[HN Gopher] Society has a trust problem. More censorship will on... ___________________________________________________________________ Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse Author : jashkenas Score : 108 points Date : 2022-01-26 21:26 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (on.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (on.substack.com) | umvi wrote: | One of my favorite quotes I read last year: "Covid is as much a | trust crisis as it is a health crisis" | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | This is one of the more important lessons about goodwill and | trust. It takes years to amass, but only a moment to squander. | AussieWog93 wrote: | Reading the comments here, I get the impression that a lot of | folks view censorship as a tool of oppression by those in power | and free speech as the shield against it. | | If the past 10 years have taught us anything, it's that both | "free speech" and censorship can be weaponised by those in power | who wish to manipulate the discourse for their own personal gain. | | If we want regular folks to have a greater say in public | discourse again, we need to strike a balance that limits the use | of both sides as tools of oppression. | | I'd personally be in favour of fines or other punishments for | deliberately or negligently propagating misinformation, assuming | that the decision was made by a jury and not an unelected body. | romseb wrote: | Can you elaborate on how free speech has been weaponised by | those in power? | AussieWog93 wrote: | By mass-publishing targeted misinformation backed by huge | organisations, then claiming that anyone trying to limit | their manipulation is undermining free speech. | rhaksw wrote: | Moderation should be fully reviewable. I made a site to do this | for reddit [1]. As of this hour, user pages [2] work best because | the archive service is down. Subreddit history pages [3], which | show where the community and mods have disagreed the most, also | still work. | | [1] https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq | | [2] https://www.reveddit.com/y/rhaksw | | [3] https://www.reveddit.com/v/worldnews/history | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | You could argue that it is just another stage in 'Escape from | Freedom'. I am going to simplify a lot here, but basically the | process goes something like this: | | -Things are hard; people fight and win some degree of autonomy | -Status quo sets in; people believe this is how it always will be | -Things get easy and people forget what freedom is -Things get | hard.. | 2457013579 wrote: | Sounds a lot like this saying that's been going around the last | few years: | | "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. | Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." | | Side tangent- I tried to find the author of that quote thinking | it has to be a 'wise man' of the past (given that it's not a | gender neutral statement), and it looks like that it's actually | from a post apocalyptic book from 2016 that soon after became a | meme. | | Source: https://www.slanglang.net/memes/hard-times-create- | strong-men... | skeptical2 wrote: | rootusrootus wrote: | As a little exercise, about once a day I take a pass through CNN | or NPR, and then another through Fox News. Just to get a high | level idea of what each side believes reality to be. It is | fascinating how little overlap there is. For the most part I | don't think people are really arguing with each other, they're | just arguing with a straw man they have constructed to represent | the opposition. | austincheney wrote: | I can empathize with this line of thinking but its incredibly | unimaginative. Censorship is a symptom of a larger problem and | users reliant upon something that intentionally abuses them, like | Facebook, is a different symptom of the same problem. To me that | larger problem is centralized information ownership and people | shouldn't trust it. | | This is the compelling motivator of decentralization. | | Decentralization isn't blockchain, web3, or whatever. Blockchain | is third party storage. | | In a decentralization scheme data resides at destinations. Nobody | owns it but the destinations. Nobody observes it but | destinations. There is no third party censorship. | | The only users that have to suffer third party censorship are | influencers and broadcasters who don't want decentralization. | zipswitch wrote: | >we allow people to sound what alarms they want and patrons to | decide for themselves what to pay attention to | | I think the above alteration throws the dilemma into a little | sharper relief. | | We live in a complex society which requires a degree of deference | to "expert authority" in order to function. Our collective | ability to agree on how to determine who (or what) qualifies as | such an authority is not working well. I do not have any answers | in which I am confident, just Socrates line on the beginning of | wisdom. | mattnewport wrote: | > I do not have any answers in which I am confident, just | Socrates line on the beginning of wisdom. | | Socrates who was censored by being executed because he said | things the authorities of the time didn't like? That Socrates? | paulpauper wrote: | Substack will always be a sort of niche site. It will never pull | anything close to Facebook or Twitter numbers. So investors do | not have much expectations for growth. If investors had higher | expectations pf ad-based growth, then censorship would be a | consideration if it meant boosting ad revenue. | krainboltgreene wrote: | So many of these threads are now filled with more than the normal | "a company made me take something down