4 ms·

I disagree with your original comment. I absolutely agree with this one. Your original comment certainly added to the discussion, and was well-reasoned (thoug

I disagree with your original comment. I absolutely agree with this one. Your original comment certainly added to the discussion, and was well-reasoned (though I disagree with its conclusion).

hackuser 10y ago
As a thought experiment: What in that comment allows you to distinguish propaganda from good faith substance? It's a serious question; maybe I'll learn something! Here's how I look at it: What knowledge did it add? By knowledge, I mean something substantiated and serious; claims and allegations are not knowledge. "President X did nothing to stop the advance of Y" is a claim. "President X said the following about their policy on Y; as you can see, it's a relatively passive position: '...' [from http://...]" http://...]" is substantiated knowledge (and admittedly, much on HN isn't substantiated). (I don't mean to be the arbiter of or set rules for validity and knowledge; I'm just trying to give a rough idea of the distinction I'm trying to make.)
- linkregister 10y ago
  [paraphrased] > The Shadow Brokers mentioned X. Why didn't Bruce mention it? > The CIA had an internal hunt for contractors. Why didn't Bruce include this in his analysis? That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten. I found it useful. jwtadvice is critiquing an opinion piece. Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda. This is because we're commenting on an opinion piece, which itself is indistinguishable from propaganda. In fact, I assert that the most fact-laden article can be propaganda because it can completely ignore facts supporting the opposition. Why would you be commenting about this? Because you're doing the same thing we're doing, commenting on a forum because it's fun to discuss stuff. Sure, maybe jwtadvice is a secret propagandist. Maybe I am. I think it's a waste of time to accuse people of it unless there's substance. A more specific criticism is more appropriate: "You're just concern trolling by saying X." "You're spreading FUD about this topic without evidence. Let's wait and see." "You're changing the goal posts in order to 'be right'. Debate me on my argument." Etc.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten Fair enough, but how do you know that it's true? That's part of propaganda, to make many unsubstantiated claims that people generally will accept without checking - who has time? > Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda In fairness I said that myself; it is a high standard that often isn't met, but it's not hopeless: Many comments do say things that are substantiated (or well-known - 'the sun rises in the east' doesn't need a cite) and they don't follow other patterns of propaganda. But as I said, it is difficult. Good or even decent propaganda isn't easily distinguished - otherwise it wouldn't be effective.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Excellent rebuttal (I'm not being sarcastic). I had not checked that the SB actually claimed they got the tools from a left-behind Equation Group pivot server. Or that it's even relevant, because there's plenty of contradictory stuff in their public statements (in the last dump they claim they're inside the IC and they write "Cyber Policy Papers"). I'll say that you have absolutely added to the conversation.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        Thanks; I'm glad it was valuable (and thanks for your contributions too). Just one point in addition to yours: > I had not checked that ... I don't want to take those words too literally, but I want to make a point: The implied modus operendi, that the listener checks the validity of the claims, doesn't work IMHO. It's too inefficient - the speaker can make up or repeat or simply be sloppy about many claims in seconds, and you the listener would have to spend hours validating them. The only efficient model is that the speaker has to substantiate the claims or have them ignored (which is the method of more formal forums such as courtrooms and science). Imagine the signal-to-noise ratio with and without that requirement. Without it, false assertions simply get repeated endlessly because nobody has the time to check them out (and of course repetition is confused with truth). With that standard, much of the noise goes away; rants repeating nonsense quickly dry up. You can focus on the good stuff. People worry, 'I might miss something important.' You only have time to read a tiny fraction of what's written, and even a tiny fraction of what is well-substantiated. You might as well invest that time on the best knowledge available.
- linkregister 10y ago
  I responded to this without seeing the full context of your posts. It appears that the crux of your position is that dispute of Russian responsibility for Shadow Brokers is likely propaganda, and jwtadvice is advancing that position. I think that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Shadow Brokers are Russian-aligned if not actual Russian agents. That doesn't mean that public criticism of this is propaganda. A reasonable person could be unconvinced about this conclusion because almost no evidence has been revealed about the SB dump. Even U.S. officials haven't confirmed definitively [1] that the SB are Russian agents, though they say SB probably are. Please note that jwtadvice didn't dispute that the Guccifer 2.0 actor was a Russia-aligned actor. 1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-nsa-tools-idUSKCN11S2MF http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-nsa-tools-idUSKCN11S...
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > That doesn't mean that public criticism of this is propaganda. I completely agree. The problem is, and my point was, how does one distinguish a reasonable person speaking in good faith from propaganda, which by its nature is intended to appear as a reasonable person speaking in good faith - and which most often is spread not directly by propagandists but by reasonable people who trust the good faith of the propagandist? Anyway, I think we talked about it plenty above; I just thought your well-made points deserved a response here.

