5 ms·

This is different from what 60 year olds were doing with e-mail a decade ago in what way, exactly? As someone who grew up around AM radio and gun show culture,

This is different from what 60 year olds were doing with e-mail a decade ago in what way, exactly? As someone who grew up around AM radio and gun show culture, the sudden pearl-clutching is amusing, but also disturbing since it's so coordinated and with clear political motivations. The question is this: Do you support fake news or do you support the construction of a censorship apparatus? For me, there is a very easy answer.

mkaziz 10y ago
False dichotomy. You can have a censorship apparatus that allows only fake news. At the same time, it's also clear that fake news is being used to justify all sorts of political things that are leading to intensified divisions and hatred (on /both/ ends of the spectrum) which is leading society down a different slippery slope, but one that's slippery all the same.
- probablybanned 10y ago
  I expected the cry of false dichotomy. Here's the thing: all simplifications are inaccurate because they involve a loss of fidelity. Simplifications that are tolerably inaccurate but useful are the basis of clear thinking. When you resist simplification, ask yourself whether you are seeking to avoid inaccuracy or seeking to avoid clear thinking. People tend to resist clear thinking when it leads to difficult decisions. I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up a hypothetical "censorship apparatus that allows only fake news" -- my contention is that you cannot "beat" fake news without a censorship apparatus. Of course you can have a "good" censorship apparatus that only allows things you believe are good and true or you could have a "bad" one that only allows fake news. I'm sure yours would be very, very good indeed. But I think it's much better not to play that game at all.
  - mkaziz 10y ago
    Upvoted you for the civil response. I think you are viewing censorship apparatus as on a good -> bad spectrum. There is also the spectrum of the scale of censorship. For example: HRC's "sex ring" (obviously false facts misrepresented as the truth) is fake news that should be suppressed. But on the flip side, we obviously don't want a USSR-style control of the press, where the wrong word/opinion can land you in the gulag. You seem to think that because any kind of censorship apparatus can be subverted for nefarious means, you should have no censorship apparatus at all. But I'll counter that that in itself is a form of intellectual laziness: Should we not explore the possibility of building a decentralized apparatus with appropriate checks and balances, that keeps the bare minimum of "fake news" out of general circulation? The answer may be no, but we should at least explore it.
    - probablybanned 10y ago
      I'm glad I was able to come across civilly. I'm at the limit of my patience on this topic with people who on the one hand claim that the freedom of the press to speculate wildly about Russian hooker piss is "vital to the functioning of our Democracy," while at the same time claiming that the Pizzagate rumors are "undermining the foundations of the Republic." You're right, I do see censorship as categorically a bad thing and not worth exploring. I think if you did manage to create some sort of light-touch, objective, fact-based system of fake news suppression it'd be hijacked by ideologues faster than you could believe. But that's a place we can agree to disagree.
  - groby_b 10y ago
    I would like to point out that "censorship" is, strictly speaking, an instruments only governments can employ. So, we're talking about government regulation of speech. And that already exists, for good reason. Incitement to violence, threats of violence, defamation, child pornography are all instances of it. All of those regulations exist because the damage done to society by these forms of speech has been deemed outweighing the benefits to society that would result from inclusion of it. If that is true for fake news is arguable. I happen to believe it is, you seem to think the right to speech outweighs the damage. But I'm not sure if that's what we're talking about here. Are you arguing that the value of being able to have fake speech outweighs the damage it does, or are you arguing that all forms of speech, including the currently outlawed ones, should be free and no restrictions whatsoever should apply? Related, the question of a "censorship apparatus" is also open to interpretation - we're settling current restrictions mostly through courts & law enforcement. I would guess the answer if you consider that a censorship apparatus is influenced by what you think about current speech regulations.
