying. They could simply be credulous.
- accusing someone of lying has no restraining impact on the person or the lie, and indeed where it might have a magnifying effect
or
- the lie is being shared by someone who has been lied to and does not know it; they aren't a liar but they are misinformers.
Calling the "Covid hasn't even been isolated" misinformation a lie, for example, requires knowing that the teller is aware they are lying. They could simply be credulous.
> accusing someone of lying has no restraining impact on the person or the lie
Should an accusation alone have that effect?
Should an accusation alone have that effect?
No -- but I take your point. I meant "with evidence" here.
The point is, many lies are a particular kind of bad faith. You can point out to the guy who, say, believes Antoine Béchamp is the last word in medicine, that he is misrepresenting Béchamp in the past, let alone misrepresenting science in the present, and that guy will argue that it is the very predictable pattern of your fact-based attempt to disprove him that is evidence of your perfidy.
When you know that person is making that argument knowing it to be false, there is no point in accusing them.
The only thing you can do is tackle the "alternative facts" as misinformation rather than as an attempt to deceive.
Because those who argue in bad faith claim injury in bad faith too. "Misinformation" is a more dispassionate approach.
The point is, many lies are a particular kind of bad faith. You can point out to the guy who, say, believes Antoine Béchamp is the last word in medicine, that he is misrepresenting Béchamp in the past, let alone misrepresenting science in the present, and that guy will argue that it is the very predictable pattern of your fact-based attempt to disprove him that is evidence of your perfidy.
When you know that person is making that argument knowing it to be false, there is no point in accusing them.
The only thing you can do is tackle the "alternative facts" as misinformation rather than as an attempt to deceive.
Because those who argue in bad faith claim injury in bad faith too. "Misinformation" is a more dispassionate approach.
How do you take on the burden of proof to prove that high ranking US officials were not involved in an organized child-sex ring involving various pizza restaurants?
Or any of the various other QAnon work.
Or any of the various other QAnon work.
> How do you take on the burden of proof to prove that high ranking US officials were not involved in an organized child-sex ring involving various pizza restaurants?
Especially after Epstein. Why would they bother with the pizza business? I guess to add some theory to the conspiracy?
Especially after Epstein. Why would they bother with the pizza business? I guess to add some theory to the conspiracy?
That seems like a dangerous generalization that someone can use to hand-wave away any actual misinformation, which as the blog mentions, does exist and is spread (albeit by a small percentage of very prolific posters).
Misinformation exists, and it is a problem. At this point we've seen some evidence that state actors put some of it out there during the 2016/2020 elections, and it can be spread organically.
That said, it's not nearly as widespread or problematic as it's made to be by much of popular media.
Misinformation exists, and it is a problem. At this point we've seen some evidence that state actors put some of it out there during the 2016/2020 elections, and it can be spread organically.
That said, it's not nearly as widespread or problematic as it's made to be by much of popular media.
When you hear the word `misinformation`, you can generally substitute with `wrongthink`. It makes much more sense that way.
I dunno about that. Thought experiment:
The Earth is a flat disc.
Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both?
To be sure it's a vague term applied quite continuously online but simply deflecting it as actually meaning "wrongthink" is disingenuous. There's a lot of misinformation being spread specifically about objective measurable facts. It is simultaneously true that a lot of opinions are being mislabeled as misinformation.
The Earth is a flat disc.
Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both?
To be sure it's a vague term applied quite continuously online but simply deflecting it as actually meaning "wrongthink" is disingenuous. There's a lot of misinformation being spread specifically about objective measurable facts. It is simultaneously true that a lot of opinions are being mislabeled as misinformation.
The firehose of falsehoods relies on this.
The liar can produce 10 lies and demands you disprove them or they are somehow true. The burden of the liar proving their reasoning is missing.
The goal is that their opinion and your fact be treated with equal weight or the opinion has greater weight simply because they can produce more "opinions" more often than you can facts.
The liar can produce 10 lies and demands you disprove them or they are somehow true. The burden of the liar proving their reasoning is missing.
The goal is that their opinion and your fact be treated with equal weight or the opinion has greater weight simply because they can produce more "opinions" more often than you can facts.
Yes, this. John Green mentioned in his vlog several months ago that he was not going to be answering antivax objections anymore because doing so was becoming a fulltime job and he has other work to do. This is the burden that deliberate misinformation is trying to impose: flood the zone with factual-seeming counter information, provide "data" (generally cherry-picked or out of context) to back it up and demand that it must be addressed. This is the antivax playbook. At it's worst flooding the zone with misinformation is designed to cause the populace to tire of the debate and give up trying to determine what the actual truth is.
> flood the zone with factual-seeming counter information, provide "data" (generally cherry-picked or out of context) to back it up and demand that it must be addressed.
This is also referred to as Gish Gallop and relies heavily on the bullshit asymmetry principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
This is also referred to as Gish Gallop and relies heavily on the bullshit asymmetry principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
"named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution."
Interesting that there seems to be a lot of overlap between creationists and antivaxers. Creationists seem to buy into a sort of conspiratorial view of science where they claim that their "creation scientists" are purposely ignored by mainstream science which is in the grip of some kind of delusion so that they can't comprehend that creationism is the way or are in fact actively trying to subvert the idea that creationism is actually true. Extrapolate to vaccines and they easily believe that there's some kind of alternative science that hasn't been corrupted, but isn't widely known. Similar overlaps for denying climate change.
Interesting that there seems to be a lot of overlap between creationists and antivaxers. Creationists seem to buy into a sort of conspiratorial view of science where they claim that their "creation scientists" are purposely ignored by mainstream science which is in the grip of some kind of delusion so that they can't comprehend that creationism is the way or are in fact actively trying to subvert the idea that creationism is actually true. Extrapolate to vaccines and they easily believe that there's some kind of alternative science that hasn't been corrupted, but isn't widely known. Similar overlaps for denying climate change.
> The Earth is a flat disc.
> Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both?
Neither. It is an assertion based on a frame of reference. The mapping systems used on my phone don't often describe geographic topography and so assert a flatness to the surface of this planet. Likewise this planet viewed from its moon would have the visual appearance of a disk. Is "The Earth is a flat disc" a helpful explanation for operating in the world? Not if you are a rocket scientist but it isn't a terrible model if you live an entire life within the vicinity of your family farm.
“All models are wrong, but some are useful”. George E. P. Box
https://www.lacan.upc.edu/admoreWeb/2018/05/all-models-are-w...
> Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both?
Neither. It is an assertion based on a frame of reference. The mapping systems used on my phone don't often describe geographic topography and so assert a flatness to the surface of this planet. Likewise this planet viewed from its moon would have the visual appearance of a disk. Is "The Earth is a flat disc" a helpful explanation for operating in the world? Not if you are a rocket scientist but it isn't a terrible model if you live an entire life within the vicinity of your family farm.
“All models are wrong, but some are useful”. George E. P. Box
https://www.lacan.upc.edu/admoreWeb/2018/05/all-models-are-w...
I find that most complaints about 'misinformation' are rooted in ideological conformity rather than truth. Like most buzzwords, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have an objective definition, but it does mean you should closely examine the motivations of those who are loudest about it.
[deleted]
> The Earth is a flat disc.
> Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both?
You missed the fourth option: it's neither. No-one would call it misinformation or wrongthink; rather it's false, or a lie if you're feeling judgemental. I think the person you replied to has made a good point.
> Is this misinformation, wrongthink, or both?
You missed the fourth option: it's neither. No-one would call it misinformation or wrongthink; rather it's false, or a lie if you're feeling judgemental. I think the person you replied to has made a good point.
What if I show you a heavily biased paper in a quack journal with impressive-looking graphs that shows the earth is a flat disc? Is this misinformation?
Most people will not have the experience to discern things like p-hacking and massaged numbers. Having experts call these things out as misinformation seems quite useful to me.
Most people will not have the experience to discern things like p-hacking and massaged numbers. Having experts call these things out as misinformation seems quite useful to me.
> What if I show you a heavily biased paper in a quack journal with impressive-looking graphs that shows the earth is a flat disc? Is this misinformation?
Maybe. I've not heard people calling "misinformation" in cases like that though.
Maybe. I've not heard people calling "misinformation" in cases like that though.
Noise?
If we follow the science then what does "misinformation" mean in an information theory context?
It has no meaning at all. Since it basically has no meaning it does make it quite a good word in a propaganda context. We can make this word mean whatever we want.
It is a shame we don't use the concept of noise or a noisy channel in a wider context.
It has no meaning at all. Since it basically has no meaning it does make it quite a good word in a propaganda context. We can make this word mean whatever we want.
It is a shame we don't use the concept of noise or a noisy channel in a wider context.
"missing context, misleading"
you just got fact checked
you just got fact checked
Misinformation has always existed.
I think the emergent phenomena that we are seeing is simply a scaled up version of the problems Plato pointed out in the Republic.
The REAL problem, is that democracy as an organization if people isn't going to produce a society of freedom and justice, no, democracy produces a hedonic society. So the question becomes, how do we LIVE with that?
I think the emergent phenomena that we are seeing is simply a scaled up version of the problems Plato pointed out in the Republic.
The REAL problem, is that democracy as an organization if people isn't going to produce a society of freedom and justice, no, democracy produces a hedonic society. So the question becomes, how do we LIVE with that?
Isn't modern hedonism just freedom to pursuit happiness without necessitating context of religious frameworks. I don't see what makes you think hedonism isn't sustainable or stable.
Democracy has been the biggest boost to science and rationality than any of the other government structures.
Democracy has been the biggest boost to science and rationality than any of the other government structures.
I mean if hedonism is what you are concerned about the only difference is democracy brings hedonism to the common man instead of just the elites. And even then the elites can afford to be more hedonistic than than the common man anyway. Anyone with power has always been a hedonist in any form of government.
Is it even scaled up, or is it just more legible to elites because they can see what the masses are saying?
At the end, it is a matter of believe. We choose what information should we believe or not. But we should always be able to confront that information with real life around us and look in specific topics from multiple sources. And keep asking questions.
I hope people will look more and more for information about topic as vaccination. Because right know we come to era that we are really able to get access to information that was hidden for decades.
I recommend book from German medical doctor "Gerhard Buchwald - Vaccination - A Business Based on Fear". Book was released in 1994 and observe the development of diseases and vaccination in Germany.
Yes, it is easy to say that someone is anti-vax, but if you really inform yourself in this topic, you'll start ask questions that are valid and should be debated more.
I hope people will look more and more for information about topic as vaccination. Because right know we come to era that we are really able to get access to information that was hidden for decades.
I recommend book from German medical doctor "Gerhard Buchwald - Vaccination - A Business Based on Fear". Book was released in 1994 and observe the development of diseases and vaccination in Germany.
Yes, it is easy to say that someone is anti-vax, but if you really inform yourself in this topic, you'll start ask questions that are valid and should be debated more.
