5 ms·

If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I

If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true. How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this? Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking. I look at Facebook and Twitter, and the bad greatly outweighs the good. I chose a career in web dev, thinking I would be doing something beneficial, but everything we've done amounts to nothing.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
I just searched her name on Twitter, and I didn't see a single reference in the first 50 posts to ISIS, or the NRA. So 0% for me. Maybe it's just your feed? I searched by her real name AND her instagram name. I did see a lot of weird things praising her, saying RIP, which I totally don't understand. Twitter is such a weird gross place. And some rather excellent yoga almost pornography, that might be her. It seems like the most common right wing talking point I can see is saying that this was because she was 'a radical vegan'.
- ssaew333 9y ago
  My search was on search.twitter.com I don't have a twitter account The results have been changing. The newer you go, the more you see "radical vegan" and the less you see "jihad." That's... .encouraging.
classicsnoot 9y ago
I know this may seem like a silly response, but i mean it in all earnestness: Democracy may not be a basically "good thing." I know this flies in the face of a ton of social programming, but at some point we have to take the evidence as it comes to us, and if it is consistently pointing to something we did not expect or like, we can only re-jigger the pretext so many times before we have to confront the fact that maybe our assumptions were wrong. Maybe the internet is the perfect vehicle for democracy, and mob rule isn't such a great thing.
- lolc 9y ago
  Given how widely the definitions for "Democracy" diverge, it must be taken as given that some of those definitions will not be "good" for some people. As a frequent point of contention: Is vote-by-majority democratic?
  - classicsnoot 8y ago
    I would argue Yes. It is definitely one type of democracy.
- ssaew333 9y ago
  Or, democracy and mob rule are not the same thing. And the internet (in it's current form) is better at promoting mob rule.
  - classicsnoot 8y ago
    That is an interesting delineation. Disregarding Platonic definition, how would you argue they are different, or at least distinguished from each other?
nvahalik 9y ago
> Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking. The internet is a tool and like any tool, it can be used for both good and evil. It depends on the people using it. In fact, the internet is arguably a victim of it's own success. It has democratized thought so well such that people whose ideas are morally depraved have the same ability to reach an audience that those whose ideas are praiseworthy are. That's why we are having this specific conversation, is it not? > I look at Facebook and Twitter, and the bad greatly outweighs the good. I chose a career in web dev, thinking I would be doing something beneficial, but everything we've done amounts to nothing. Don't judge your work by what others are doing. It's not right. You can choose to use your skills for good by doing things that are beneficial. You can work for a non-profit, a church, a community to connect, build-up, and support people. Technology for technology sake will not bring you peace or joy—technology for the sake of others just might.
- ssaew333 9y ago
  >It has democratized thought so well such that people whose ideas are morally depraved have the same ability to reach an audience that those whose ideas are praiseworthy are. I don't think a majority of people hold these views. What we're doing is amplifying vocal minorities and drowning out everyone else. Granted, no communication mass platform is going to accurately reflect the public. That's why we hold media especially accountable for spreading falsehoods. We haven't seen that sort of criticism of Social Media, however, until very recently. Twitter, Facebook, etc make editorial decisions to make some content more visible than others, and they chose to reward this kind of crap. But because they outsource their decisions to an algorithm, we have treated them less like television channels and more like telephone companies (dumb pipes). > You can choose to use your skills for good by doing things that are beneficial. You can work for a non-profit, a church, a community to connect, build-up, and support people. I strongly agree. And tech skills aren't even necessary. Try to get involved with local politics, volunteer, give money to good causes, and help your neighbors and friends in need. It's the antidote to the division and loneliness in our world.
  - nvahalik 8y ago
travmatt 9y ago
>If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true. >How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this? Propaganda is part of the standard far right response to any outbreak of violence, I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. They’ll usually link the shooter to which ever group is closest to their skin color (isis, antifa, or blm) and probably doctor some photos if any evidence surfaces which could otherwise generate cognitive dissonance (e.g., Nicolas Cruz wearing his MAGA hat). The NRA angle is interesting though, I wonder if those are just more right wingers trying to muddy the waters or if the far left is adopting propaganda tactics of their own.
- tristor 9y ago
  I think a critical examination of the political sphere would show you that the far left has been using propaganda tactics for a very long time. It might even be most accurate to say that throughout recent human history that most of our current propaganda tactics were first discovered or invented by the far left.
  - travmatt 9y ago
    Could you give me a rundown on American far left propaganda tactics you think I’m not aware of? Could you give me a rundown on why you believe the far left invented modern propaganda tactics? As far as I can tell, most modern propaganda tactics originate or start with Russia’s new nonlinear warfare campaigns (gerasimov doctrine), and have been used heavily by Putin in Ukraine and more recently across Europe. I have a hard time seeing him as a far left figure, for obvious reasons.
    - hankhill 9y ago
      the Russian trolls have pretty much taken over HN at this point wrt political discussion. either that or Silicon Valley really really loves Putin and hates democracy. Any criticism of extremist right wing politics gets immediately flagged and downvoted into irrelevance.
VikingCoder 9y ago
When you read "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Stephen Levy, you can just feel how excited they all were about bringing people together. Maybe that was just Levy's twist on it, but it's feeling tragic to me right now.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Adam Curtis takes a chunk out of that excitement as part of his All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_%28TV_series%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_o...
  - tripplethrendo 9y ago
    One of my favorite docu-tainment pieces.
scragg 9y ago
Some people are so cynical of information that doesn't fit their beliefs they end up spreading lies.
justicezyx 9y ago
> 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists Right in a post complaining labelling, a labeling slapping to my face. I am a bit depressed by our species ability to do rational thinking.
- ng-user 9y ago
  A little contradictory, I concur. Does claiming someone is a member of ISIS automatically make you a right-wing conspiracy theorist or is it different under these circumstances? How is the number 40% actually determined, surely it must be an assumption from scrolling through the feed for a little while? To my knowledge it's difficult (near impossible without 3rd party tools) to determine in real-time the number of tweets pertaining to a certain topic.
  - ssaew333 9y ago
    I thought it was clear from my post i was guesstimating. I don't typically do rigorous analysis of what I see in twitter results, so I'll just say, it seemed like a lot of right wing accounts implying that media was covering up the shooting, or that the shooter was actually motivated by radical islam.
    - justicezyx 9y ago
      Right, this statement, if were used by the original post, to me, is quite accurate.
- gameswithgo 9y ago
  >I am a bit depressed by our species ability to do rational thinking. you can do your part by quit being a right wing conspiracy theorist?
- kurthr 9y ago
  Please stop labeling the labelers it's labelist. ... and so is this.
- ssaew333 9y ago
weberc2 9y ago
FWIW, I checked Twitter (hashtags #YouTubeShooter) this morning, and it was ugly, but I only saw one tweet that made inferences to Islam. Most of the right wing comments were to the effect of "Gun laws didn't stop this" or pointing out that her beliefs (veganism, animal rights) are traditionally associated with left wing beliefs. The left wing comments were to the effect of "NRA is a terrorist organization" and "ban AR15s" and general wishes of harm on 2A supporters. I took special note of this because there is this meme of conservatives applying the "terrorist" label on the basis of race or ethnicity, and this meme has scarcely matched my experiences. EDIT: Some people are downvoting, presumably because they think I'm making a political statement. I'm not; just sharing my data points.
antisthenes 9y ago
> Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking. It did, once. Unfortunately, we have to accept that the average person's contribution will generally be thoughtless, emotional, and not very substantive. I wouldn't say it's their fault. They honestly do not know any better and feel like they are honestly expressing themselves in that manner. Just saying that perhaps we should take it with a big grain of salt. Building intelligent consensus is very hard.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago

