5 ms·

This is really scary, because I do read comments critically, and have seen those sections being flooded with nonsense, or convincing arguments being pushed with

This is really scary, because I do read comments critically, and have seen those sections being flooded with nonsense, or convincing arguments being pushed without evidence. Heck, this even happens on HackerNews, which users are thoughtful hackers and which are secretly trying to push an agenda? Or is there even a line between those? Now some food for thought, does online anonymity ultimately help the powerful more than the general public?

LyndsySimon 10y ago
> which users are thoughtful hackers and which are secretly trying to push an agenda? Or is there even a line between those? I don't think there is a line. Each of us pushes an agenda (our own). That's never going to change, and I wouldn't want it to. > does online anonymity ultimately help the powerful more than the general public? I don't do online anonymity :)
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  It's fine for you to push your own agenda. But push an agenda that is honestly yours, not one that you're being paid to push. And push it honestly, not pretending to be something you're not.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I've noticed it, too. It looks like the public has gone mad. (Or perhaps like they're trying to gaslight us.) But if the Chinese are doing this, and the Russians, and maybe the DNC and the RNC... that would explain why the public conversation has become so weird.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Maybe the DNC? They openly had whole organizations with budgets in the millions whose sole purpose was to influence opinion online. We also know thanks to Snowden that the US government has long had operational programs to influence and subvert online discussion. At this point I'd estimate a minimum of 30% of all posts online, including HN, are done by people with an agenda whether political or financial.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    But that's still the distraction. The question isn't, "How paranoid should I be?" or "Whose agenda is served?". The question is, what is the truth?
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      >The question is, what is the truth? you won't learn this reading news articles online, and especially not from comment sections. the irony of the term "fake news" is that it creates the false notion that there was once such a thing as "real news". information channel manipulation is a very very very old tradition.
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        >the irony of the term "fake news" is that it creates the false notion that there was once such a thing as "real news". I'm friends with a journalist. He has opinions, slants, lenses, and even biases. However, he lives around here, and the stuff he publishes is based on events he has actually witnessed, live, in real-time. There is no equivalence between my friend the journalist (real news), and some teenager in Macedonia getting paid to make up sensational bullshit (fake news).
        metaphorm 10y ago
        there is such a thing as reporting and investigation. very little of that survives the editorial process. if I want to read some reporting, I'll have to go to a source that values it. i.e. not the NYTimes (or equivalent). The entire apparatus of the mass media has become thinly veiled editorial positioning, even in stories that are claimed as "news". a recent example of this effect: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-economists-on-education/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-eco... my point is that the work of actual investigators is no longer the primary interest of mass media, and it hasn't been for a long time.
        10y ago
- AngrySkillzz 10y ago
  They are trying to gaslight us. Foreign powers want to misinform and distract the public in democracies; a misinformed populace puts pressure on elected governments to govern poorly. If democratic governments flounder because of this, that gives authoritarians an opportunity to get more power and influence over world politics. Not to say that western nations aren't engaged in their own information operations. Just that it is asymmetric warfare, authoritarian regimes have a lot less to fear from a misinformed or disengaged public.