100% agree.
Misinformation and propaganda only seem worse now because it is more diverse and we are collectively better at seeing it.
If anything, it is more difficult now to mislead masses.
Misinformation and propaganda only seem worse now because it is more diverse and we are collectively better at seeing it.
If anything, it is more difficult now to mislead masses.
This seems to be redefining what misinformed means, but I'm not sure what they intend to achieve by that.
> "They don’t have crank opinions because they are misinformed, they have tons and tons of moon-related factual information because they’re cranks"
Having a section about how conspiracy theorists are very knowledgeable about their subjects and then immediately saying that a right wing economist is really well informed about arguments against minimum wage regulations seemed a little on the nose, but I think it was just a coincidence.
Basically, people are allowed to be wrong about stuff but only if they are right-wing, because right-wing people have traditionally been wrong. Is that what we are saying?
> "So people vote Republican, I think, not because of “misinformation” but because they perceive that the GOP position on many policy topics has moderated while the Democratic Party’s has gotten more left-wing"
So they aren't misinformed, they just realised 10 years late that what the "left-wing" opinion 10 years ago was, was what they wanted after all? So how do we know they won't do the same in ten more years, which in fact he pretty openly states they will.
> "They don’t have crank opinions because they are misinformed, they have tons and tons of moon-related factual information because they’re cranks"
Having a section about how conspiracy theorists are very knowledgeable about their subjects and then immediately saying that a right wing economist is really well informed about arguments against minimum wage regulations seemed a little on the nose, but I think it was just a coincidence.
Basically, people are allowed to be wrong about stuff but only if they are right-wing, because right-wing people have traditionally been wrong. Is that what we are saying?
> "So people vote Republican, I think, not because of “misinformation” but because they perceive that the GOP position on many policy topics has moderated while the Democratic Party’s has gotten more left-wing"
So they aren't misinformed, they just realised 10 years late that what the "left-wing" opinion 10 years ago was, was what they wanted after all? So how do we know they won't do the same in ten more years, which in fact he pretty openly states they will.
“They” may not because “they” will be dead.
The 30 and younger crowd have stuck to their non-religous, progressiveness. Polls over the last decade have suggested progressivism had become even more entrenched in that crowd.
If there’s a future rightward lean it would be after a leftward drift.
I agree that conservatives are starting to see progressives were arguing for what the conservatives wanted. I scrape comments from Reddit and have quantified there are more posts of the “our side has advocated against our own positions in deference to politicians.”. They want to be left to socially manage their local life, which rubs up against that whole social democracy thing. While the politicians want to extract as much profit off our agency for as little real work of their own as possible, “both sides” on main street want their agency for their neighborhood.
The TV addicted pudding brains are dying off. The younger generation was weened on distracting multimedia, they have an intuition for where that ends and shared political life begins that the mush mouths dribbling the same old cable news from their lips don’t.
Favored information compositions have changed. Still the same physics on the whole but the ideas that captivate are more than just academic glyph sets with cherry picked snippets highlighted in dayglo. Generating never ending statistical objects is not learning which are most probable. Humanity is still figuring that out.
We can’t allow for sentences like “kill all X for Y reason” or “let chainsaw wielding nut run lose” for obvious reasons. But there are more sentences we can allow people to believe are true besides the ones that essentially translate to “grow business.”
It’s all very “build and tend your flock” in real habit anyway. That doesn’t sit well with the non-Church going crowd
The 30 and younger crowd have stuck to their non-religous, progressiveness. Polls over the last decade have suggested progressivism had become even more entrenched in that crowd.
If there’s a future rightward lean it would be after a leftward drift.
I agree that conservatives are starting to see progressives were arguing for what the conservatives wanted. I scrape comments from Reddit and have quantified there are more posts of the “our side has advocated against our own positions in deference to politicians.”. They want to be left to socially manage their local life, which rubs up against that whole social democracy thing. While the politicians want to extract as much profit off our agency for as little real work of their own as possible, “both sides” on main street want their agency for their neighborhood.
The TV addicted pudding brains are dying off. The younger generation was weened on distracting multimedia, they have an intuition for where that ends and shared political life begins that the mush mouths dribbling the same old cable news from their lips don’t.
Favored information compositions have changed. Still the same physics on the whole but the ideas that captivate are more than just academic glyph sets with cherry picked snippets highlighted in dayglo. Generating never ending statistical objects is not learning which are most probable. Humanity is still figuring that out.
We can’t allow for sentences like “kill all X for Y reason” or “let chainsaw wielding nut run lose” for obvious reasons. But there are more sentences we can allow people to believe are true besides the ones that essentially translate to “grow business.”
It’s all very “build and tend your flock” in real habit anyway. That doesn’t sit well with the non-Church going crowd
The German government loves blaming troublesome newish movements like vocal anti-vaxer, conspiracy theorists, some new right wing groups etc. as being the fault of misinformation on Facebook Whatsapp and their recently target telegram.
I don't think that's right.
Sure this modern media allows faster spread of information, including manipulative information but that's mostly it.
In my experience (i.e. people in my environment) many people had such believes long before Facebook or Whatsapp became widespread in their social circle.
The difference was that it often wasn't noticed as much until they felt threatened in their way of live, e.g. because of pandemic relateed measurements. Or their conspiracies affected you or made you personally angry/offended.
Many of this movements often had been ignored by the government as "just a few crazy people" for years even when it wasn't just a few people anymore (e.g. Reichsbürger).
Some (anti-vaxer, conspiracy theorist against modern medicine) have even gotten support from major political parties for years (e.g. green party).
And sure people radicalized a lot with the pandemic, because they felt threatened and insecure.
But the German government and public media _majorly_ made that worse due to incompetence especially around media competence.
The problem was less the measurements taken but how they where communicated.
And how assumptions which layer turned out to be not sure right where often converted as scientific fact.
This created a perfect ground for evil manipulative people to push people further down in the wrong direction.
And from what I can tell I'm 100% sure there are some (multiple, distinct) highly intelligent and skilled people spreading and pushing some of this misinformation for whatever reason.
Worse when the public media saw this problem instead of reacting with honest open communication they decided they needed to be even more manipulative to protect society.
Problem: That doesn't work if it does the manipulator to convince more people by pointing out the manipulation, then through manipulation on their site make it look worse and use the human fallacy of thinking in "black and white" (1) to increase the believe in conspiracy theories of their victims (2).
(2): expect that it's more like catch many propaganda then one to one manipulation
(1): it should be obvious but in this context this has nothing to do with skin color.
I don't think that's right.
Sure this modern media allows faster spread of information, including manipulative information but that's mostly it.
In my experience (i.e. people in my environment) many people had such believes long before Facebook or Whatsapp became widespread in their social circle.
The difference was that it often wasn't noticed as much until they felt threatened in their way of live, e.g. because of pandemic relateed measurements. Or their conspiracies affected you or made you personally angry/offended.
Many of this movements often had been ignored by the government as "just a few crazy people" for years even when it wasn't just a few people anymore (e.g. Reichsbürger).
Some (anti-vaxer, conspiracy theorist against modern medicine) have even gotten support from major political parties for years (e.g. green party).
And sure people radicalized a lot with the pandemic, because they felt threatened and insecure.
But the German government and public media _majorly_ made that worse due to incompetence especially around media competence.
The problem was less the measurements taken but how they where communicated.
And how assumptions which layer turned out to be not sure right where often converted as scientific fact.
This created a perfect ground for evil manipulative people to push people further down in the wrong direction.
And from what I can tell I'm 100% sure there are some (multiple, distinct) highly intelligent and skilled people spreading and pushing some of this misinformation for whatever reason.
Worse when the public media saw this problem instead of reacting with honest open communication they decided they needed to be even more manipulative to protect society.
Problem: That doesn't work if it does the manipulator to convince more people by pointing out the manipulation, then through manipulation on their site make it look worse and use the human fallacy of thinking in "black and white" (1) to increase the believe in conspiracy theories of their victims (2).
(2): expect that it's more like catch many propaganda then one to one manipulation
(1): it should be obvious but in this context this has nothing to do with skin color.
> increase the believe [sic] in conspiracy theories
I'm old enough to remember a time before the internet, when the only information sources were newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. I remember reading all of those sources back then and thinking, "man, there's nobody in the entire world who agrees with my viewpoints on anything". I mean, you'd think that, logically, if even 10% of the world agreed with me on anything, at least one of them would be writing for some mainstream media source. But they all seemed to say the same things and believe the same things and agree with each other on almost everything.
I felt like my opinions were so far out of the mainstream that I didn't dare mention one to my close friends. Then the internet came along.
The internet of the mid-90's was almost entirely populated by people who agreed with me on nearly everything. I thought, "how could this possibly be? How could there be so many people who disagree with nearly every opinion you see on TV, hear on the radio or read in magazines or newspapers? Where have they all been this whole time?"
In the past ten years or so, I've seen them slowly disappear though. They dominated the discourse until around 2010 (roughly) but bit by bit we're coming back to the same opinions I used to see on TV, Radio, newspaper and magazines back in the 80's.
I'm old enough to remember a time before the internet, when the only information sources were newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. I remember reading all of those sources back then and thinking, "man, there's nobody in the entire world who agrees with my viewpoints on anything". I mean, you'd think that, logically, if even 10% of the world agreed with me on anything, at least one of them would be writing for some mainstream media source. But they all seemed to say the same things and believe the same things and agree with each other on almost everything.
I felt like my opinions were so far out of the mainstream that I didn't dare mention one to my close friends. Then the internet came along.
The internet of the mid-90's was almost entirely populated by people who agreed with me on nearly everything. I thought, "how could this possibly be? How could there be so many people who disagree with nearly every opinion you see on TV, hear on the radio or read in magazines or newspapers? Where have they all been this whole time?"
In the past ten years or so, I've seen them slowly disappear though. They dominated the discourse until around 2010 (roughly) but bit by bit we're coming back to the same opinions I used to see on TV, Radio, newspaper and magazines back in the 80's.
This 100% my experience in Germany as well. Thank you for articulating it so well.
There is zero political skill of anticipating counter-reactions in the government.
The perfect example of this phenomenon was the discussion around vaccine mandates. In 2020, mainstream politics dismissed all mentions of vaccine mandates as dangerous misinformation spread by right-wing conspiracy theorists.
In 2022, mainstream politics is in favor vaccine mandates, and brands mandate opponents as right-wing conspiracy theorists. It's a complete disaster.
There is zero political skill of anticipating counter-reactions in the government.
The perfect example of this phenomenon was the discussion around vaccine mandates. In 2020, mainstream politics dismissed all mentions of vaccine mandates as dangerous misinformation spread by right-wing conspiracy theorists.
In 2022, mainstream politics is in favor vaccine mandates, and brands mandate opponents as right-wing conspiracy theorists. It's a complete disaster.