    - probablybanned 10y ago
      I guess I'm using the Wikipedia definition of censorship which diverges from yours somewhat. To quote, because it's short: Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. I think suppression of public communication by a monopoly corporation like Facebook does count here. And to be clear, yes, I am arguing that the value of being able to have fake speech outweighs the damage it does. As soon as you begin on the mission to suppress "fake" speech, you have to elevate some person or institution to the role of deciding what is fake and what is real, and that's far too much power to give to anyone. That power must remain with the individual, as imperfect as we all may be.
      - groby_b 10y ago
        Ah. I'm looking at the first amendment definition, which is indeed somewhat different :) And even there, we have made that determination e.g. for speech inciting violence. That's a fairly well-defined case, so I assume that's why we all agreed we're OK with that. As a thought experiment - or, really, to help me understand - what if we declared "fake news" as "intentionally wrong in substantial facts" and had a very clear definition of substantial, and what counts as intent? Second thought experiment: What if you could still say whatever you wanted, but "fake news" simply wouldn't be content that's promoted into people's streams? Is that still censorship? After all, you can still say whatever you want - but individuals won't have to hear you when they haven't consented? (I happen to believe that the core issue isn't the fact that there are fake news, but the fact that the various social media ranking algorithms violate consent by injecting things they deem interesting. I.e. it's not about speech, per se - it's about the fact that the platforms allow third parties to inject themselves into conversations unasked)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hnbroseph 10y ago
> This is different from what 60 year olds were doing with e-mail a decade ago in what way, exactly volume, perhaps. > Do you support fake news or do you support the construction of a censorship apparatus? in one sense, there isn't really any difference.
- probablybanned 10y ago
  Volume, I doubt it. Every small town Fudd I ever met had an AOL account. The difference is that all this activity is now visible to the liberal intelligentsia. To your second point, that's just nonsense.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    "The difference is that all this activity is now visible to the liberal intelligentsia." I do think that's a big part of it. However, there is some aura of authenticity that comes from social media postings that link to official looking sites. Not for people that are somewhat internet savvy, but there is a group that's being somewhat fooled in way they weren't in the past.
    - makomk 10y ago
      I've seen a huge amount of complete and utter bullshit spread on social media by people who are both internet-savvy and media-savvy - indeed, even by journalists from mainstream online publications - despite not having the supposed aura of authenticity provided by a link. Indeed, I reckon that in some circles an obviously fake link harms the credibility of a claim compared to no source at all or even to one that contradicts the claim.
  - hnbroseph 10y ago
    > Every small town Fudd I ever met had an AOL account having grown up in small towns, no fudd i knew had a computer, much less an aol account. (and this was in the era of aol discs clogging the mail system.) > To your second point, that's just nonsense. "fake news" is censorship through displacement and delegitimization. censorship is "fake news" by virtue of providing incomplete or distorted information (eg, lies of omission).