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    Authoritarian regimes usually rest on more fragile underpinnings. If anything it's the inverse, authoritarian regimes have a lot MORE to fear from a "misinformed" public. This is borne out by the fact that we see authoritarian regimes crack down much harder on social media and other forms of free communication.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      I don't believe I agree with your contention, either that authoritarian regimes have more to fear from misinformation or that this relationship is borne out of social media. Social media is neutral in terms of its content: it can broadcast accurate information or it can broadcast inaccurate information. But it allows that information to reach a much larger audience more quickly than calling on the phone or sending a letter or even wandering the streets shouting whatever you want to spread. The only significant negative aspect of social media for authoritarians that I can think of is that it allows for non-centralized information spreading, whereas controlling the newspapers and TV is more straight-forward.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    a misinformed populace puts pressure on elected governments to govern poorly. Worse than a misinformed populace is a populace that can't think. The latter might well get real information and dismiss it.
  - pdeuchler 10y ago
    Statistically over the past 100 years democratic institutions have affected (or is it effected in this case?) the politics of authoritarian regimes dramatically more, as in orders of magnitude more, than the other way around
AngrySkillzz 10y ago
Pushing an agenda is one thing if the person is doing it in good faith, even if I think their ideas are bad or not supported by evidence. In all likelihood there are large scale information operations going on with world powers trying to subvert each other's populations. The really sinister thing is that we have paid, bad faith actors whose full time jobs are to spread misinformation and shape narratives online. There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. I spent a lot of time thinking about it this weekend and it sounds bleak. Not only do they spread misinformation, the presence of bad faith actors in social spaces causes a breakdown in trust between all participants, leading to less dialogue and more polarization. Why bother debating me if I might be a paid agent from Belarus? Why bother investigating claims from the other side of an issue if there's a good chance it is paid propaganda? Meanwhile leaving yourself vulnerable to propaganda on your own side that increases group identity and groupthink. Even worse, bad actors can start trends or spread falsehoods that end up motivating and encouraging good faith actors. There are plenty of people who have been caught up in an information operation, unwittingly propagating and defending someone else's manufactured data. That's scary. Authoritarian regimes have much less to fear from this. If we disrupt public opinion in China, who cares? They don't really need public consent to do anything. Manipulating the public in democracies will lead to poor decisions and bad governance, giving authoritarian countries ample opportunities to seize more power on the world stage. We can't even fight back effectively.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- stcredzero 10y ago
  There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. I think that there are armies of amateurs with tons of free time. However, these are largely manipulated by armies of paid trolls. What's worse, is that the manipulation involves the normalization of non-thinking conformism, social coercion, and hate-filled groupthink. This applies to both sides of the political spectrum.
- vkou 10y ago
temp-dude-87844 10y ago
Anonymity allows for sockpuppetry, the digital equivalent of ballot stuffing. A dedicated actor can essentially commit a sybil attack against an online community, creating the illusion that a particular point of view is more widespread than in reality. Most individuals don't have the time or resources to perform this or hire people who can, but state-level actors can and do, as can influence groups, in which case it's either called astroturfing or marketing. Money buys influence. There's a reason why loyalties are still best tested face to face, and why most social progress requires people in a room, people on the street, and a few allies behind the scenes. Different groups struggle for influence all the time, even within the same state. On the international level, states compete against other states by winning hearts and minds and swaying the public, despite publicly preaching cooperation, trade, and peace. This has always been this way, and the upside is fewer commoners are getting killed in the field of battle at the behest of their king. For a critical reader, when reading anything, ask yourself, are the points raised plausible? Are the sources believable? Could anyone have an agenda (yes), could anyone have an axe to grind? (maybe) Who does this information benefit or hurt? Could it be genuine, or a false flag? Then consider your existing beliefs. Do they still hold? If yes, you were exposed to some new information and a different point of view and you're enriched for it. But are your views invalidated as a result of this new information? If so, then slow down and repeat these steps until you're satisfied with the conclusion. (On the other hand, anonymity is a partial countermeasure against reprisal. I'm a sock of a medium volume HN poster, and predictably, I don't know if you'll believe me, and you won't know if I'm being genuine)