> More generally, I think a lot of excessive worry about “misinformation” is driven by the erroneous belief that more factual information would resolve political disputes.
The key thing that journalism should do is take factual information and provide context. If 99.999% of scientists claim the earth is a ball and 0.001% claim the earth is flat, for fucks sake don't present these two things as equal. With vaccines it's the same. Just how much airtime was given to people blathering that vaccines cause autism, which is a decades-old debunked fraud? Way too much.
And the result of that lack of providing context in media (or, worse, outright and willing deception of the Alex Jones class) is what is the problem. When media or government institutions prove that they are not willing to do their job, people end up not trusting them - which then leads to the disconnect between wide swaths of the population and factual truth we're seeing.
The key thing that journalism should do is take factual information and provide context. If 99.999% of scientists claim the earth is a ball and 0.001% claim the earth is flat, for fucks sake don't present these two things as equal. With vaccines it's the same. Just how much airtime was given to people blathering that vaccines cause autism, which is a decades-old debunked fraud? Way too much.
And the result of that lack of providing context in media (or, worse, outright and willing deception of the Alex Jones class) is what is the problem. When media or government institutions prove that they are not willing to do their job, people end up not trusting them - which then leads to the disconnect between wide swaths of the population and factual truth we're seeing.
> Just how much airtime was given to people blathering that vaccines cause autism, which is a decades-old debunked fraud? Way too much.
Sure, but cut them off and then they cry censorship. "They wouldn't be trying to silence us if they weren't hiding something!"
Sure, but cut them off and then they cry censorship. "They wouldn't be trying to silence us if they weren't hiding something!"
If you didn't buy that Iraq had WMDs and that there was a BinLaden to Saddam connection, you were on the side of misinformation. The entire media and political establishment was at odds with your take.
If you clamp down on misinformation, you're doing nothing more than allowing the establishment to be wrong without consequence, and creating consequence when the average person is wrong.
No one labeled the NY Times a perpetuator of misinformation when it blatantly lied about evidence for the Iraq War.
Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares.
No one cares when the bad info, lies, buried studies or anything else works in favor of power.
This isn't about who's right and who wrong.
Its about power. It's about who's allowed the freedom to be wrong and who isn't. Who has the ability to manipulate the public and who doesn't.
And the power to dictate that is the power to win every public debate no matter how much merit you do or don't have.
If you clamp down on misinformation, you're doing nothing more than allowing the establishment to be wrong without consequence, and creating consequence when the average person is wrong.
No one labeled the NY Times a perpetuator of misinformation when it blatantly lied about evidence for the Iraq War.
Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares.
No one cares when the bad info, lies, buried studies or anything else works in favor of power.
This isn't about who's right and who wrong.
Its about power. It's about who's allowed the freedom to be wrong and who isn't. Who has the ability to manipulate the public and who doesn't.
And the power to dictate that is the power to win every public debate no matter how much merit you do or don't have.
Wow you stepped on every single information landmine possible.
The NYT had commentators reporting on what they thought was true. They have done many years of introspection about their rule in the Iraq war, this is not what "perpetuator of misinformation" do - they double down.
> Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares.
What is one thing either site has gotten wrong (objectively, not your opinion) and refuses to correct ? Everyone makes mistakes, how we respond to those mistakes is the distinction we should care about.
> This isn't about who's right and who wrong. Its about power.
Sounds like projection of what you believe the digital information space to be.
The NYT had commentators reporting on what they thought was true. They have done many years of introspection about their rule in the Iraq war, this is not what "perpetuator of misinformation" do - they double down.
> Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares.
What is one thing either site has gotten wrong (objectively, not your opinion) and refuses to correct ? Everyone makes mistakes, how we respond to those mistakes is the distinction we should care about.
> This isn't about who's right and who wrong. Its about power.
Sounds like projection of what you believe the digital information space to be.
The Free Beacon reported that a source told them the crack kits could specifically include pipes, and the story went viral
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-f...
Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating . . . while confirming the Free Beacon reporting as entirely true. Here’s how they explained it:
> In 2022, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services substance abuse harm reduction grant did require recipients to provide safer smoking kits to existing drug users. In distributing grants, priority would be given to applicants serving historically underserved communities. However what’s false is this was just one of around 20 components of the grant program and far from its most prominent or important one.
Snopes claims that the news about smoking kits is true. It’s just not important.
Or here’s Facebook’s “Partly False” Fact Check (https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-biden-...) that also confirms the Free Beacon reporting:
> While a description of the HHS grants stated that the grantees would be required to buy materials like safe smoking kits and supplies to "enhance harm reduction efforts," such kits and supplies are just a few of the many materials that grantees can utilize.
This happens all the time.
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-to-f...
Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating . . . while confirming the Free Beacon reporting as entirely true. Here’s how they explained it:
> In 2022, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services substance abuse harm reduction grant did require recipients to provide safer smoking kits to existing drug users. In distributing grants, priority would be given to applicants serving historically underserved communities. However what’s false is this was just one of around 20 components of the grant program and far from its most prominent or important one.
Snopes claims that the news about smoking kits is true. It’s just not important.
Or here’s Facebook’s “Partly False” Fact Check (https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-biden-...) that also confirms the Free Beacon reporting:
> While a description of the HHS grants stated that the grantees would be required to buy materials like safe smoking kits and supplies to "enhance harm reduction efforts," such kits and supplies are just a few of the many materials that grantees can utilize.
This happens all the time.
> The Free Beacon reported that a source told them the crack kits could specifically include pipes, and the story went viral
No offense but if you asked me to make up a typical right wing red meat outrage generating story, this would be it.
> Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating
You didn't link to Snopes, instead "leadstories.com" which i've never heard of. Where is the source from Snopes itself?
Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no? At best this is a nuance argument of a somewhat complicated story about policy (which itself is complicated) - far from the "clear example of a false story" I asked for.
No offense but if you asked me to make up a typical right wing red meat outrage generating story, this would be it.
> Snopes labeled the reporting with a big red X and MOSTLY FALSE rating
You didn't link to Snopes, instead "leadstories.com" which i've never heard of. Where is the source from Snopes itself?
Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no? At best this is a nuance argument of a somewhat complicated story about policy (which itself is complicated) - far from the "clear example of a false story" I asked for.
Ok, this confirms what I said:
> Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no?
In fact this passage articulates why "mostly false" is accurate, the framing done by right wing media was purposefully and misleading (and leaning on emotionally/racially charged language like "crack pipe"):
> Collectively, these articles gave readers a grossly misleading and reductive presentation of what was a real substance abuse harm reduction grant overseen by the Biden administration in early 2022. We are issuing a rating of “Mostly False.”
> It’s true that the grant description required the provision of smoking kits — an established component of harm reduction strategy — but in reality, those kits constituted just one of several sub-components of an even longer list of requirements for grant recipients. In other words, while outraged media coverage focused almost exclusively on “crack pipes,” this was actually only a very small part of the program.
I asked you for a solid example of something objectively wrong that hasn't been corrected, you gave me something that is at best nuanced and deserving of more clarification.
> Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares.
Not here they didn't.
I'd ask for another example, but if this is the best you have to prove that "fake news" is out to get you, I think we've dispelled that thoroughly.
> Also "Mostly False" sounds right, as it was just the pipe detail that is in dispute, no?
In fact this passage articulates why "mostly false" is accurate, the framing done by right wing media was purposefully and misleading (and leaning on emotionally/racially charged language like "crack pipe"):
> Collectively, these articles gave readers a grossly misleading and reductive presentation of what was a real substance abuse harm reduction grant overseen by the Biden administration in early 2022. We are issuing a rating of “Mostly False.”
> It’s true that the grant description required the provision of smoking kits — an established component of harm reduction strategy — but in reality, those kits constituted just one of several sub-components of an even longer list of requirements for grant recipients. In other words, while outraged media coverage focused almost exclusively on “crack pipes,” this was actually only a very small part of the program.
I asked you for a solid example of something objectively wrong that hasn't been corrected, you gave me something that is at best nuanced and deserving of more clarification.
> Snopes and Politifact have outright lied and no one cares.
Not here they didn't.
I'd ask for another example, but if this is the best you have to prove that "fake news" is out to get you, I think we've dispelled that thoroughly.
~50% of US voters are wrong about the basic facts of the federal 2020 election. Doesn't matter which ~50% for this statement to be true. Misinformation hasn't been this bad in 300 years, even counting 1939 Germany. Expect similar consequences.
I thought this might be a humor piece. The author talks about how misinformation is not terrible and how he is well informed. Then he goes on to make a lot of statements that are wrong or colored with bias. This is funny and sad!
If people trusted the establishment and their institutions, "misinformation" wouldn't be a problem. People would just shrug off the rhetoric coming from the fringe. The pervasive mistrust of institutions and the establishment, foretold as the fourth turning, is what is causing people to turn to fringe sources for their information. What we are seeing here is a battle for authority underwritten by decades of establishment failure. It's going to get very ugly.
The author is correct that in any debate, the prominent skeptics are often extremely well informed (joe Rogan on vaccines, in his example).
I think what the author is missing is that Joe Rogan and the likes are not spreading misinformation, but spreading tools for misinformation.
My mother in law is very deep in misinformation. I’m not talking simple anti vax, I’m talking “trump will raid the Vatican for stolen gold so we can be a free country for the first time since the 19th century” misinformation, like QAnon tier stuff.
Once, when I was still trying to convince her to get a vaccine, I told her that after Israel’s early vaccine efforts, both cases and deaths are down heavily. Her response was to pull up a screenshot of a fox headline from a YouTube video that simply stated something like “cases up 60% after vaccination in Israel”
I don’t know the context of the headline. I’m sure in whatever context, it was accurate and not misinformation. But the actual spreaders of misinformation use skeptical talking points as weapons to spread misinformation, like the vaccine being a weapon to kill off the population for the great reset.
Anyways I don’t think it’s wrong to be a skeptic. But skeptic talking points being mass weaponized on social media is absolutely new and uniquely enabled by modern technology.
I think what the author is missing is that Joe Rogan and the likes are not spreading misinformation, but spreading tools for misinformation.
My mother in law is very deep in misinformation. I’m not talking simple anti vax, I’m talking “trump will raid the Vatican for stolen gold so we can be a free country for the first time since the 19th century” misinformation, like QAnon tier stuff.
Once, when I was still trying to convince her to get a vaccine, I told her that after Israel’s early vaccine efforts, both cases and deaths are down heavily. Her response was to pull up a screenshot of a fox headline from a YouTube video that simply stated something like “cases up 60% after vaccination in Israel”
I don’t know the context of the headline. I’m sure in whatever context, it was accurate and not misinformation. But the actual spreaders of misinformation use skeptical talking points as weapons to spread misinformation, like the vaccine being a weapon to kill off the population for the great reset.
Anyways I don’t think it’s wrong to be a skeptic. But skeptic talking points being mass weaponized on social media is absolutely new and uniquely enabled by modern technology.