because it violated TOS" | and now has a cavalcade of conspiracy theories. | | The tech community certainly wasn't immune to the craziness of | the times. | Liquix wrote: | Could increased censorship actually be making the misinformation | problem worse? | | If we are allowed to discuss and compare the merits of various | theories, the wheat of truth naturally separates from the chaff | of nonsense. When everything outside of The Approved Narrative is | censored, people inevitably stumble across "banned" ideas - but | there's no one to argue the other side or point out the flaws, | making it far too easy to get sucked in. | onphonenow wrote: | One problem I am having is that on the left I thought things were | pretty high quality from a facts / science side, and that has | eroded. Fair disclosure - I'm a max dem donor and will likely | continue to vote 100% dem. | | 7,000 (!) scientists have signed the John Snow memorandum. It | states that "Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting | protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection". | | https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/john-snow-memo.html | | 6th paragraph | | This is despite the fact that our immune system has shown to | work, pretty well, for almost ALL other influenzas and pandemics, | that almost all analogous types of infections have LONG lasting | natural immunity (MERS / SARS etc) etc. | | The CDC director has signed this letter. | | So we have a problem. CDC blocks testing, then says masks don't | help, then says only vaccines can protect us. All these have (or | will likely be) obviously false. | | So trust in the left I think is diminishing - too many lawyers? | Too many folks focused on politics? Too many public health | officials / scientists and not enough hard science folks? | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Sorry, how is this a left/right issue? The actions you describe | the CDC having undertaken were under a right wing government. I | don't know how you're making this a political divide issue. | umvi wrote: | He's not pointing fingers at the other party, he's saying his | trust _in his own party_ has eroded. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | I'm not saying they are pointing fingers, I'm asking how is | this evidence of his own party being a problem so as to | cause distrust? | OrvalWintermute wrote: | > then says masks don't help | | Actually, they said this: | | Masks don't help | | Masks do help, but save them for the healthcare workers | | Masks do help, get one, a cloth one is fine. | | Masks do help, double-mask | | Mask do help, but you need N95 masks | | Given that even with a properly fitting N95 mask that is form | fitting you can still smell everything right through it, I | think a properly fit, and negative pressure tested N100 or P100 | is likely the actual protective standard of solid protection. | Unfortunately, I have a few P100s sitting around and I can tell | you that sleeping in one, or wearing one reguarly around town | makes me feel I am living in a post apocalyptic dystopian | future. Think 12 monkeys(1) minus the full chem/bio suit and | crazy decon procedures. | | This whole ordeal has greatly shaken my faith in technocratic | government. | | (1) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/ | redisman wrote: | A mask someone could wear for hours will never block all | smells. Even in a N99 you still smell gases and other small | things | omgitsabird wrote: | You can wear a SCBA for hours. You can also find P100 | cartridges that eliminate smells from VOCs and "gases". | fdgsdfogijq wrote: | I think what happened is capitalist forces looted the american | middle class via immigration and money printing, then construed | those political issues as leftist "for the common man" causes. | People got swept up in that idea, the capitalist is now long gone | from the public eye, and useful idiots are picking up the torch | of middle class destruction, confused about the cause and effect | of their politcal leanings. | hn_version_0023 wrote: | We don't have a trust problem. We have a _lack of trustworthy | people in positions of power_ problem. I see how one can be | easily confused. But we (the People) don't trust politicians or | business leaders because they have show repeatedly they're not | worthy of trust. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | You could argue that one begets the other. I am not going to | argue chicken an egg, but US has generally been very anti- | government. If you poll Americans about their representatives, | the responses are uniformly negative. And yet, we keep re- | electing them in massive numbers. | | It is absolutely fascinating. | ksdale wrote: | I was under the impression that Americans overwhelmingly | disapprove of Congress as a whole, but the individual | representatives are about as popular as you'd expect. | skeptical2 wrote: | jltsiren wrote: | That exactly is the trust problem. Why would trustworthy people | even try to gain power, if the public assumes that those in | power are untrustworthy and corrupt? And why would those in | power remain trustworthy when the incentives are clearly in | favor of abusing your power and the public assumes that you | will do that anyway? | | It's a vicious cycle, but a virtuous cycle would also work in | the same way. Reality shapes people's expectations, and | people's expectations shape reality. | AceJohnny2 wrote: | > _But we (the People) don't trust politicians or business | leaders_ | | Part of the problem is bad grouping. I trust _some_ | politicians, and _some_ business leaders on _some_ topics. | | But it's too easy to raise your idols on pedestals