LyndsySimon 10y ago

> which users are thoughtful hackers and which are secretly trying to push an agenda? Or is there even a line between those? I don't think there is a line. Each of us pushes an agenda (our own). That's never going to change, and I wouldn't want it to. > does online anonymity ultimately help the powerful more than the general public? I don't do online anonymity :)

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
It's fine for you to push your own agenda. But push an agenda that is honestly yours, not one that you're being paid to push. And push it honestly, not pretending to be something you're not.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

I've noticed it, too. It looks like the public has gone mad. (Or perhaps like they're trying to gaslight us.) But if the Chinese are doing this, and the Russians, and maybe the DNC and the RNC... that would explain why the public conversation has become so weird.

ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
Maybe the DNC? They openly had whole organizations with budgets in the millions whose sole purpose was to influence opinion online. We also know thanks to Snowden that the US government has long had operational programs to influence and subvert online discussion. At this point I'd estimate a minimum of 30% of all posts online, including HN, are done by people with an agenda whether political or financial.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  But that's still the distraction. The question isn't, "How paranoid should I be?" or "Whose agenda is served?". The question is, what is the truth?
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    >The question is, what is the truth? you won't learn this reading news articles online, and especially not from comment sections. the irony of the term "fake news" is that it creates the false notion that there was once such a thing as "real news". information channel manipulation is a very very very old tradition.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >the irony of the term "fake news" is that it creates the false notion that there was once such a thing as "real news". I'm friends with a journalist. He has opinions, slants, lenses, and even biases. However, he lives around here, and the stuff he publishes is based on events he has actually witnessed, live, in real-time. There is no equivalence between my friend the journalist (real news), and some teenager in Macedonia getting paid to make up sensational bullshit (fake news).
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        there is such a thing as reporting and investigation. very little of that survives the editorial process. if I want to read some reporting, I'll have to go to a source that values it. i.e. not the NYTimes (or equivalent). The entire apparatus of the mass media has become thinly veiled editorial positioning, even in stories that are claimed as "news". a recent example of this effect: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-economists-on-education/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/17/another-followup-to-eco... my point is that the work of actual investigators is no longer the primary interest of mass media, and it hasn't been for a long time.
        10y ago
AngrySkillzz 10y ago
They are trying to gaslight us. Foreign powers want to misinform and distract the public in democracies; a misinformed populace puts pressure on elected governments to govern poorly. If democratic governments flounder because of this, that gives authoritarians an opportunity to get more power and influence over world politics. Not to say that western nations aren't engaged in their own information operations. Just that it is asymmetric warfare, authoritarian regimes have a lot less to fear from a misinformed or disengaged public.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Authoritarian regimes usually rest on more fragile underpinnings. If anything it's the inverse, authoritarian regimes have a lot MORE to fear from a "misinformed" public. This is borne out by the fact that we see authoritarian regimes crack down much harder on social media and other forms of free communication.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    I don't believe I agree with your contention, either that authoritarian regimes have more to fear from misinformation or that this relationship is borne out of social media. Social media is neutral in terms of its content: it can broadcast accurate information or it can broadcast inaccurate information. But it allows that information to reach a much larger audience more quickly than calling on the phone or sending a letter or even wandering the streets shouting whatever you want to spread. The only significant negative aspect of social media for authoritarians that I can think of is that it allows for non-centralized information spreading, whereas controlling the newspapers and TV is more straight-forward.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  a misinformed populace puts pressure on elected governments to govern poorly. Worse than a misinformed populace is a populace that can't think. The latter might well get real information and dismiss it.
- pdeuchler 10y ago
  Statistically over the past 100 years democratic institutions have affected (or is it effected in this case?) the politics of authoritarian regimes dramatically more, as in orders of magnitude more, than the other way around

AngrySkillzz 10y ago

Pushing an agenda is one thing if the person is doing it in good faith, even if I think their ideas are bad or not supported by evidence. In all likelihood there are large scale information operations going on with world powers trying to subvert each other's populations. The really sinister thing is that we have paid, bad faith actors whose full time jobs are to spread misinformation and shape narratives online. There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. I spent a lot of time thinking about it this weekend and it sounds bleak. Not only do they spread misinformation, the presence of bad faith actors in social spaces causes a breakdown in trust between all participants, leading to less dialogue and more polarization. Why bother debating me if I might be a paid agent from Belarus? Why bother investigating claims from the other side of an issue if there's a good chance it is paid propaganda? Meanwhile leaving yourself vulnerable to propaganda on your own side that increases group identity and groupthink. Even worse, bad actors can start trends or spread falsehoods that end up motivating and encouraging good faith actors. There are plenty of people who have been caught up in an information operation, unwittingly propagating and defending someone else's manufactured data. That's scary. Authoritarian regimes have much less to fear from this. If we disrupt public opinion in China, who cares? They don't really need public consent to do anything. Manipulating the public in democracies will lead to poor decisions and bad governance, giving authoritarian countries ample opportunities to seize more power on the world stage. We can't even fight back effectively.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 10y ago
There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. I think that there are armies of amateurs with tons of free time. However, these are largely manipulated by armies of paid trolls. What's worse, is that the manipulation involves the normalization of non-thinking conformism, social coercion, and hate-filled groupthink. This applies to both sides of the political spectrum.
vkou 10y ago

temp-dude-87844 10y ago

Anonymity allows for sockpuppetry, the digital equivalent of ballot stuffing. A dedicated actor can essentially commit a sybil attack against an online community, creating the illusion that a particular point of view is more widespread than in reality. Most individuals don't have the time or resources to perform this or hire people who can, but state-level actors can and do, as can influence groups, in which case it's either called astroturfing or marketing. Money buys influence. There's a reason why loyalties are still best tested face to face, and why most social progress requires people in a room, people on the street, and a few allies behind the scenes. Different groups struggle for influence all the time, even within the same state. On the international level, states compete against other states by winning hearts and minds and swaying the public, despite publicly preaching cooperation, trade, and peace. This has always been this way, and the upside is fewer commoners are getting killed in the field of battle at the behest of their king. For a critical reader, when reading anything, ask yourself, are the points raised plausible? Are the sources believable? Could anyone have an agenda (yes), could anyone have an axe to grind? (maybe) Who does this information benefit or hurt? Could it be genuine, or a false flag? Then consider your existing beliefs. Do they still hold? If yes, you were exposed to some new information and a different point of view and you're enriched for it. But are your views invalidated as a result of this new information? If so, then slow down and repeat these steps until you're satisfied with the conclusion. (On the other hand, anonymity is a partial countermeasure against reprisal. I'm a sock of a medium volume HN poster, and predictably, I don't know if you'll believe me, and you won't know if I'm being genuine)