You should be careful about placing the blame on skeptics for misuse of their opinions by nutbags. Because the nutbags would have likely just latched onto something else. They didn't reason themselves into their crazy beliefs. So removing reasonable opinions isn't going to change their beliefs one bit.
The conspiracy theorists often latch onto proponent's factual claims and misinterpret them as supporting the conspiracy theory. A lot of conspiracy theories re vaccines will quote CDC, WHO, research papers, etc. that aren't skeptical.
The conspiracy theorists often latch onto proponent's factual claims and misinterpret them as supporting the conspiracy theory. A lot of conspiracy theories re vaccines will quote CDC, WHO, research papers, etc. that aren't skeptical.
I’m only trying to describe, not assign blame.
To be clear, I’ll repeat myself:
> I don’t think it’s wrong to be a skeptic
To be clear, I’ll repeat myself:
> I don’t think it’s wrong to be a skeptic
It's new, but it's not obvious that it actually changes what people believe, because those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit. If someone came to you 20 years ago claiming that the chickenpox vaccine doesn't work because cases were up 60% after the rollout in Israel, how would you even begin to find contrary evidence? (How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams?)
> How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams?
1. Acquire some jet fuel, burn it, and measure its burning temperature.
2. Acquire a steel beam, hit it with a hammer, heat it up to the burning temperature of jet fuel, then hit it with a hammer again.
3. Wonder why I just wasted $1000 and a hammer on something that the conspiracy theorists will label “doctored footage”.
1. Acquire some jet fuel, burn it, and measure its burning temperature.
2. Acquire a steel beam, hit it with a hammer, heat it up to the burning temperature of jet fuel, then hit it with a hammer again.
3. Wonder why I just wasted $1000 and a hammer on something that the conspiracy theorists will label “doctored footage”.
> those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit.
The point of the OP is that skeptics have powerful and robust toolkits and my point is that conspiracists use these toolkits
Example: the question is whether Dr Fauci knowingly conspired to let hundreds of thousands die because he is colluding with the Chinese on enacting the great reset
The conclusion seems obviously bogus, yet you can pick a ton of arguments in favor from any skeptic of US Covid response. These tend to be very robust.
I’ve seen tons of convincing arguments on this very site about issues with US Covid response, eg that we had strong information about the risks of Covid and should have had lockdowns much earlier, that we should have advised to wear masks from the beginning, etc.
In the context of the conspiracy, each argument that US response was bungled also becomes a weapon to argue that Fauci intentionally bungled US Covid response to enact an evil agenda of widespread death.
At that point you can either argue with very well reasoned skeptic talking points, or you can dive down the ideological rabbit hole of “ok he bungled it but it wasn’t intentional / malicious”.
This is what I mean by weaponizing skeptic talking points
The point of the OP is that skeptics have powerful and robust toolkits and my point is that conspiracists use these toolkits
Example: the question is whether Dr Fauci knowingly conspired to let hundreds of thousands die because he is colluding with the Chinese on enacting the great reset
The conclusion seems obviously bogus, yet you can pick a ton of arguments in favor from any skeptic of US Covid response. These tend to be very robust.
I’ve seen tons of convincing arguments on this very site about issues with US Covid response, eg that we had strong information about the risks of Covid and should have had lockdowns much earlier, that we should have advised to wear masks from the beginning, etc.
In the context of the conspiracy, each argument that US response was bungled also becomes a weapon to argue that Fauci intentionally bungled US Covid response to enact an evil agenda of widespread death.
At that point you can either argue with very well reasoned skeptic talking points, or you can dive down the ideological rabbit hole of “ok he bungled it but it wasn’t intentional / malicious”.
This is what I mean by weaponizing skeptic talking points
> My mother in law is very deep in misinformation. I’m not talking simple anti vax, I’m talking “trump will raid the Vatican for stolen gold so we can be a free country for the first time since the 19th century” misinformation, like QAnon tier stuff.
This is likely the big causal factor here. Your MIL is definitely not typical. The notion that conspiracy nuts are specifically being influenced by "skeptic talking points" and not by simply being generically nutty, anti-intellectual and anti-science, is kinda hard to take seriously.
This is likely the big causal factor here. Your MIL is definitely not typical. The notion that conspiracy nuts are specifically being influenced by "skeptic talking points" and not by simply being generically nutty, anti-intellectual and anti-science, is kinda hard to take seriously.
She was pretty normal until around 2018 on the contrary. I’m sure losing her job in 2008 and ending up socially isolated because she doesn’t speak fluent English didn’t help.
I’m not claiming ordinary and well adjusted people easily fall prey to misinformation if that’s what you’re trying to refute here.
It’s simply an observational fact that conspiracy groups wield skeptic talking points as weapons and that modern technology allows efficient dissemination of this discourse (as with any discourse).
Whether or not there’s a “misinformation problem”, per the title, is actually an empirical question that neither the author nor I have the tools to answer
I’m not claiming ordinary and well adjusted people easily fall prey to misinformation if that’s what you’re trying to refute here.
It’s simply an observational fact that conspiracy groups wield skeptic talking points as weapons and that modern technology allows efficient dissemination of this discourse (as with any discourse).
Whether or not there’s a “misinformation problem”, per the title, is actually an empirical question that neither the author nor I have the tools to answer
There is a bit of a catch 22 here. I think you're right. Most of the garbage floating about our public discourse (and I would submit most of it is garbage) is rooted in some legitimate facts. So your MIL will get some of these skeptical headlines, perhaps with some of these more conspiratorial groups capitalizing on and embellishing the these things. I think what you say is happening is....
... but on the other side, the same thing happens. Stories such as yours get posted about and even reported on and then different organized movements build these up into narratives and use these narratives to push for the silencing of skeptical points. In the end it's really the exact same behavior: get a few facts (in context or not), build your own narrative, add a substantial amount of emotionalism so it's less about the facts anyway, and you have a ready population of true believers that for the most part won't change their views.
... but on the other side, the same thing happens. Stories such as yours get posted about and even reported on and then different organized movements build these up into narratives and use these narratives to push for the silencing of skeptical points. In the end it's really the exact same behavior: get a few facts (in context or not), build your own narrative, add a substantial amount of emotionalism so it's less about the facts anyway, and you have a ready population of true believers that for the most part won't change their views.
Indeed, it’s an emergent behavior in highly connected information systems.
I’ve written about this in a different context here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30172467#30178198
I’ve written about this in a different context here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30172467#30178198
From the article:
> That said, I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about.
I don't know if misinformation is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about, not least because it really depends on the author's definition of "liberal", a word that appears to have only pejorative meaning for most people now.
But it definitely is interesting to consider whether for example QAnon has spread more quickly than the conspiracy theories that led to the First World War, not least because QAnon hasn't yet started a war. Give it time.
> That said, I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about.
I don't know if misinformation is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about, not least because it really depends on the author's definition of "liberal", a word that appears to have only pejorative meaning for most people now.
But it definitely is interesting to consider whether for example QAnon has spread more quickly than the conspiracy theories that led to the First World War, not least because QAnon hasn't yet started a war. Give it time.
It's interesting to consider, but the article references multiple political scientists who've studied conspiracy theories and concluded that they don't spread faster today. Is there a reason to believe they're wrong?
I think this partially a myopic view from young people.
I remember being a little kid and watching a week long show about the JFK conspiracy on either one of the big 3 networks or PBS. Area 51 alien conspiracy is so ubiquitous I don't even know how you would track it 30 years ago.
Alex Jones that is banned from youtube for all these crazy conspiracy theories he puts out use to be on practically nationally on AM radio stations for hours a day. The Art Bell show was broadcast nightly for decades and was maybe even more insane than Alex Jones.
It is telling that the people who are weaponizing this concept of "misinformation" do not point it at all at Bigfoot researchers. What is more "misinformation" than the idea of giant apes running around the US forest? Of course, that doesn't count because there is no political gain to be had.
The whole process is so transparent.
We basically have epistemological certainty as long as their is political gain to be had from the certainty. JFK assassination is probably the best example. The theta/time decay has all evaporated on the political gain from the conspiracy so that no longer matters.
I remember being a little kid and watching a week long show about the JFK conspiracy on either one of the big 3 networks or PBS. Area 51 alien conspiracy is so ubiquitous I don't even know how you would track it 30 years ago.
Alex Jones that is banned from youtube for all these crazy conspiracy theories he puts out use to be on practically nationally on AM radio stations for hours a day. The Art Bell show was broadcast nightly for decades and was maybe even more insane than Alex Jones.
It is telling that the people who are weaponizing this concept of "misinformation" do not point it at all at Bigfoot researchers. What is more "misinformation" than the idea of giant apes running around the US forest? Of course, that doesn't count because there is no political gain to be had.
The whole process is so transparent.
We basically have epistemological certainty as long as their is political gain to be had from the certainty. JFK assassination is probably the best example. The theta/time decay has all evaporated on the political gain from the conspiracy so that no longer matters.
> It is telling that the people who are weaponizing this concept of "misinformation" do not point it at all at Bigfoot researchers. What is more "misinformation" than the idea of giant apes running around the US forest? Of course, that doesn't count because there is no political gain to be had.
There's no political gain to be had on either side of the Bigfoot-in-the-forest argument, in fact. Or financial gain, or notoriety, or kudos. Which is why it's really not particularly telling.
It's just a fringe belief.
Misinformation matters when its intent is to undermine democracy or governance in the public good, undermine civic or civil society, create an "other" that can be attacked, create a pretext for war or social unrest or vigilantism etc.
I don't think people who believe in Bigfoot really fit the pattern. Nor do Flat-Earthers. Though this kind of belief is an indicator of the kind of credulity that led to the huge traction gained by the Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate story and the current omniconspiracy of antivax/QAnon/stolen election/5G/Great Reset/Schwab/Soros/Gates Foundation etc.
There's no political gain to be had on either side of the Bigfoot-in-the-forest argument, in fact. Or financial gain, or notoriety, or kudos. Which is why it's really not particularly telling.
It's just a fringe belief.
Misinformation matters when its intent is to undermine democracy or governance in the public good, undermine civic or civil society, create an "other" that can be attacked, create a pretext for war or social unrest or vigilantism etc.
I don't think people who believe in Bigfoot really fit the pattern. Nor do Flat-Earthers. Though this kind of belief is an indicator of the kind of credulity that led to the huge traction gained by the Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate story and the current omniconspiracy of antivax/QAnon/stolen election/5G/Great Reset/Schwab/Soros/Gates Foundation etc.
Jones was not a problem for all these platforms for many years, until recent events.
I think he's always been a problem (his Sandy Hook crisis actor lies got him into at least a little difficulty with the platforms) but his problematic nature has always fit within free speech, because he generally knows how to dial it back just inside those boundaries.
Likewise with David Icke or the more self-limiting lunacy of Kate Shemirani; these people it's better not to worry about.