mkaziz 10y ago

False dichotomy. You can have a censorship apparatus that allows only fake news. At the same time, it's also clear that fake news is being used to justify all sorts of political things that are leading to intensified divisions and hatred (on /both/ ends of the spectrum) which is leading society down a different slippery slope, but one that's slippery all the same.

probablybanned 10y ago
I expected the cry of false dichotomy. Here's the thing: all simplifications are inaccurate because they involve a loss of fidelity. Simplifications that are tolerably inaccurate but useful are the basis of clear thinking. When you resist simplification, ask yourself whether you are seeking to avoid inaccuracy or seeking to avoid clear thinking. People tend to resist clear thinking when it leads to difficult decisions. I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up a hypothetical "censorship apparatus that allows only fake news" -- my contention is that you cannot "beat" fake news without a censorship apparatus. Of course you can have a "good" censorship apparatus that only allows things you believe are good and true or you could have a "bad" one that only allows fake news. I'm sure yours would be very, very good indeed. But I think it's much better not to play that game at all.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  Upvoted you for the civil response. I think you are viewing censorship apparatus as on a good -> bad spectrum. There is also the spectrum of the scale of censorship. For example: HRC's "sex ring" (obviously false facts misrepresented as the truth) is fake news that should be suppressed. But on the flip side, we obviously don't want a USSR-style control of the press, where the wrong word/opinion can land you in the gulag. You seem to think that because any kind of censorship apparatus can be subverted for nefarious means, you should have no censorship apparatus at all. But I'll counter that that in itself is a form of intellectual laziness: Should we not explore the possibility of building a decentralized apparatus with appropriate checks and balances, that keeps the bare minimum of "fake news" out of general circulation? The answer may be no, but we should at least explore it.
  - probablybanned 10y ago
    I'm glad I was able to come across civilly. I'm at the limit of my patience on this topic with people who on the one hand claim that the freedom of the press to speculate wildly about Russian hooker piss is "vital to the functioning of our Democracy," while at the same time claiming that the Pizzagate rumors are "undermining the foundations of the Republic." You're right, I do see censorship as categorically a bad thing and not worth exploring. I think if you did manage to create some sort of light-touch, objective, fact-based system of fake news suppression it'd be hijacked by ideologues faster than you could believe. But that's a place we can agree to disagree.
- groby_b 10y ago
  I would like to point out that "censorship" is, strictly speaking, an instruments only governments can employ. So, we're talking about government regulation of speech. And that already exists, for good reason. Incitement to violence, threats of violence, defamation, child pornography are all instances of it. All of those regulations exist because the damage done to society by these forms of speech has been deemed outweighing the benefits to society that would result from inclusion of it. If that is true for fake news is arguable. I happen to believe it is, you seem to think the right to speech outweighs the damage. But I'm not sure if that's what we're talking about here. Are you arguing that the value of being able to have fake speech outweighs the damage it does, or are you arguing that all forms of speech, including the currently outlawed ones, should be free and no restrictions whatsoever should apply? Related, the question of a "censorship apparatus" is also open to interpretation - we're settling current restrictions mostly through courts & law enforcement. I would guess the answer if you consider that a censorship apparatus is influenced by what you think about current speech regulations.
  - probablybanned 10y ago
    I guess I'm using the Wikipedia definition of censorship which diverges from yours somewhat. To quote, because it's short: Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. I think suppression of public communication by a monopoly corporation like Facebook does count here. And to be clear, yes, I am arguing that the value of being able to have fake speech outweighs the damage it does. As soon as you begin on the mission to suppress "fake" speech, you have to elevate some person or institution to the role of deciding what is fake and what is real, and that's far too much power to give to anyone. That power must remain with the individual, as imperfect as we all may be.
    - groby_b 10y ago
      Ah. I'm looking at the first amendment definition, which is indeed somewhat different :) And even there, we have made that determination e.g. for speech inciting violence. That's a fairly well-defined case, so I assume that's why we all agreed we're OK with that. As a thought experiment - or, really, to help me understand - what if we declared "fake news" as "intentionally wrong in substantial facts" and had a very clear definition of substantial, and what counts as intent? Second thought experiment: What if you could still say whatever you wanted, but "fake news" simply wouldn't be content that's promoted into people's streams? Is that still censorship? After all, you can still say whatever you want - but individuals won't have to hear you when they haven't consented? (I happen to believe that the core issue isn't the fact that there are fake news, but the fact that the various social media ranking algorithms violate consent by injecting things they deem interesting. I.e. it's not about speech, per se - it's about the fact that the platforms allow third parties to inject themselves into conversations unasked)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

hnbroseph 10y ago

> This is different from what 60 year olds were doing with e-mail a decade ago in what way, exactly volume, perhaps. > Do you support fake news or do you support the construction of a censorship apparatus? in one sense, there isn't really any difference.

probablybanned 10y ago
Volume, I doubt it. Every small town Fudd I ever met had an AOL account. The difference is that all this activity is now visible to the liberal intelligentsia. To your second point, that's just nonsense.
- tyingq 10y ago
  "The difference is that all this activity is now visible to the liberal intelligentsia." I do think that's a big part of it. However, there is some aura of authenticity that comes from social media postings that link to official looking sites. Not for people that are somewhat internet savvy, but there is a group that's being somewhat fooled in way they weren't in the past.
  - makomk 10y ago
    I've seen a huge amount of complete and utter bullshit spread on social media by people who are both internet-savvy and media-savvy - indeed, even by journalists from mainstream online publications - despite not having the supposed aura of authenticity provided by a link. Indeed, I reckon that in some circles an obviously fake link harms the credibility of a claim compared to no source at all or even to one that contradicts the claim.
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  > Every small town Fudd I ever met had an AOL account having grown up in small towns, no fudd i knew had a computer, much less an aol account. (and this was in the era of aol discs clogging the mail system.) > To your second point, that's just nonsense. "fake news" is censorship through displacement and delegitimization. censorship is "fake news" by virtue of providing incomplete or distorted information (eg, lies of omission).