where they | can do no wrong and you trust them on everything. | | I've watched it happen to a significant proportion of the US | population. Ironically, in those cases I've personally | observed, it actually started from a _distrust_ of the | "establishment". | paulpauper wrote: | As bad as twitter and Facebook censorship is, it's worse for | other sites, like Reddit or probably any v-bulletin forum. Reddit | subs have soooo much moderation, especially any sub that that is | even slightly popular, so many arbitrary and hidden rules and | content guidelines. On twitter I can call someone a jerk and the | worst that may happen is the person may block me, but that will | get your banned from many reddit subs. | commandlinefan wrote: | > Reddit subs have soooo much moderation | | Moderation I can live with. If some mod doesn't want me on | their sub, I find another. It's the admin hammer bans of the | subs I found that I object to. | zionic wrote: | Not when it's a major hub-sub for a topic. A rogue moderator | can take something like /r/spacex and completely ruin it then | ban anyone who disagrees, to the point that people have to | make stuff like /r/spacexlounge to have a functional | community. | throwawaygh wrote: | I find this sentiment profoundly confusing. Admins are also | just mods. | | Maybe it's because I run a few websites off of a machine in | my basement, and those are where I say the things I want to | say. If another website wants to ban me then fuck 'em I'll | say what I want from my ownproperty. I have never felt | particularly entitled to say whatever I want on other | people's in-house implementations of vbulletin. I understand | that platforms are different, and commented elsewhere on that | stuff, but <img src="old_man_yells_at_cloud.jpg"> | paulpauper wrote: | reddit admis have vastly more power than fakebook or twitter | content moderators. for one, reddit does not outsource their | moderation. | omgitsabird wrote: | Who is being censored? Sure people are banned from communities, | but that is nothing new. | | For most people, to host a blog, one can host a server at their | house, through their own ISP, use the latest static website | package, and share some links. It is a _very_ low barrier to | entry. | | I think what people are actually saying is that they want the | followers that these platforms provide them. They want to be able | to push notifications and invade peoples' inboxes. They want | entry into their day-to-day. You can't get that from your own | host. | paulpauper wrote: | The problem is that accounts are tired to identities. Losing | your Facebook or twitter account is a ban on the person; not | only do you lose year's worth of contacts and content, but you | are prohibited from making a new one, and if you do it may | eventually be banned too. | [deleted] | plainsimple wrote: | Society has good reason to miss-trust governments, corporations, | media, the education system and the entire pharma industry. | Society does not have a "trust problem". The problem is that | leadership in all the pillars of society have been abusing their | position by controlling what people are aloud to do and what | people are aloud to say by demonizing and even criminalizing | anything that does not support their agenda. | alexashka wrote: | I wish people didn't take every opportunity to self promote and | pat themselves on the back. | | Substack is just another primitive blog platform, with a little | 'pay' button attached, nothing more. | | It reminds me of that Chris Rock joke about black folks bragging | about not going to jail, selling drugs, cheating on their wives | or having multiple baby mamas. You're not _supposed_ to do any of | those things, you dumb muthafaka! | commandlinefan wrote: | > It means we allow writers to publish what they want and readers | to decide for themselves what to read | | I hope they stick to their guns. History suggests they won't. | BlueTemplar wrote: | Yeah, there's a reason for "protocols, not platforms"... And | keeping jumping between platforms might not be that easy : see | YouTube. | kerneloftruth wrote: | Actually, the norm in the past many decades in the US was a | very liberal press, where people could publish on subversive | topics of all kinds. The "left" supported broad first amendment | rights on practically any topic. Now, they actively seek to | censor and silence those who question or criticize a narrative, | and with regard to covid those who question government policy. | It's a bizarre and disorienting shift. | | It's really the present day that suggest that substack won't be | able to stick to their guns out of fear of organized opposition | from "mobs". If they're able to maintain dependence only on | subscribers, it's possible they can survive (and hopefully | thrive) -- until somebody gets greedy. | dukeofdoom wrote: | Clearly, part of the problem is over reliance on experts. Somehow | the professional class (empowered by Twitter and Social Media) | has now convinced themselves that they're God's gift to to the | world ... because they read a book. And is totally oblivious to | how stupid some of those things they're advocating for are. | | When I go to a doctor, chances are he will prescribe me some | drugs. Why? because thats what they're trained to do, rewarded | for doing, and punished for not doing. If I go a mechanic, and | ask him for a couch, he will probably offer me the back seat. If | I ask my teacher, they'll tell me study hard and do my homework. | | There's a good chance I neither want or need pills, or a backseat | couch, or do homework all afternoon. This might be their best | professional advice. But ultimately, I have to use my