Rudy Giuliani or MTG? Maybe worth worrying about because they can tip things over into riots.
Likewise with David Icke or the more self-limiting lunacy of Kate Shemirani; these people it's better not to worry about.
Rudy Giuliani or MTG? Maybe worth worrying about because they can tip things over into riots.
No (and it wasn't my intent to suggest that).
My initial instinct was in fact to say "yes, things are faster".
But then thinking about it, what struck me as interesting is that things that feel recent, in my head, like QAnon, are rooted in manufactured falsehoods that are already six and a half years old. So it's not necessarily the case.
It might be more interesting in some ways that QAnon hasn't already started a war. Though I genuinely see no particular reason why a conspiracy theory of its type could not; it's not that difficult to imagine in the context of human history.
My initial instinct was in fact to say "yes, things are faster".
But then thinking about it, what struck me as interesting is that things that feel recent, in my head, like QAnon, are rooted in manufactured falsehoods that are already six and a half years old. So it's not necessarily the case.
It might be more interesting in some ways that QAnon hasn't already started a war. Though I genuinely see no particular reason why a conspiracy theory of its type could not; it's not that difficult to imagine in the context of human history.
An important measure of "misinformation" is who benefits if the information is actually true or false. Also valuable to identify who has the financial capacity to influence the sources of "truth".
The only rational position that fits the observables is defaulting to the assumption that everything one sees in the “news” that one can’t personally verify is misinformation to some greater or lesser extent. This means that, for instance, I generally believe that local weather and traffic reports are accurate.
Sadly, the Gell-Man amnesia effect means that most people will continue to believe whatever nonsense it is that they’re currently being told.
Sadly, the Gell-Man amnesia effect means that most people will continue to believe whatever nonsense it is that they’re currently being told.
Once misinformation becomes accepted as truth, or a valid mindset even, it doesn't stand out as blatant falsehood. Questioning whether 1 + 2 is actually 3 or a secret way to hide the true meaning of pi is akin to a dog chasing its tail to excercise his brain.
Nobody feels the need to label you as misinformation when you go around saying 1+1=3. They will simply know you’re a cuckoo and ignore you. The misinformation label seems to only get applied to information that could be harmful to a political party
Take the "flat earth" people. What they say is factually wrong. But there isn't a flat-earthist political party that wants to change our military deployments because our current deployments are based on a false topology of the planet, or change our immigration policy because Central America doesn't actually connect to Mexico, or something like that. There's no political agenda that flows out of the flat earth nonsense. That's what makes it "nonsense" rather than "misinformation".
On the other end of the scale, there is "disinformation". That's where someone is deliberately and systematically trying to persuade you do believe what is false, in order for them to carry out their agenda. Russia has been running a disinformation campaign against the US for several years. (On both sides - trying to drive extremism and destroy the political center, in order to weaken the US.) One could say that both major political parties in the US are also running disinformation campaigns.
"Misinformation" is kind of in the middle, in my view. It's not necessarily part of a large-scale organized campaign, but it's not just a nonsense belief with no consequences. So people care about misinformation in a way that they don't care about the flat earthers, because misinformation can cause more harm.
But people don't seem to take as seriously as they should the damage that long-running, coordinated disinformation campaigns can cause (and, in fact, are causing).
On the other end of the scale, there is "disinformation". That's where someone is deliberately and systematically trying to persuade you do believe what is false, in order for them to carry out their agenda. Russia has been running a disinformation campaign against the US for several years. (On both sides - trying to drive extremism and destroy the political center, in order to weaken the US.) One could say that both major political parties in the US are also running disinformation campaigns.
"Misinformation" is kind of in the middle, in my view. It's not necessarily part of a large-scale organized campaign, but it's not just a nonsense belief with no consequences. So people care about misinformation in a way that they don't care about the flat earthers, because misinformation can cause more harm.
But people don't seem to take as seriously as they should the damage that long-running, coordinated disinformation campaigns can cause (and, in fact, are causing).
I am genuinely surprised at the comments in this thread. This article starts "That said, I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about", which is immediately making this a partisan issue.
Secondly: "The internet makes me better informed". This is his perspective. Many people are not actively looking for information outside of their own biases. Thirdly: "Cranks often know a lot"... Should be titled "Cranks often think they know a lot". Just because someone can state a fact does not mean they are sufficiently educated to analyze that fact. Saying that there are "vaccine side-effects" (stated in the article) does not mean that Joe Rogan is able to weight the information in totality with other information from the studies. After this, the article got into a bunch of "whataboutism" and doesn't really compel me to believe that misinformation is not a problem. I agree with polarization getting worse, but could that be a symptom/signal of misinformation, is there a cause/effect relationship?
My thoughts:
There are multiple categories of false information spreading on the internet right now. I honestly believe that there is manipulation of the public happening on all sides of this problem, the thing that is still unclear is whether there is a coordinated source of this manipulation or if it is organic.
I disagree pretty strongly with the "misinformation problem" being misinformation. Anecdotally (yes, I know it's not scientific but it is the same information the author is giving) the amount of things shared on social media that are demonstrably wrong has increased over the past couple of years. There are people who truly believe that Trump was going to rally the military on January 20th or whatever date to "take back the white house". This got shared to numerous social media sites and was reposted that the "true president" was coming back. This is one explicit example, but similar things have been popping up for the past couple of years and spreading like wildfire. 5G vaccines, QAnon, flat earth, and many other fringe movements exist and ARE misinformation, the questions is how broad these movements are.
If you claim that misinformation is just "information that is partisan" or "wrongthink" I would urge you to dig further into some real, damaging examples. I think there are times when the term is weaponized, but there is a serious increase in how easy it is to spread words in this day and age. The internet, social media upvotes and shares, and other technological tooling has made the problem worse by letting people feel validated by opinions and "likeableness" of something versus things based in facts.
Real people are dying because of perpetuated information on social media and "news" outlets. Yes I understand that "individualism" should let them decide whether to make that choice, but there is a public health issue here when people are basing that choice off of Facebook memes and shared content that has no basis and gets 100k shares because it sounds cool.
Secondly: "The internet makes me better informed". This is his perspective. Many people are not actively looking for information outside of their own biases. Thirdly: "Cranks often know a lot"... Should be titled "Cranks often think they know a lot". Just because someone can state a fact does not mean they are sufficiently educated to analyze that fact. Saying that there are "vaccine side-effects" (stated in the article) does not mean that Joe Rogan is able to weight the information in totality with other information from the studies. After this, the article got into a bunch of "whataboutism" and doesn't really compel me to believe that misinformation is not a problem. I agree with polarization getting worse, but could that be a symptom/signal of misinformation, is there a cause/effect relationship?
My thoughts:
There are multiple categories of false information spreading on the internet right now. I honestly believe that there is manipulation of the public happening on all sides of this problem, the thing that is still unclear is whether there is a coordinated source of this manipulation or if it is organic.
I disagree pretty strongly with the "misinformation problem" being misinformation. Anecdotally (yes, I know it's not scientific but it is the same information the author is giving) the amount of things shared on social media that are demonstrably wrong has increased over the past couple of years. There are people who truly believe that Trump was going to rally the military on January 20th or whatever date to "take back the white house". This got shared to numerous social media sites and was reposted that the "true president" was coming back. This is one explicit example, but similar things have been popping up for the past couple of years and spreading like wildfire. 5G vaccines, QAnon, flat earth, and many other fringe movements exist and ARE misinformation, the questions is how broad these movements are.
If you claim that misinformation is just "information that is partisan" or "wrongthink" I would urge you to dig further into some real, damaging examples. I think there are times when the term is weaponized, but there is a serious increase in how easy it is to spread words in this day and age. The internet, social media upvotes and shares, and other technological tooling has made the problem worse by letting people feel validated by opinions and "likeableness" of something versus things based in facts.
Real people are dying because of perpetuated information on social media and "news" outlets. Yes I understand that "individualism" should let them decide whether to make that choice, but there is a public health issue here when people are basing that choice off of Facebook memes and shared content that has no basis and gets 100k shares because it sounds cool.
> 5G vaccines, QAnon, flat earth, and many other fringe movements exist and ARE misinformation, the questions is how broad these movements are.
I do wonder how many people are in these movements. It kind of reminds me of the Westboro Baptist Church who succeeded in getting themselves a ton of media attention despite being ~70 people. I think Qanon is probably a couple orders of magnitude bigger than the WBC but I would be surprised if the core following exceeds 100,000 people in the US.
I personally believe these things are more a manifestation of underlying mental illness than anything else and if you somehow pushed a magic button to delete all traces of Qanon from the public consciousness they would immediately become sovereign citizens or Holocaust deniers or something (if, indeed, they aren't already). If someone's in Qanon or a Flat Earther it's not because they didn't read the Snopes article debunking Pizzagate or that they didn't understand how the Foucault pendulum works.
I don't think this can be fixed with better information. These people are not well and they need psychiatric help.
I do wonder how many people are in these movements. It kind of reminds me of the Westboro Baptist Church who succeeded in getting themselves a ton of media attention despite being ~70 people. I think Qanon is probably a couple orders of magnitude bigger than the WBC but I would be surprised if the core following exceeds 100,000 people in the US.
I personally believe these things are more a manifestation of underlying mental illness than anything else and if you somehow pushed a magic button to delete all traces of Qanon from the public consciousness they would immediately become sovereign citizens or Holocaust deniers or something (if, indeed, they aren't already). If someone's in Qanon or a Flat Earther it's not because they didn't read the Snopes article debunking Pizzagate or that they didn't understand how the Foucault pendulum works.
I don't think this can be fixed with better information. These people are not well and they need psychiatric help.
"Real people are dying because of perpetuated information on social media and "news" outlets."
You mean those about covid or vaccines? What exactly is wrong to let people choose? Why you think that what is best for you should be best for others?
You mean those about covid or vaccines? What exactly is wrong to let people choose? Why you think that what is best for you should be best for others?
Nothing is wrong with letting people choose, forcing incorrect information to people... that is wrong.
Define incorrect information. You have always possibility to believe that info or not. Bad for relationship with people is thinking that I know best and others know wrong and incorrect.
Misinformation is just due to people and organizations attempting to act optimally. If you don't embrace it, you'll be crushed by those who have.
So true. Misinformation is a misnomer, it's not something that exists in opposition of information and shouldn't be compared. Like you say misinformation is something people use to achieve their goals.
I find it odd that nobody seems to mention the similarities between all this and religion. Widespread belief in things that can't possibly be true. Adherents can't be persuaded otherwise despite incontrovertible evidence. Sounds familiar? Perhaps it's baked into the firmware.
There have been endless comparisons of Trumpism to a cult, which at first seemed a bit extreme until we saw tens of millions of Americans believe more and more fantastical lies over the course of the last 5 years. Now, I can't imagine how we can describe it as anything other than a cult.
