5 ms·

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 Snow

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.
      - dfabulich 10y ago
        How would you know if you were wrong about this? Maybe NYTimes is actually pretty good, and posts like yours are trying to undermine our faith in actual journalists.
        metaphorm 10y ago
        you're right, its hard to know. that's why I linked an example of a reasonably good empirical study examining editorial bias in a NYTimes article. criticism of this kind is important in revealing those kinds of flaws. in many instances its not actually the journalist doing this, but the editors. NYTimes, for example, has recently begun the practice of making undocumented changes to online articles _after_ initial publication. here is a recent example of that practice: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-t... and the times public editor's response to the controversy https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/ https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-t... so why am I pointing this out? is it to undermine faith? I find it shocking that you would have any faith left at all. What is there to even be undermined? in other words, who is responsible for convincing you what is true and what isn't? if you take things on faith you are demonstrating an attitude that you are ambivalent about the truth. that attitude displays a preference to have certainty in your dogma and to not be challenged about the trustworthiness of the sources of that dogma.
      - DenisM 10y ago
        Did you mean to equate fake news with editorial bias? Because that's what I read from your comments, and I can't agree to that, even remotely.
        metaphorm 10y ago
        what is currently being called "fake news" is not the same thing as editorial bias nor do I equate them in the sense that I don't distinguish between the two. I do distinguish between them. however, fake news and editorial bias are used to accomplish the same thing: disinformation. that is the level which I equate them.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  whose agenda is easy, the true one percent, the politicians. the people in power. in the US they are very adept at manipulation their base and with the cooperation of the media they have control of about every information source save one, the internet. They certainly are trying their best to limit what can happen there, the primary means will be to convince people that speech there must be limited to protect democracy, the election process, and such. i know many say the rich/super rich are the one percent but in truth they just have more ability to pay the piper, the politicians. when the people go the wrong way politicians of any side will pile on to demagogue it. beware anyone stating "polls suggest" because that is pure manipulation.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> At this point I'd estimate a minimum of 30% of all posts online, including HN, are done by people with an agenda 100% of all communication by humans is done by people with an agenda.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Nice job taking the qualifying terms out of the quote.
- dv_dt 10y ago
  To me, the validity of the communication changes drastically when a comment is being paid for by a larger organization, vs being communicated a human who directly backs an agenda. I'm all for the second, but think we need legally required disclaimers on the first in casual comment forums.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Sometimes it's done in confusion or while people are asleep. Hard to imagine an agenda there.

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.
    - dfabulich 10y ago
      How would you know if you were wrong about this? Maybe NYTimes is actually pretty good, and posts like yours are trying to undermine our faith in actual journalists.
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        you're right, its hard to know. that's why I linked an example of a reasonably good empirical study examining editorial bias in a NYTimes article. criticism of this kind is important in revealing those kinds of flaws. in many instances its not actually the journalist doing this, but the editors. NYTimes, for example, has recently begun the practice of making undocumented changes to online articles _after_ initial publication. here is a recent example of that practice: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-t... and the times public editor's response to the controversy https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/ https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-t... so why am I pointing this out? is it to undermine faith? I find it shocking that you would have any faith left at all. What is there to even be undermined? in other words, who is responsible for convincing you what is true and what isn't? if you take things on faith you are demonstrating an attitude that you are ambivalent about the truth. that attitude displays a preference to have certainty in your dogma and to not be challenged about the trustworthiness of the sources of that dogma.
    - DenisM 10y ago
      Did you mean to equate fake news with editorial bias? Because that's what I read from your comments, and I can't agree to that, even remotely.
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        what is currently being called "fake news" is not the same thing as editorial bias nor do I equate them in the sense that I don't distinguish between the two. I do distinguish between them. however, fake news and editorial bias are used to accomplish the same thing: disinformation. that is the level which I equate them.
Shivetya 10y ago
whose agenda is easy, the true one percent, the politicians. the people in power. in the US they are very adept at manipulation their base and with the cooperation of the media they have control of about every information source save one, the internet. They certainly are trying their best to limit what can happen there, the primary means will be to convince people that speech there must be limited to protect democracy, the election process, and such. i know many say the rich/super rich are the one percent but in truth they just have more ability to pay the piper, the politicians. when the people go the wrong way politicians of any side will pile on to demagogue it. beware anyone stating "polls suggest" because that is pure manipulation.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> At this point I'd estimate a minimum of 30% of all posts online, including HN, are done by people with an agenda 100% of all communication by humans is done by people with an agenda.

ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
Nice job taking the qualifying terms out of the quote.
dv_dt 10y ago
To me, the validity of the communication changes drastically when a comment is being paid for by a larger organization, vs being communicated a human who directly backs an agenda. I'm all for the second, but think we need legally required disclaimers on the first in casual comment forums.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Sometimes it's done in confusion or while people are asleep. Hard to imagine an agenda there.