I just searched her name on Twitter, and I didn't see a single reference in the first 50 posts to ISIS, or the NRA. So 0% for me. Maybe it's just your feed? I searched by her real name AND her instagram name. I did see a lot of weird things praising her, saying RIP, which I totally don't understand. Twitter is such a weird gross place. And some rather excellent yoga almost pornography, that might be her. It seems like the most common right wing talking point I can see is saying that this was because she was 'a radical vegan'.

ssaew333 9y ago
My search was on search.twitter.com I don't have a twitter account The results have been changing. The newer you go, the more you see "radical vegan" and the less you see "jihad." That's... .encouraging.

classicsnoot 9y ago

I know this may seem like a silly response, but i mean it in all earnestness: Democracy may not be a basically "good thing." I know this flies in the face of a ton of social programming, but at some point we have to take the evidence as it comes to us, and if it is consistently pointing to something we did not expect or like, we can only re-jigger the pretext so many times before we have to confront the fact that maybe our assumptions were wrong. Maybe the internet is the perfect vehicle for democracy, and mob rule isn't such a great thing.

lolc 9y ago
Given how widely the definitions for "Democracy" diverge, it must be taken as given that some of those definitions will not be "good" for some people. As a frequent point of contention: Is vote-by-majority democratic?
- classicsnoot 8y ago
  I would argue Yes. It is definitely one type of democracy.
ssaew333 9y ago
Or, democracy and mob rule are not the same thing. And the internet (in it's current form) is better at promoting mob rule.
- classicsnoot 8y ago
  That is an interesting delineation. Disregarding Platonic definition, how would you argue they are different, or at least distinguished from each other?

nvahalik 9y ago

> Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking. The internet is a tool and like any tool, it can be used for both good and evil. It depends on the people using it. In fact, the internet is arguably a victim of it's own success. It has democratized thought so well such that people whose ideas are morally depraved have the same ability to reach an audience that those whose ideas are praiseworthy are. That's why we are having this specific conversation, is it not? > I look at Facebook and Twitter, and the bad greatly outweighs the good. I chose a career in web dev, thinking I would be doing something beneficial, but everything we've done amounts to nothing. Don't judge your work by what others are doing. It's not right. You can choose to use your skills for good by doing things that are beneficial. You can work for a non-profit, a church, a community to connect, build-up, and support people. Technology for technology sake will not bring you peace or joy—technology for the sake of others just might.