That would be odd, if nobody mentioned it.
[deleted]
Misinformation is misinformation. I am certain I am misinformed about many things. The correct response to when I post misinformation is to inform.
What happened recently with the move to yellow journalism is not misinformation but rather censorship. Fact checkers end up labelling things in order to censor them.
The interesting thing on my mind in regards to Canada. Trudeau has changed. He would take on people head on at town halls and challenging questions: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trudeau-takes-questions-about-...
Today he refuses to even consider talking to these ongoing protests and is going to insane extremes to shut these peaceful protests down. The only way to look at it from his point of view. He must see these people as national security threats. He genuinely believes they are racists and white supremacists. He genuinely believes they are there to overthrow the government.
Which there's no justification for other than egregiously being misinformed.
What happened recently with the move to yellow journalism is not misinformation but rather censorship. Fact checkers end up labelling things in order to censor them.
The interesting thing on my mind in regards to Canada. Trudeau has changed. He would take on people head on at town halls and challenging questions: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trudeau-takes-questions-about-...
Today he refuses to even consider talking to these ongoing protests and is going to insane extremes to shut these peaceful protests down. The only way to look at it from his point of view. He must see these people as national security threats. He genuinely believes they are racists and white supremacists. He genuinely believes they are there to overthrow the government.
Which there's no justification for other than egregiously being misinformed.
I hadn't thought about it that way, but it certainly would explain his actions. You don't compromise with nazis. If you're convinced that's what they are.
This would explain a lot about Trump too. He was in a misinformation bubble as well.
Which means even world leaders aren't immune to this tribal trap.
This would explain a lot about Trump too. He was in a misinformation bubble as well.
Which means even world leaders aren't immune to this tribal trap.
I don't think that Trump was in a misinformation bubble. Trump was in the bubble of his own narcissistic ego. Things were "true" or "false" based on how they made Trump look. Anything that threw any kind of a negative light on him was "false".
The same was true of people. People were either "the greatest" or "losers" depending on whether the last thing they said made Trump look good or not.
Trump was creating a lot of misinformation, but it wasn't because he was misinformed (at least not primarily). It was because he cared more for his image (and, I suspect, his own image of himself) rather than reality. Facts didn't matter, only image did.
The same was true of people. People were either "the greatest" or "losers" depending on whether the last thing they said made Trump look good or not.
Trump was creating a lot of misinformation, but it wasn't because he was misinformed (at least not primarily). It was because he cared more for his image (and, I suspect, his own image of himself) rather than reality. Facts didn't matter, only image did.
>I hadn't thought about it that way, but it certainly would explain his actions. You don't compromise with nazis after all.
The question though, are these protests really what he has called them? Are they really a military occupation?
>This would explain a lot about Trump too. He was in a misinformation bubble as well.
100% true. You will find even republican ideologues have called him out on many of his bullshit things. Hell his rhetoric was toxic. Tons of improvement could happen over Trump.
>Which means even world leaders aren't immune to this tribal trap.
It's built into our psychology, but not something out of control. Harper was in power for 9 years and never called in the military. He never demonized his political opponents. He never falsely labelled a peaceful protest as a military occupation. He never smeared political opponents as 'racists and white nationalists with unacceptable views'. He never declared a state of emergency to crush dissent.
Trudeau doesn't need the military. He gave himself to power to seize your bank account because you're a protester. No court orders. No due process.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said at Monday's news conference that banks would be able freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests without any need for a court order.
The question though, are these protests really what he has called them? Are they really a military occupation?
>This would explain a lot about Trump too. He was in a misinformation bubble as well.
100% true. You will find even republican ideologues have called him out on many of his bullshit things. Hell his rhetoric was toxic. Tons of improvement could happen over Trump.
>Which means even world leaders aren't immune to this tribal trap.
It's built into our psychology, but not something out of control. Harper was in power for 9 years and never called in the military. He never demonized his political opponents. He never falsely labelled a peaceful protest as a military occupation. He never smeared political opponents as 'racists and white nationalists with unacceptable views'. He never declared a state of emergency to crush dissent.
Trudeau doesn't need the military. He gave himself to power to seize your bank account because you're a protester. No court orders. No due process.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said at Monday's news conference that banks would be able freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests without any need for a court order.
> The question though, are these protests really what he has called them? Are they really a military occupation?
Definitely not. Every large scale protest has its provocateurs and outliers. Using the outliers to frame the 99% is dishonest to say the least.
To any neutral observer they are overwhelmingly peaceful and represent the working class.
Definitely not. Every large scale protest has its provocateurs and outliers. Using the outliers to frame the 99% is dishonest to say the least.
To any neutral observer they are overwhelmingly peaceful and represent the working class.
>To any neutral observer they are overwhelmingly peaceful and represent normal working class people.
This isn't a neutral observation. "overwhelmingly peaceful and represent normal working class people" exposes a politically-motivated bias.
This isn't a neutral observation. "overwhelmingly peaceful and represent normal working class people" exposes a politically-motivated bias.
Does it?
To a neutral observer the BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful and represent the administrative class.
To a neutral observer the trucker protests were overwhelmingly peaceful and represent the working class.
To a neutral observer the BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful and represent the administrative class.
To a neutral observer the trucker protests were overwhelmingly peaceful and represent the working class.
Setting aside that no one would attempt to use the term "overwhelmingly peaceful" in a politically neutral matter nowadays unless they were completely naive (it would be like saying "think of the children" in the context of actually arguing for considering childrens' welfare) the word you omitted from the last sentence ("normal") is where the bias comes into play. "Normal" in that case carries the implication that working class people as a whole agree (or should agree) with the protestors, or that anyone who disagrees with them isn't legitimately a member of the working class.
More accurately, the protests (both of the truckers and BLM) represent more narrowly defined set of political prinicples than the beliefs of more general classes, which tend not to be as homogeneous in their views as is often portrayed.
More accurately, the protests (both of the truckers and BLM) represent more narrowly defined set of political prinicples than the beliefs of more general classes, which tend not to be as homogeneous in their views as is often portrayed.
In my opinion, the campaigns against "misinformation" are largely attempts by big corporations and politicians to deplatform their competition.
Gotta make sure people only see trusted news sources that say the right things.
Gotta make sure people only see trusted news sources that say the right things.
And IMO they're largely attempts to keep Coca Cola Inc (et al) from pulling their ads because Coke doesn't want their brand on sites posting QAnon/GOP talking points.
It is important to remember that the media seems to only call out "misinformation" when it is from sources that threaten their market, Have you seen any apology for their failure to uncover the lies that got us into needless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I am very selective in my trust of media these days. I don't want to be lead into collective insanity any more.
I am very selective in my trust of media these days. I don't want to be lead into collective insanity any more.
Have you noticed that people that label a position or argument misinformation never want to have a discussion about it? The pattern always seems to be:
1. Call something misinformation 2. Ignore any counter claims (so they cannot be proven wrong on the record) 3. Call for others to "cancel" it (use power in numbers to perpetuate misinfo claim)
1. Call something misinformation 2. Ignore any counter claims (so they cannot be proven wrong on the record) 3. Call for others to "cancel" it (use power in numbers to perpetuate misinfo claim)
One of the worst example that I bring (unfortunately) in my mind, was from like mid-pandemic, when people around was complaining due to newspapers (in that occasion, the BBC in particular), for spreading misinformation.. and you know why they were spreading misinformation? Because they were supporting the right of chronicles by reporting about protests against coronavirus lockdown protests... this was the spreading of misinformation, newspaper should not report things that are happening but are wrong for wokes, they should only report things that they like, even if what they don't like happened and makes news
> things that are happening but are wrong for wokes
I'll admit that I found parsing the whole comment rather difficult so I may have missed something, but what are "wokes"?
I'll admit that I found parsing the whole comment rather difficult so I may have missed something, but what are "wokes"?
I am not sure, english is not my mother tongue so I might have written something in a non-understandable way, if there's something that I might have written better let me know if you want. As for wokes -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
OK, thank you for clarifying.
So "wokes" are people who are 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination'.
> newspaper should not report things that are happening but are wrong for wokes, they should only report things that they like, even if what they don't like happened and makes news
So what have "wokes" got to do with anything? They are just people who aren't racist, right?
Again, maybe I have misunderstood.
So "wokes" are people who are 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination'.
> newspaper should not report things that are happening but are wrong for wokes, they should only report things that they like, even if what they don't like happened and makes news
So what have "wokes" got to do with anything? They are just people who aren't racist, right?
Again, maybe I have misunderstood.
It isn't just that they're alert to it, they're hyper alert to it. They even see it where it doesn't exist, and they "white knight" for it, trying to prevent people from giving offense even if nobody is actually offended.
They take "being a good person" so far that they make life hard for others instead.
The root of their beliefs is good: All people are worthy of respect and shouldn't be judged based on things out of their control.
But the lengths they go for that is just too much. They often refuse to even consider that there may be other factors that need to be taken into account as well and shout down everything that doesn't align with their view.
That makes it hard to fight against them. They've set themselves up to be seen as always being in the right, but because they refuse to have nuance, they often aren't.
They take "being a good person" so far that they make life hard for others instead.
The root of their beliefs is good: All people are worthy of respect and shouldn't be judged based on things out of their control.
But the lengths they go for that is just too much. They often refuse to even consider that there may be other factors that need to be taken into account as well and shout down everything that doesn't align with their view.
That makes it hard to fight against them. They've set themselves up to be seen as always being in the right, but because they refuse to have nuance, they often aren't.
Can you give an example, please? ("They take "being a good person" so far that they make life hard for others instead.", for example is a bit vague - that could apply to pious Christians, you're not against Christians, are you?)
It feels like you're being disingenuous. If you've spent time on HN and other forums, I have a hard time believing you don't understand the terminology he's using. It's especially pernicious, because the OP is not a native English speaker, and so he may believe he's actually being difficult to understand, when he's really not.
I don't think so. I'm just stuggling to see why being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination is bad thing. If you would like to explain why it is, please do.
This disingenuous line of argument is reminiscent of Antifa greenwashing that was common a few years ago. Feign ignorance, pretend you have no idea what kind of people identify as Antifa, and then ask "Isn't fascism bad? So why is it bad to be anti-fascist?"
...while Antifa is literally burning down cars and shops indiscriminately...
...while Antifa is literally burning down cars and shops indiscriminately...
What is disingenuous about saying that the literal definition of woke seems like a good thing?
I said nothing about Antifa - why are you creating a straw man? Stick to woke.
If you would like to propose a new term that encompases the original defintion of woke and something else then feel free - hyer-woke, or something. Why do you want to change the defintion of words?
And, are you a fascist?
I said nothing about Antifa - why are you creating a straw man? Stick to woke.
If you would like to propose a new term that encompases the original defintion of woke and something else then feel free - hyer-woke, or something. Why do you want to change the defintion of words?