own | judgment to assess risk and benefit since I have to live with | consequences. | | This is now somehow bad, and we're supposed throw out personal | autonomy, and trust experts, newscasters and so on. But this has | not worked out in the past, especially when there's coercion | involved. By complying you're only empowering these people. | | The antidote is to assert individual rights and especially | freedom of speech. Build parallel societies. And ridicule the | authoritarians. | mint2 wrote: | if the problem is our culture trusting experts, perhaps we need | some sort of revolution to get rid of those experts and elite, | and turn to populism mass movements. Hold that thought, I seem | to remember some historical trials of that path. How did they | go? Strange how they ended up with even more censorship. | dukeofdoom wrote: | yeah, well, I would argue it was a populist movement that | brought France, and the US the bill or Rights and the | constitution. So it worked at least sometimes. Not that I | disagree that sometimes it did not work out for the better. | Pol Pot being an example. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I think that part of the problem is that we are under a | disinformation attack. Russia did a lot around the elections, but | I don't think they've gone to zero. I think both China and Iran | are active. (The old Soviet "active measures" is what I have in | mind - you get a number of sock puppets to all say the same idea, | and it looks like that's what the consensus is, because people | hear it from several sources.) | | That erodes trust. You have people you know (or think you know) | online who say really out-there positions. You either adjust your | position, or you don't. Either way, you now have to distrust | people you trusted before. (And, I suppose, me saying this | reduces trust, too - how many of the people _I_ respect online | are actively sowing disinformation? How many are unknowingly | passing it on?) | | Then there's domestic disinformation. Both political parties (and | their satellites) at least. Conservative and liberal think-tanks. | (Don't kid yourself that only the other side does it.) | | You could even consider regular commercial advertising to be | disinformation, though I wouldn't go that far. But big | corporations _do_ engage in disinformation - think about the | tobacco companies and "no, smoking doesn't cause cancer". | | It's really hard to trust when people are _actively, deliberately | lying to you for their own advantage_. | indymike wrote: | Freedom of press and freedom of speech exist exactly because | government could not be trusted, and eventually, lies have to be | covered by making it illegal to expose those lies. Censorship | seems like a good idea until you realize the end game looks a lot | like "Best Korea". | OrvalWintermute wrote: | I try to read alternative media from all spectrums to get all | the perspectives on what is truth, and the angles so regularly | unmentioned. | | However, this newly engorged and incestuous relationship | between big Government, Big Media, and Big Tech, engaging in | rampant deplatforming and counter-narrative suppression, is a | civil liberties disaster of epic proportions. | rdiddly wrote: | It's sad that Substack has to sit there and explicitly explain | that "Here is where you go when you want no censorship and to | have all different views in a big melting pot where it's up to | you to sort them out through rational interrogation, thought | and/or debate." Even in my lifetime I seem to recall that place | was usually just called "society." Granted I was young and am | partly remembering what I was told the world was like, rather | than having experienced it directly. Nonetheless, they did bother | to tell me that. That interrogation/debate process was understood | to be an essential prerequisite for democracy. | throwawaygh wrote: | Meh. It's consistent with their business model. And talking | publicly about it is also consistent with their business model. | The entire debate is a red herring. | timoth3y wrote: | Too many people are confusing "censorship" and "content | moderation". | | Content moderation is when you determine what is published on | your platform. Censorship is when someone else tells you want can | be published on your platform. | | Substack is probably making the right business decision, but the | claim in this article is completely backwarrds. | | Trust 100% requires content moderation. Good scientific journals | are trusted because they exercise extremely tight control over | what gets published. Good news sources are trusted because they | moderate content and exercise strict editorial control. Facebook | is a untrusted cesspool of misinformation specifically because | they moderate so lightly. | | The idea that trust comes from lack of content moderation or | editorial control is logically and empirically wrong. | zozbot234 wrote: | > Trust 100% requires content moderation. Good scientific | journals are trusted because they exercise extremely tight | control over what gets published. | | Editorial endorsement and evaluation of content can be entirely | decoupled from publishing. This is what "overlay journals" | based on repositories like ArXiV do: they provide independent | endorsement of papers published elsewhere. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | The problem is the government and traditional media have been | caught lying again and again. Once that trust is broken I don't | know how you rebuild it. | | Hell people I commonly talk to still believe a police officer was | beaten to death on 1/6 and that people, other then the women shot | for trying to enter the chambers, died directly due to the riot. | All because of that what the news reported and quietly fixed days | later without ever really owning up to it. | steelstraw wrote: | 2016 election. Rittenhouse. Covington. Russian collusion. | Bounties on US soldiers. Lab-leak theory. Jussie Smollett. The | Pulse shooting. The Atlanta shootings. Hunter Biden laptop. | Inflation. Steele Dossier. | | Corporate media got every single one wrong. While constantly | banging the drums about how independent media has a | misinformation problem and should be censored. | systemvoltage wrote: | The most egregious of all is suppression of Lab Leak theory | from the beginning. Emails between Collins and Fauci are | absolutely chilling. Do yourself a favor and look up unredacted | versions (Alina Chen's Twitter) through FOIA requests. Holyshit | was my reaction. The Lancet letter was also riddled with | misinformation, suppression and conflicts of interest (Dr. | Drazdak). | | I expect more from our leaders. | indymike wrote: | > I expect more from our leaders. | | You should, and you should be free to discuss and write about | exactly what your expectations are and how those leaders | failed you. | systemvoltage wrote: | I actually believe in Institutions with a capital I and | want them to succeed, build trust and help educate people | of their reputation, historical significance and their | importance in society. I've worked with NIST for many years | - brilliant people doing good work. | | But when they continue to lie to public, suppress facts, | have a political agenda, and media is along with it, it's | becoming harder. | | I still think CDC does good work. Just that the leadership | needs to come out clean and apologize the public for being | partisan. | mindslight wrote: | > _I still think CDC does good work. Just that the | leadership needs to come out clean and apologize the | public for being partisan._ | | Why are you saying "partisan" rather than "incompetent" ? | It's surely convenient to blame the institutional | incompetence on a strawman "other side", but the fact of | the matter is that under administrations from both | Parties they've repeatedly dropped the ball. | | Distributing free rapid tests and finally recommending | N95's after most everyone has stopped caring about | pandemic is just icing on the cake. Biden's inauguration | would have been a great time to break from and disown | previous dubious recommendations, but the political | narrative of "the pandemic is over thanks to vaccines" | had to play instead. Which when you think about it is | from the same exact vein of overly optimistic denial as | "it'll be gone by Easter", just preached to a different | choir. | SomewhatLikely wrote: | They may have some details wrong, but do you think their | overall impression of the event is wildly inaccurate? There was | significant violence perpetrated during that event, even if it | didn't result in death. Police officers were beaten. When these | mistaken people are corrected and told no one died at the hands | of rioters, but 150 police officers sustained injuries some so | bad they were still out of work six months later, does their | opinion significantly change? | happytoexplain wrote: | >quietly fixed | | Note that, while I didn't personally consume any sources of | news making these mistakes about this event and therefore can't | reasonably comment on them, this specific wording is used | extremely commonly as an uncharitable attack on those who are | opposite to one's own political leanings. I.e. corrections are | always described as "quiet" despite frequently being published | in the same manner as the original material. | creato wrote: | > The problem is the government and traditional media have been | caught lying again and again. | | These two things are _huge_. They are not monolithic entities | that "lie" or "don't lie". I think a big problem is such blind | cynicism. Especially when the alternatives people are turning | to are hilariously worse. I'd be more sympathetic to the claim | that traditional media is terrible if they weren't using that | to direct influence towards crazy uncles on facebook instead. | | I think many things people think are "lies" are just | uncertainties. The pandemic is full of these. There are a ton | of confounding variables and we don't have any perfect control | groups from which to make any conclusions. Basically every big | issue that gets debated by the internet armchair experts is | badly affected by this: COVID severity, the effectiveness of | vaccines, masks, Ivermectin. Every damn thread is full of | people speaking as authoritatively as they possibly can | pointing to individual studies or data points without | understanding the context, scale, or confounding factors. | geekpowa wrote: | I search "Jan 6 Deaths" and very first hit is this NYT article. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol... | | The article contradicts your claim "reported and quietly fixed | days later without ever really owning up to it". Firstly it is | the first hit so hardly quiet. Secondly it outlines that | initial reporting of Sicknick's death was simply reporting what | capital police said, later revised by medical examiner. All | front and center in this article. | systemvoltage wrote: | I am just learning this. I thought all deaths were due to | rioters and knew about Ashley's death when she was fatally | shot. I read liberal media, all day, everyday - subscribed to | WaPo and NYT. | selwynii wrote: | Corrections get a tiny single digit fraction of the views of | the original. There is no button to make sure everyone who | saw the original sees the correction, assuming one is made. | | All you need is a few other places making the same claim, | sourced to NYT, and only the people that care enough will | even click through to read the source. NYT isn't putting | corrections on headline news for the same visibility as the | nice fresh off the press article. | remarkEon wrote: | This largely has to do with the social media ecosystem in | which these traditional companies find themselves, where | social media is the primary vector for information access for | the majority now (HN is an extreme outlier where people may | actually read things beyond their "news" feed). | | "quietly fixed" in that sense means "NYT reports one thing | and it goes viral, corrects/updates/adds context later post- | virality and, because it doesn't fit the existing narrative | established by the initial viral story, most don't see it". | Most people don't go back and check to see if a story they | read 6 months ago has some new details that fundamentally | change the impact of that story. | | Whether NYT knows about this phenomenon, and (ahem "quietly") | tunes their reporting to that phenomenon is a separate | question. | geekpowa wrote: | Are we blaming traditional media companies for the content | overload shitshow we now find ourselves living in? | | If NYT could provide a remedy, what would that remedy even | look like? | | Wikileaks' ascendancy was on the narrative that traditional | media is broken and untrustworthy. At the time I brought | into that and the premise that they were disrupting this | traditional industry and remaking it better. Now I realise | like alot of IT focused disruption (including disruption | I've worked on directly myself as an IT practioner), all | they achieved was recreate the very thing they sought to | disrupt, but poorly and generally worse version of it. | | Older and wiser now and I realise personally that the trust | problem is something much more than something for 'others' | to step up and fix, but substantially in how I myself | consume content. | flyingcircus3 wrote: | > traditional media | | I see this distinction made all of the time when this topic | comes up. The mainstream media is untrustworthy. Corporate | media has an agenda. Legacy media is corrupt. These qualifiers | all imply that there is some non-traditional, non-corporate, | non-legacy media that does not have these problems. Yet | whenever the people making these distinctions are asked | who/what these superior alternatives are, the answers are | always underwhelming, or outright laughable. | | So who are these beacons of truth you allude by contrasting the | "traditional" media? | ziroshima wrote: | No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of | intentions. But you've really got your head up your own ass if | you convince yourself that you are protecting people by deciding | the information that is appropriate for them to be exposed to. I | just don't understand the shortsightedness, the naivete, or the | willingness to discard the principle of free speech. | ameminator wrote: | I doubt that, in a decent number of cases, these censors have | the best of intentions. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | But if we let people decide for themselves, they might decide | wrong! And our position is clearly and obviously right! But | people are stupid and will listen to lies, so we have to remove | the possibility of them being exposed to those lies! | | /s, in case it wasn't obvious... | | People are more certain of their own position than is | warranted. This is true in politics (as C. S. Lewis said, in | practice no policy can be more than probably correct). It was | true with Covid ("trust the science" when not enough science | had been done yet; people talked as if the correct course was | obvious and certain, and they were often wrong in hindsight). | And it will be true again, and again, and again. | | And from that false certainty, people regard contrary | opinions/interpretations of the data as not just _false_ , but | _morally wrong_. And then they regard people believing the | "obviously wrong" position as a sign that people are stupid and | not to be trusted with the facts. (Unlike themselves, of | course, who clearly _can_ be trusted with the facts, because | they reached the right answers!) | | And people don't see the dichotomy between "people are stupid | and evil, and can't be trusted with the truth" and "we (who are | also people!) _can_ decide what is true, and can be trusted to | only tell them the truth ". When you point a finger at someone, | four finger point back at you... | paulpauper wrote: | The argument I sometimes see is that censorship is justified to | prevent indirect harm of misinformation. If you want to be | unvaccinated, that is your choice, but posting anti-vax content | may have externalities , such as convincing other ppl to not be | vaxed. | usernomdeguerre wrote: | Except that it works. In fact it works for a population of 5 | times our size (China). So it seems to me that the only people | who have their heads up their asses are us, who seem to think | that censorship is a childs model for maintaining power and | influence. In our technological society censorship can work | better than ever before. | | Frankly, imo, in the absence of effective accountability for | ones' words or deeds, censorship becomes one of the only few | remaining tools for stability. | ksdale wrote: | I think it's far too early to pass judgment on whether it | works in China. Lots of very oppressive states have lasted | for decades, apparently successfully, until they implode | spectacularly. | | Less than a century ago, many in the West sang the praises of | communism as (unkown to them) a million