ssaew333 9y ago
>It has democratized thought so well such that people whose ideas are morally depraved have the same ability to reach an audience that those whose ideas are praiseworthy are. I don't think a majority of people hold these views. What we're doing is amplifying vocal minorities and drowning out everyone else. Granted, no communication mass platform is going to accurately reflect the public. That's why we hold media especially accountable for spreading falsehoods. We haven't seen that sort of criticism of Social Media, however, until very recently. Twitter, Facebook, etc make editorial decisions to make some content more visible than others, and they chose to reward this kind of crap. But because they outsource their decisions to an algorithm, we have treated them less like television channels and more like telephone companies (dumb pipes). > You can choose to use your skills for good by doing things that are beneficial. You can work for a non-profit, a church, a community to connect, build-up, and support people. I strongly agree. And tech skills aren't even necessary. Try to get involved with local politics, volunteer, give money to good causes, and help your neighbors and friends in need. It's the antidote to the division and loneliness in our world.
- nvahalik 8y ago

travmatt 9y ago

>If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true. >How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this? Propaganda is part of the standard far right response to any outbreak of violence, I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. They’ll usually link the shooter to which ever group is closest to their skin color (isis, antifa, or blm) and probably doctor some photos if any evidence surfaces which could otherwise generate cognitive dissonance (e.g., Nicolas Cruz wearing his MAGA hat). The NRA angle is interesting though, I wonder if those are just more right wingers trying to muddy the waters or if the far left is adopting propaganda tactics of their own.

tristor 9y ago
I think a critical examination of the political sphere would show you that the far left has been using propaganda tactics for a very long time. It might even be most accurate to say that throughout recent human history that most of our current propaganda tactics were first discovered or invented by the far left.
- travmatt 9y ago
  Could you give me a rundown on American far left propaganda tactics you think I’m not aware of? Could you give me a rundown on why you believe the far left invented modern propaganda tactics? As far as I can tell, most modern propaganda tactics originate or start with Russia’s new nonlinear warfare campaigns (gerasimov doctrine), and have been used heavily by Putin in Ukraine and more recently across Europe. I have a hard time seeing him as a far left figure, for obvious reasons.
  - hankhill 9y ago
    the Russian trolls have pretty much taken over HN at this point wrt political discussion. either that or Silicon Valley really really loves Putin and hates democracy. Any criticism of extremist right wing politics gets immediately flagged and downvoted into irrelevance.

VikingCoder 9y ago

When you read "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Stephen Levy, you can just feel how excited they all were about bringing people together. Maybe that was just Levy's twist on it, but it's feeling tragic to me right now.

digi_owl 9y ago
Adam Curtis takes a chunk out of that excitement as part of his All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_%28TV_series%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_o...
- tripplethrendo 9y ago
  One of my favorite docu-tainment pieces.

scragg 9y ago

Some people are so cynical of information that doesn't fit their beliefs they end up spreading lies.

justicezyx 9y ago

> 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists Right in a post complaining labelling, a labeling slapping to my face. I am a bit depressed by our species ability to do rational thinking.

ng-user 9y ago
A little contradictory, I concur. Does claiming someone is a member of ISIS automatically make you a right-wing conspiracy theorist or is it different under these circumstances? How is the number 40% actually determined, surely it must be an assumption from scrolling through the feed for a little while? To my knowledge it's difficult (near impossible without 3rd party tools) to determine in real-time the number of tweets pertaining to a certain topic.
- ssaew333 9y ago
  I thought it was clear from my post i was guesstimating. I don't typically do rigorous analysis of what I see in twitter results, so I'll just say, it seemed like a lot of right wing accounts implying that media was covering up the shooting, or that the shooter was actually motivated by radical islam.
  - justicezyx 9y ago
    Right, this statement, if were used by the original post, to me, is quite accurate.
gameswithgo 9y ago
>I am a bit depressed by our species ability to do rational thinking. you can do your part by quit being a right wing conspiracy theorist?
kurthr 9y ago
Please stop labeling the labelers it's labelist. ... and so is this.
ssaew333 9y ago

weberc2 9y ago

FWIW, I checked Twitter (hashtags #YouTubeShooter) this morning, and it was ugly, but I only saw one tweet that made inferences to Islam. Most of the right wing comments were to the effect of "Gun laws didn't stop this" or pointing out that her beliefs (veganism, animal rights) are traditionally associated with left wing beliefs. The left wing comments were to the effect of "NRA is a terrorist organization" and "ban AR15s" and general wishes of harm on 2A supporters. I took special note of this because there is this meme of conservatives applying the "terrorist" label on the basis of race or ethnicity, and this meme has scarcely matched my experiences. EDIT: Some people are downvoting, presumably because they think I'm making a political statement. I'm not; just sharing my data points.

antisthenes 9y ago

> Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking. It did, once. Unfortunately, we have to accept that the average person's contribution will generally be thoughtless, emotional, and not very substantive. I wouldn't say it's their fault. They honestly do not know any better and feel like they are honestly expressing themselves in that manner. Just saying that perhaps we should take it with a big grain of salt. Building intelligent consensus is very hard.