And, are you a fascist?
> What is disingenuous about saying that the literal definition of woke seems like a good thing?
You're pretending to be wholly unfamiliar with the subject of culture wars, when in reality you are very familiar with them. That's disingenuous. The other poster seemed to have endless patience with you pretending "not to understand" and "not know" things which you know and understand perfectly well.
I don't know why you can't just stand up straight and argue for the things you believe in, instead of trying to play some mind games, lying and cheating? If your cause is worthy and your arguments are good, then surely you can achieve your goals without resorting to lies?
You're pretending to be wholly unfamiliar with the subject of culture wars, when in reality you are very familiar with them. That's disingenuous. The other poster seemed to have endless patience with you pretending "not to understand" and "not know" things which you know and understand perfectly well.
I don't know why you can't just stand up straight and argue for the things you believe in, instead of trying to play some mind games, lying and cheating? If your cause is worthy and your arguments are good, then surely you can achieve your goals without resorting to lies?
I really am genuinely trying to understand how woke has become the bogeyman du nos jour. It's become a hysteria - say something is woke and you ascribe some mythical attributes to it that cause people to fall into paroxisms.
Same as a bunch of strange crazes that have cropped up over the years; witch trials, spanish inquisition, mccarthayism, 80s satanic child-abuse.
Say something or someone is woke and it's like yelling "communist" in the 50s.
It's a fantastic distraction mechanism for anyone wishing to deploy it and I'm just staggered that seemingly intelligent people go into a Pavlov's dog response as soon as they hear it.
The amazing thing what I've found is practially no-one can actually put into words what they think it means.
Same as a bunch of strange crazes that have cropped up over the years; witch trials, spanish inquisition, mccarthayism, 80s satanic child-abuse.
Say something or someone is woke and it's like yelling "communist" in the 50s.
It's a fantastic distraction mechanism for anyone wishing to deploy it and I'm just staggered that seemingly intelligent people go into a Pavlov's dog response as soon as they hear it.
The amazing thing what I've found is practially no-one can actually put into words what they think it means.
Not the OP, but "holier than thou" is not a positive human type.
Neither is it exclusive to the woke, or anyone else.
What I would really like to see is a concrete example, which so far everyone has declined to give. It's customary to provide some actual evidence to back up claims.
"Your honor, the defendant killed the victim in cold blood"
"I see, proceed with your evidence"
"Meh, go find it for yourself."
What I would really like to see is a concrete example, which so far everyone has declined to give. It's customary to provide some actual evidence to back up claims.
"Your honor, the defendant killed the victim in cold blood"
"I see, proceed with your evidence"
"Meh, go find it for yourself."
But the judge, the prosecutor and the lawyers are all paid to give the judge stuff, we're here having a conversation, but I am not sure what kind of proof do you want and what should we do, like it's not that newspapers write article about wokes being wokes, just maybe go around on twitter or go on twitter and write something controversial like "#FuckBLM" and see what comes at you, not sure what do you want
or I mean I know what do you want, but don't know how long do you want me to reply to you, or others, like I am very patient in conversations, but I feel like don quixote and as a non native speaker I feel like you're misunderstanding what I say, genuinely or not, I guess someone here thinks not, but I think I am done, its been a few hours, you've been told things, you've been given links, and now I think it's time for you to go to explore the world by yourself... fly free
or I mean I know what do you want, but don't know how long do you want me to reply to you, or others, like I am very patient in conversations, but I feel like don quixote and as a non native speaker I feel like you're misunderstanding what I say, genuinely or not, I guess someone here thinks not, but I think I am done, its been a few hours, you've been told things, you've been given links, and now I think it's time for you to go to explore the world by yourself... fly free
But why would I go onto Twitter and say that, unless I was a massive racist?
And why, as a doughty protector of free speech would I not be perfectly fine with anyone using their own right of freedom of speech to reply to me? Robustly.
Is it just that you want freedom without consequences? Because you're a racist? No accusing - just "asking questions".
You gave me one link - to Wikipedia, which you then seem to have an issue with the definition provided therein. And no examples. Still no examples.
Here's a link for you - about the most sensible thing I can find about woke from Oliver Dowden, Chairman of the UK Conservative party who has been talking to right wing "think tanks" (lobbying groups) in the US this week. Well, actually not him, but it might as well be. I particularly like the bit where he refuses to define what woke is - seems to be all the range. Enjoy:
https://twitter.com/mattgreencomedy/status/14936111188996956...
And why, as a doughty protector of free speech would I not be perfectly fine with anyone using their own right of freedom of speech to reply to me? Robustly.
Is it just that you want freedom without consequences? Because you're a racist? No accusing - just "asking questions".
You gave me one link - to Wikipedia, which you then seem to have an issue with the definition provided therein. And no examples. Still no examples.
Here's a link for you - about the most sensible thing I can find about woke from Oliver Dowden, Chairman of the UK Conservative party who has been talking to right wing "think tanks" (lobbying groups) in the US this week. Well, actually not him, but it might as well be. I particularly like the bit where he refuses to define what woke is - seems to be all the range. Enjoy:
https://twitter.com/mattgreencomedy/status/14936111188996956...
Ok, I'll bite. Google "Grievance studies affair". It provides a chilling look into how wokes are corrupting science in order to advance their political agenda. Is this example sufficient for you?
OK. So what better way to hightlight the corrupting of science than by citing an unethical experiment that ignores all the rules of science?!
This is a bit like the group at MIT sending deliberately vulnerable patches into the linux kernel. It doesn't indiate that the reviewer is malicious, just that the peer review process is lacking. Clearly the papers are obvious spoofs - I doubt that they were read. This is why you need the control group.
I think that it's common knowledge that there is a bit of a crisis with peer review and reproducibility in science in general, and humanities/social science in particular. If sure that the follow-up studies which were properly conducted and controlled will confirm your suspicions. There are properly conducted follow-up studies, right? Right?
I shouldn't be churlish though; let's put prank papers about, eg., <checks notes> butt-plugs, on the board for now. Lord know's it the only thing we have so far.
If this is what keeps you up at night, rather than, say, a president who lost a democratic election whipping up a violent mob which stormed the seat of goverment in an insurrection and called for the hanging of the vice-president, then maybe have a rethink.
It's a bit disappointing, though. I've been promised supression of news stories, people being banned, censored, fired, muted, offed from platforms, the end of freedom of speech, killing, incarceration (I can provide quotes). This is pretty weak sauce by comparison.
The whole thing just smacks of McCarthayism, or the satanic child-abuse hysteria of the 80s.
No doubt that there is a kook somewhere demanding paid hibernation leave for Furries, or some such nonsense, but if you claim that a weird outlier is actually representative of reality will have you finding reds under the bed everwhere and grotesque caricatures of "woke" in every wallpaper pattern you see. It is hysteria.
You may have hit on something about "their political agenda", though - that sounds like something which we should be able to enumerate, perhaps providing us wih a summary of the woke ideology that we hear about. Perhaps then we can synthesize a revisionist definition of "woke"?
So, political agenda - what do "they" want? Shoot!
This is a bit like the group at MIT sending deliberately vulnerable patches into the linux kernel. It doesn't indiate that the reviewer is malicious, just that the peer review process is lacking. Clearly the papers are obvious spoofs - I doubt that they were read. This is why you need the control group.
I think that it's common knowledge that there is a bit of a crisis with peer review and reproducibility in science in general, and humanities/social science in particular. If sure that the follow-up studies which were properly conducted and controlled will confirm your suspicions. There are properly conducted follow-up studies, right? Right?
I shouldn't be churlish though; let's put prank papers about, eg., <checks notes> butt-plugs, on the board for now. Lord know's it the only thing we have so far.
If this is what keeps you up at night, rather than, say, a president who lost a democratic election whipping up a violent mob which stormed the seat of goverment in an insurrection and called for the hanging of the vice-president, then maybe have a rethink.
It's a bit disappointing, though. I've been promised supression of news stories, people being banned, censored, fired, muted, offed from platforms, the end of freedom of speech, killing, incarceration (I can provide quotes). This is pretty weak sauce by comparison.
The whole thing just smacks of McCarthayism, or the satanic child-abuse hysteria of the 80s.
No doubt that there is a kook somewhere demanding paid hibernation leave for Furries, or some such nonsense, but if you claim that a weird outlier is actually representative of reality will have you finding reds under the bed everwhere and grotesque caricatures of "woke" in every wallpaper pattern you see. It is hysteria.
You may have hit on something about "their political agenda", though - that sounds like something which we should be able to enumerate, perhaps providing us wih a summary of the woke ideology that we hear about. Perhaps then we can synthesize a revisionist definition of "woke"?
So, political agenda - what do "they" want? Shoot!
There's no "bite" - it's just a genuine question.
Thank you for providing literally the first response with a concrete example.
I shall have a read - its late here and I have to bed down shortly.
Certainly a poor peer review system is an issue that should be addressed.
Also rather worrying is the unethical nature of submitting bogus research, not getting informed consent from those being experimented on and the lack of a control group.
Is this the best example you have?
Thank you for providing literally the first response with a concrete example.
I shall have a read - its late here and I have to bed down shortly.
Certainly a poor peer review system is an issue that should be addressed.
Also rather worrying is the unethical nature of submitting bogus research, not getting informed consent from those being experimented on and the lack of a control group.
Is this the best example you have?
It is not exclusive to the woke, no.
"I am a better parent / patriot / Christian / anti-racist / Aryan / communist / whatever than you." seems to be remarkably universal. Some people just love to create ladders of virtue and vice.
But at certain times, one of those prevails. IDK if you were alive immediately after 9/11. That was a period of unabashed jingoism. Now, 20 years later, this fever has long subsided, but there is a wave of wokism now. In 2042, there will be something different, but people generally react to contemporary trends.
"I am a better parent / patriot / Christian / anti-racist / Aryan / communist / whatever than you." seems to be remarkably universal. Some people just love to create ladders of virtue and vice.
But at certain times, one of those prevails. IDK if you were alive immediately after 9/11. That was a period of unabashed jingoism. Now, 20 years later, this fever has long subsided, but there is a wave of wokism now. In 2042, there will be something different, but people generally react to contemporary trends.
Indeed. And alive immmediately before 9/11. And in the 90s, and the 80s. And the 70s.
Jingoism subsided? Really? MAGA, America First, The BNP, Britain First. Its really not gone away.
And surely an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding is to be welcomed. Unless your definition of woke is something else - no-one who is "anti-woke" will actually tell me what they think it means, just vague insinuations that "they do x" with no concrete examples.
Jingoism subsided? Really? MAGA, America First, The BNP, Britain First. Its really not gone away.
And surely an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding is to be welcomed. Unless your definition of woke is something else - no-one who is "anti-woke" will actually tell me what they think it means, just vague insinuations that "they do x" with no concrete examples.