I disagree with your original comment. I absolutely agree with this one. Your original comment certainly added to the discussion, and was well-reasoned (though I disagree with its conclusion).

hackuser 10y ago

As a thought experiment: What in that comment allows you to distinguish propaganda from good faith substance? It's a serious question; maybe I'll learn something! Here's how I look at it: What knowledge did it add? By knowledge, I mean something substantiated and serious; claims and allegations are not knowledge. "President X did nothing to stop the advance of Y" is a claim. "President X said the following about their policy on Y; as you can see, it's a relatively passive position: '...' [from http://...]" http://...]" is substantiated knowledge (and admittedly, much on HN isn't substantiated). (I don't mean to be the arbiter of or set rules for validity and knowledge; I'm just trying to give a rough idea of the distinction I'm trying to make.)

linkregister 10y ago
[paraphrased] > The Shadow Brokers mentioned X. Why didn't Bruce mention it? > The CIA had an internal hunt for contractors. Why didn't Bruce include this in his analysis? That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten. I found it useful. jwtadvice is critiquing an opinion piece. Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda. This is because we're commenting on an opinion piece, which itself is indistinguishable from propaganda. In fact, I assert that the most fact-laden article can be propaganda because it can completely ignore facts supporting the opposition. Why would you be commenting about this? Because you're doing the same thing we're doing, commenting on a forum because it's fun to discuss stuff. Sure, maybe jwtadvice is a secret propagandist. Maybe I am. I think it's a waste of time to accuse people of it unless there's substance. A more specific criticism is more appropriate: "You're just concern trolling by saying X." "You're spreading FUD about this topic without evidence. Let's wait and see." "You're changing the goal posts in order to 'be right'. Debate me on my argument." Etc.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten Fair enough, but how do you know that it's true? That's part of propaganda, to make many unsubstantiated claims that people generally will accept without checking - who has time? > Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda In fairness I said that myself; it is a high standard that often isn't met, but it's not hopeless: Many comments do say things that are substantiated (or well-known - 'the sun rises in the east' doesn't need a cite) and they don't follow other patterns of propaganda. But as I said, it is difficult. Good or even decent propaganda isn't easily distinguished - otherwise it wouldn't be effective.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Excellent rebuttal (I'm not being sarcastic). I had not checked that the SB actually claimed they got the tools from a left-behind Equation Group pivot server. Or that it's even relevant, because there's plenty of contradictory stuff in their public statements (in the last dump they claim they're inside the IC and they write "Cyber Policy Papers"). I'll say that you have absolutely added to the conversation.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Thanks; I'm glad it was valuable (and thanks for your contributions too). Just one point in addition to yours: > I had not checked that ... I don't want to take those words too literally, but I want to make a point: The implied modus operendi, that the listener checks the validity of the claims, doesn't work IMHO. It's too inefficient - the speaker can make up or repeat or simply be sloppy about many claims in seconds, and you the listener would have to spend hours validating them. The only efficient model is that the speaker has to substantiate the claims or have them ignored (which is the method of more formal forums such as courtrooms and science). Imagine the signal-to-noise ratio with and without that requirement. Without it, false assertions simply get repeated endlessly because nobody has the time to check them out (and of course repetition is confused with truth). With that standard, much of the noise goes away; rants repeating nonsense quickly dry up. You can focus on the good stuff. People worry, 'I might miss something important.' You only have time to read a tiny fraction of what's written, and even a tiny fraction of what is well-substantiated. You might as well invest that time on the best knowledge available.
linkregister 10y ago
I responded to this without seeing the full context of your posts. It appears that the crux of your position is that dispute of Russian responsibility for Shadow Brokers is likely propaganda, and jwtadvice is advancing that position. I think that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Shadow Brokers are Russian-aligned if not actual Russian agents. That doesn't mean that public criticism of this is propaganda. A reasonable person could be unconvinced about this conclusion because almost no evidence has been revealed about the SB dump. Even U.S. officials haven't confirmed definitively [1] that the SB are Russian agents, though they say SB probably are. Please note that jwtadvice didn't dispute that the Guccifer 2.0 actor was a Russia-aligned actor. 1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-nsa-tools-idUSKCN11S2MF http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-nsa-tools-idUSKCN11S...
- hackuser 10y ago
  > That doesn't mean that public criticism of this is propaganda. I completely agree. The problem is, and my point was, how does one distinguish a reasonable person speaking in good faith from propaganda, which by its nature is intended to appear as a reasonable person speaking in good faith - and which most often is spread not directly by propagandists but by reasonable people who trust the good faith of the propagandist? Anyway, I think we talked about it plenty above; I just thought your well-made points deserved a response here.