people died in the | Gulag. Things aren't always as they appear. | throwawaygh wrote: | The status quo is a messy conflagration where initial beliefs | were the brush, a combination of mental health issues and | social frustration were the trees, and the perverse incentives | of engagement metrics provided the high winds. | | So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter- | productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also | believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even | so easy to manipulate that it can happen en masse and entirely | by accident. | | (I'm not arguing against the argument against censorship... | it's just that I think the censorship issue is mostly a massive | red herring when it comes to the issues that are discussed in | the article.) | kolanos wrote: | > So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's | counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but | also believing that lots of people are very easy to | manipulate, even so easy to manipulate that it can happen en | masse and entirely by accident. | | Don't think it is an accident. The ruling class has set this | stage by design. There is little to no critical thinking | being taught in K-12. Create a malleable population, then | push censorship to protect them from themselves. | SQueeeeeL wrote: | >that is appropriate for them to be exposed to. | | Once the idea of dangerous speech becomes aknowledged, | censorship just becomes a game of degrees. | throwawaygh wrote: | This isn't at all true. Many free speech absolutists will | happily concede the existence of dangerous speech and | dangerous ideas. | numtel wrote: | > No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of | intentions. | | I would contend that profit is at least partially the intention | of these actors, largely indirectly by people who are invested | in stock markets. | | Capitalism is a symptom of power and information asymmetries. A | few years ago, Zuckerberg said that all problems would be | solved if everybody told the truth all the time. It's not that | simple though. There's a Greg Egan story about a couple that | undergoes a procedure to experience all the thoughts and | feelings of each other for a period of time, which ultimately | results in their breakup. | throwawaygh wrote: | I think this is absolutely right, and wish that discussions | on this topic would focus more on the externalities of | profit-seeking platforms than free speech principles. | | Free speech absolutists tend to jump to the defense of free | speech and in the process ignore a real problem. Pro- | censorship/content moderation folks tend to jump to the | defense of censorship/moderation. In the process, the debate | gets framed around "speech vs. censorship" instead of the | serious issues with our political commons being dominated by | sophisticated profit-seeking entities. | autokad wrote: | > Capitalism is a symptom of power and information | asymmetries | | if you want to talk about power and information asymmetries, | I suggest you look at Communist regimes. | nickff wrote: | > _" I would contend that profit is at least partially the | intention of these actors, largely indirectly by people who | are invested in stock markets."_ | | Profit is definitely one motivation for censorship, but there | has been plenty of censorship in non-profit-centric | situations. Communist countries and other government actors | have been leaders in censorship, with no obvious profit | motive. | throwawaygh wrote: | OP is clearly referring to censorship in the "admin bans | you from their website if you say things they don't like" | sense, not the "government throws you in jail if you say | wrong thing" sense. These conversations tend to become | unproductive and devolve when folks conflate these two | senses of the word censorship. | | IMO, we should use "content moderation" for the former and | "censorship" for the latter, congruent with historical | usage. But people who are against content moderation will | claim I'm being biased, even though I view the whole debate | as a bit of red herring that distracts from the real | issues. So I'd settle for "private-sector censorship" and | "government censorship". | | But in any case it's almost always counter-productive to | conflate the two, to the point that it's a logical fallacy | which should be named. | millzlane wrote: | It's always funny to see uncensored writers talk about | censorship. | nomel wrote: | A writer seeing the problems in the world slowly being | censored, who hasn't been censored yet, is like a soldier | writing about a war, who hasn't been killed yet. It doesn't | seem that strange. | cwoolfe wrote: | I seem to recall reading "You either die an MVP or live long | enough to build content moderation" | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28684250 | | I hope substack can really change the game here because their | business model delivers content you paid to receive rather than | competing for your attention. More on that here: | https://on.