Compared to levels of 2001-2003, the jingoism knob was definitely turned down. Even the popularity of "America first" is an indication thereof: people are no longer interested in forcible export of democracy and American power abroad. The Zeitgeist of the Bush era was one of empire building. The Zeitgeist of the current era is one of de-globalization. This is a huge difference. The former one was certainly more bloody.
As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?)
Tell me how destroying an old man's career over a 33 years old article [1] can be labeled as an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding.
Or running a Twitter death gauntlet on a random Mexican driver [2].
These incidents embody "wokeness" to me, not a nicely sounding definition that was constructed to make the movement look better than it actually is.
You seem to put a lot of trust into nicely sounding definitions. Always look at practice: do those people practice what they preach?
Anyone can put together nicely sounding definitions and theories. In theory (= the Constitution), the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, where I grew up, had solid protections of personal freedoms and human rights. In practice, it didn't. It was a totalitarian state that just didn't want to state "we rule you and we will crush any dissent" in writing.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation-idUSKB...
[2] https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...
As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?)
Tell me how destroying an old man's career over a 33 years old article [1] can be labeled as an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding.
Or running a Twitter death gauntlet on a random Mexican driver [2].
These incidents embody "wokeness" to me, not a nicely sounding definition that was constructed to make the movement look better than it actually is.
You seem to put a lot of trust into nicely sounding definitions. Always look at practice: do those people practice what they preach?
Anyone can put together nicely sounding definitions and theories. In theory (= the Constitution), the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, where I grew up, had solid protections of personal freedoms and human rights. In practice, it didn't. It was a totalitarian state that just didn't want to state "we rule you and we will crush any dissent" in writing.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation-idUSKB...
[2] https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...
OK, I dont think that I concur with your taking of the temperature of jingoism - cerainly here, but different countries maybe.
> As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?)
Because practially everyone I know, I would not consider "anti-woke". They are reasonable, not vindictive, anti-racist, feminist. I don't know if they would consider themselves woke, but certainly anyone who deploys woke as a pejorative would consider them woke. Woke has become the go-to term to demonise anything that you disagree with. the right wing headbangers in the UK will refer to our PM as woke. He really is not woke. At all. He literally has ministers out waging a "war on woke". It's a meaningless culture wars smoke screen to distract from the latest scandals and incompetence.
If you are a comms director and you become the story, it's generally accepted that you resign. He wasn't fired. Given that the role is now vacant again for the fourth time in three years it suggests that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Given the 737 MAX crisis I would not be at all suprised if he was looking for a way out anyway.
More sympathy for the driver. Seems like a conditional warning ("if you did do it for that reason we take a dim view - please don't do it again for any reason") would have been more than sufficient. Of course, I'm sure that you'll agree that better employment rights for US workers would help to prevent summary dismissals like this, which can happen any time for any reason.
> As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?)
Because practially everyone I know, I would not consider "anti-woke". They are reasonable, not vindictive, anti-racist, feminist. I don't know if they would consider themselves woke, but certainly anyone who deploys woke as a pejorative would consider them woke. Woke has become the go-to term to demonise anything that you disagree with. the right wing headbangers in the UK will refer to our PM as woke. He really is not woke. At all. He literally has ministers out waging a "war on woke". It's a meaningless culture wars smoke screen to distract from the latest scandals and incompetence.
If you are a comms director and you become the story, it's generally accepted that you resign. He wasn't fired. Given that the role is now vacant again for the fourth time in three years it suggests that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Given the 737 MAX crisis I would not be at all suprised if he was looking for a way out anyway.
More sympathy for the driver. Seems like a conditional warning ("if you did do it for that reason we take a dim view - please don't do it again for any reason") would have been more than sufficient. Of course, I'm sure that you'll agree that better employment rights for US workers would help to prevent summary dismissals like this, which can happen any time for any reason.
Yeah that was the starting point of the culture, and I think it's a start in order to get more documented about what they've grown into and how, so yeah they're those against racism and the likes but are also those who went against newspapers reporting news that they didn't like as written in my post
OK, I'm still a little unclear - can you give me a concrete example of a such a news story?
And, perhaps to clarify further, do you consider yourself woke, or anti-woke?
And, perhaps to clarify further, do you consider yourself woke, or anti-woke?
I am an anti-woke, but also gave you a starting point which explains what woke is (or was?), but I'm afraid what I wrote is not something I can link, as I wrote it was middle pandemic and going back to find posts from back then is a bit time consuming for me, then you can believe it or not, that's your choice, but I am not sure what should I do here, I guess for in depth research you can also go around the web yourself and find posts about them, last suggestion would be to look for "Woke regime"
feurio(2)
this piece encapsulates the mindset of mainstream libs like Matty, 1 billion stupid takes, Yglesias perfectly and can be summarized as "yeah maybe these normal people were right on some things and I dismissed that without knowing anything, but I was still right to dismiss that because they're stupid".
it's now safe for Bari Weiss to ask some questions on TV that "normal people" have been asking for quite some time now and were called all sorts of things by the same people.
We will see more articles like this.
it's now safe for Bari Weiss to ask some questions on TV that "normal people" have been asking for quite some time now and were called all sorts of things by the same people.
We will see more articles like this.
Exactly. I loved how even in this piece he managed to sneak in some jabs at the people he doesn't like--he just didn't call them "misinformed." Progress!
"I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about. If anything, people seem to be better-informed than in the past"
I agree. Who has the truth? Government or media? Or neither?
What has become worse is the centralised control of information. Which then leads to those centralised sources complaining and publicising of the issue.
On the other side, you have governance structures that require the legacy media to support their messaging, as the govern the populace.
Both work hand in hand - one provides the message the other the megaphone. In the past 2 years, the government has bankrolled the largest campaign in history, and the media have been willing recipients.
Complaining about misinformation however, works for both parties - it provides a self-supporting justification their actions.
Truth and faithfully representing reality has very little to do with that "virtuous" circle between media and governance.
I agree. Who has the truth? Government or media? Or neither?
What has become worse is the centralised control of information. Which then leads to those centralised sources complaining and publicising of the issue.
On the other side, you have governance structures that require the legacy media to support their messaging, as the govern the populace.
Both work hand in hand - one provides the message the other the megaphone. In the past 2 years, the government has bankrolled the largest campaign in history, and the media have been willing recipients.
Complaining about misinformation however, works for both parties - it provides a self-supporting justification their actions.
Truth and faithfully representing reality has very little to do with that "virtuous" circle between media and governance.
> What has become worse is the centralised control of information. Which then leads to those centralised sources complaining and publicising of the issue.
It seems to me like the opposite is the case, there is much less centralization than there used to be. There does seem to be some emergent synchronization of opinions but that is not the same.
It seems to me like the opposite is the case, there is much less centralization than there used to be. There does seem to be some emergent synchronization of opinions but that is not the same.
I think that's what the GP means by centralized control becoming worse. That is, information is less centralized now, and the sources that used to be at the center are now complaining about the issue.
Oh ok yea that would make sense. Worse in the sense of less efficient.
To be honest, in Italy this issue was solved during ww-2 time, a bunch of commercial newspapers from far-left to right (we couldn't have far-right back then, of course :D, we still can't but people has forgot and so we have now, but they can't really read and write), created a cooperative called ANSA (https://www.ansa.it), that is no opionion, no controlling point of view, just facts as they happen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenzia_Nazionale_Stampa_Assoc...)
If you force Fox, CNBC, CNN to create an agency of news reporting where each one oversee the content created, in order to be as objective as possible, then I think the society in US would benefit
In Italy those newspapers do money by selling copies containing the premium content, which is like reports, opinion articles, more in depth opinion articles etc, which people is still interested in, but for news and facts then ANSA is the source of truth
If you force Fox, CNBC, CNN to create an agency of news reporting where each one oversee the content created, in order to be as objective as possible, then I think the society in US would benefit
In Italy those newspapers do money by selling copies containing the premium content, which is like reports, opinion articles, more in depth opinion articles etc, which people is still interested in, but for news and facts then ANSA is the source of truth
We do have the Associated Press (AP), which seems similar to what you describe. That said, even such sources can be guilty of ideological bias if they choose to report certain facts and not others. In practice, I think AP is pretty even-handed, but I think that is as much a result of their editorial process as it is of their focus on factual reporting over opinion/analysis.
Ah yeah I forgot that AP is American, it's my go-to place for non-italian news, yeah ok nevermind my reply then.. interesting the point you make about their bias, not being there and following the scenarios in person I can only read it from across the ocean so I didn't know that...
But Berlusconi's (finivest/mediaset) ownership of Il Giornale and 3 of 7 TV channels makes that all a little less relevant due to political manipulation, doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Silv...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/016344370936116...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Silv...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/016344370936116...
Yes and no, I would divide the news consumer between TV and written/paper/internet, Berlusconi is an issue because he controls a big chunk of TV easily accessible news content, but I am not sure how would you solve that, if a person wants to go to see news that match its point of view, then you can't force him not to, and if a TV has a lot of reality shows and entertainment and it mixes all of that with "news" program, then yeah he can kind of decide the weather, but yeah if you want un-opinionated news source you can at least have that, for what it's worth
But the scope of my reply was about "who owns the truth?" and yeah you need a place where people can go and check facts that are checked by peers of other point of view
I would tell you about my literature professor, he would walk around with multiple newspapers under his armpit and suggest that "If you want to try to get the truth you need to get the same fact from multiple point of view and try to get it in the middle"
But the scope of my reply was about "who owns the truth?" and yeah you need a place where people can go and check facts that are checked by peers of other point of view
I would tell you about my literature professor, he would walk around with multiple newspapers under his armpit and suggest that "If you want to try to get the truth you need to get the same fact from multiple point of view and try to get it in the middle"
This kind of framing makes me feel very weary. There is plenty of evidence, but I'm not interested in going on a hunt.
Rather, let's think for just one second about how to model this:
- The number of "bad actors" probably has not changed significantly over time
- The cost of producing documents has gone down significantly
- The cost of diffusing documents, or information, per audience headcount, has gone down significantly
- Overall, the total volume of sketchy information produced yearly has been dramatically increasing as a result of these lowering barriers.
- Conversely, the total volume of quality information has clearly increased as well.
- The technological tools at our disposal, as consumers of content, have become more and more sophisticated, such that we now have access to more quality information than ever before in History.
- However, consuming quality content requires constant deliberate effort and prudence, and it is much easier to stumble upon crappy information, than it is to find quality information.
- The less expert you are at a subject, the more energy is required to sift through the crap.
- Most people are either not expert at anything, or are expert in a narrow field of interest.
- Information no longer flows in the same way it once did: it now diffuses through a social graph which is prone to significant network effects. Non-experts can have a bigger influence than experts, even when the information they share is entirely meritless. Echo-chambers form naturally and require a lot of deliberate and conscious effort to get out from. It is very difficult to reach certain pockets of the graph.