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-moderati... | paulpauper wrote: | I wish substack had better discovery features like Medium and | fewer spammy emails. I signed up for Scott's blog and got like | 30 emails in a week. Annoying | gtsop wrote: | Wait.. what? Society has a trust problem? Implying we should | trust people in power (economic and state) that have repeatedly | and shamelessly acted for their own benefit against the interest | of the public while they control the media (tv and online) to | censor and/or shaddow-ban criticism and alternate views? | | Yes, if that's what you mean. We have a trust problem because | there are people in power who are not trustworthy. And yes, their | acts of censorship will only make this problem worse. | brnaftr361 wrote: | I reckon it's a human condition issue, bare metal type shit. | People, in general, simply can't possess the merits of blind | trust and _must_ be scrutinized. This striated opinion on a | spectrum of trust, and in time resolution in to facts. | Dialectics of account. Naive interventions only stand to | exacerbate the condition, by my reckoning, and I don 't suspect | there is a real way to make smart interventions at scale. I | think the best resolution is to have modular multi-scalar and | largely decentralized modes with far more outgrowths given the | capacity for representation of their given polity. | | But even in that case it doesn't fully rectify the problem, | because at the basest levels information is imperfect in | practical terms. It is in those terms that experts and | professionals tend to be lost to public account - that is to | say that making wide sweeping claims and saying it was some | unexpected event that overturned their predictions frees them | from being held accountable, and that is where trust is lost. | If you tell me in 10 years that SPY will have gained 60%, | versus if you said "Look I don't know, I can't tell you where | the price is going to end at close today, let alone in 10 | years, but historically the odds look good, that's not without | caveats, the fed, the government, the people are all constantly | evolving against their peers and there's a lot of novel forces, | so you could end up with negative yields." The latter case is, | let's say hypothetically, realistic, and thus eschews | liability. | | Now if the former case turns out to be true, certainly the | latter form will be lambasted for the potential gains lost. In | the latter coming to fruit, will the financier be celebrated? | Will the former be able to excuse himself, despite bad calls? | gtsop wrote: | I like your statement overall but let me hone a bit on this: | | > I reckon it's a human condition issue, bare metal type shit | | I strongly disagree here. It is very common and easy (and to | me, boring) to promote all hard-to-solve, ugly problems to | concequences of the evil "human nature" without even any data | to support it. | | Antithetically, humans want to trust. that's why a group | operating within a trusted environment outperform a group | operating in an emvironment without trust. Also, that's why | trust is a possitive attribute. | | The issue causing this trust problem at this great scale is | conflicting interests, emerging from the private-centric | properties of the economy. Because if you really dig it, all | these issues will lead you to economy. Noone lost trust in a | government because the President lied about their favourite | colour. | kolanos wrote: | > Will the former be able to excuse himself, despite bad | calls? | | Apparently yes. For example, here's what Dr. Fauci was saying | about HIV/AIDS in the 80's. [0] | | [0]: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world- | news/corruption/fla... | skeptical2 wrote: | matheusmoreira wrote: | I'm not even sure if there is such a thing as a honest and | trustworthy politician. | SQueeeeeL wrote: | The problem is we as a society have very few local level | leaders. Most of the people who represent us often represent | 1000+ individuals. At such a scale, the nature of | leadership/politicians change... | skeptical2 wrote: | AnimalMuppet wrote: | From the article: | | > Trust in social media and traditional media is at an all-time | low. | | Yeah, some of it is "people in power". And some isn't. But when | you say | | > Yes, if that's what you mean. | | you sure look like you're trying to ignore what the article | actually says, and twist the general idea to fit the axe you | want to grind. _That_ kind of stunt is (part of) why trust in | society is low. | OrvalWintermute wrote: | I think some of this debacle is changing who we trust. | | Joe Rogan is rapidly becoming "the most trusted man in | America". Russell Brand, another Leftist comedian, is moving | from funny routines to scathing anti-corruption populist | commentary. Tucker Carlson is now dominating Cable. | | The big Pharma ad-supported mainstream media is rightly | terrified of this. The gravy train is at risk. | gtsop wrote: | > The big Pharma ad-supported mainstream media is rightly | terrified of this. The gravy train is at risk. | | Spot on | gtsop wrote: | > twist the general idea to fit the axe you want to grind. | | From the article just after the line you quoted: | | > Trust in the U.S. federal government to handle problems is | at a near-record low. Trust in the U.S.'s major institutions | is within 2 percentage points of the all-time low. | | I can't possibly buy that fact that society has a problem if | my aunt mary doesn't trust what plumberRob23 post on their | instagram, so forgive for bothering only with the bigger | issue at hand, which is systemic mistrust. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Yes, it's the major institutions. And it's the mainstream | media (I guess those count as major institutions). _And_ it | 's social media. | | I object to your trying to paint it as if it's _only_ | mistrust of major institutions. It 's untrue to the article | to limit it like that. | nathias wrote: | It's not a problem, it's learning. We should have absolutely no | trust in the current institutions. When people are openly lying | in your face without any repercussions, openly stealing from you | and just pay a small fine etc. why would anyone trust them? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-26 23:00 UTC)