4 ms·

The logical consequence of the belief in people being unable to defend their minds against elaborate ads is that we should abolish democracy. How can you trust

The logical consequence of the belief in people being unable to defend their minds against elaborate ads is that we should abolish democracy. How can you trust those stupid voters to make any choice if this choice is predetermined by ads? Personally, I think people can defend themselves against lies (though it doesn't happen instantly) if they have alternatives. And that's why we should resist censorship, and not prescribe filtered news to societies.

saulrh 8y ago
> The logical consequence of the belief in people being unable to defend their minds against elaborate ads is that we should abolish democracy. How can you trust those stupid voters to make any choice if this choice is predetermined by ads? In many parts of the world and many parts of history, voters' choices are determined by quiet words from the secret police or louder words from the guys with guns. AFAIK we don't really have those problems in the US or places like the UK. Why? Because we have laws against it and game-theoretic payoff matrices involved in the enforcement and adherence to those laws that make it generally better for everyone if those laws are enforced and adhered to. I think that there probably is a regulatory solution to this. I just don't know what it looks like yet, because it's a problem domain we haven't discovered a good notation or vocabulary for and can't discuss very well. I think that efforts like this report, which attempt to carefully define "misinformation" and "disinformation" to clear up the ambiguity of "fake news", are leading us in the right direction.
- Amezarak 8y ago
  > In many parts of the world and many parts of history, voters' choices are determined by quiet words from the secret police or louder words from the guys with guns. And, of course, they are helped along with the state-controlled media that is very careful not to air "fake news" and rigorous social media censorship to make sure news and opinions that are "misinformed" or "disruptive" to public peace are not widely disseminated. The view that we need social media censorship to stop "fake news" is the view that one's owns beliefs are the ironclad, objective truth, and all other beliefs are wrong and should be censored, since they lead people away from the truth. This isn't a road you want to go down if you want to live in a liberal democracy. This isn't a new argument for those opposed to democracy even in America. At the Constitutional Convention, we had plenty of arguments like this: > Mr. GERRY. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massts. it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute. One principal evil arises from the want of due provision for those employed in the administration of Governmt. It would seem to be a maxim of democracy to starve the public servants. He mentioned the popular clamour in Massts. for the reduction of salaries and the attack made on that of the Govr. though secured by the spirit of the Constitution itself. He had he said been too republican heretofore: he was still however republican, but had been taught by experience the danger of the levilling spirit. There's always something "new." Other commenters in this thread note that legacy media doesn't have these problems, but that's almost entirely due to the massive corporate consolidation of news media. Back in early America, newspapers were much different and more democratic, in the sense that a much wider variety of views were available; many were extremely shrill, and "fake news" was a problem. Even then, people made the same arguments for shutting them down and censoring them, and briefly succeeded with the Sedition Act, which was heavily abused to arrest people who even criticized the President. Nevertheless when the Sedition Act expired with Adams' defeat and freedom of the press was restored, America did not collapse, but prospered. Advocating for "fact control" of social media is tantamount to arguing that only the opinions and preferences of the elite are correct, and we actually need corporate control of the media to make sure we don't stray from the right opinions. This is an okay view, I guess, but it doesn't fit in a liberal democracy. But don't pretend this is a "new" problem domain. We're just dressing up old arguments in new clothes because the Internet re-democratized the media, which has for decades been captured by government (mainstream media in the US has become very close to state-controlled media thanks to the way reporting works now and the prevalence of "anonymous officials") and corporate interests.
azangru 8y ago
> The logical consequence of the belief in people being unable to defend their minds against elaborate ads is that we should abolish democracy. Totally! And it’s a disheartening thought the more you think about it. How can people who, in their majority, do not have an informed opinion on _any_ issue (not because they are necessarily stupid, but because for almost any given issue there will be fewer people who have thought really deeply and clearly about it or were specially trained to think about it than those who haven’t) be trusted to make a choice? And, to continue this bleak train of thought, why should your fate as an individual be governed by the choice of the uninformed? It is all very depressing.

saulrh 8y ago

> The logical consequence of the belief in people being unable to defend their minds against elaborate ads is that we should abolish democracy. How can you trust those stupid voters to make any choice if this choice is predetermined by ads? In many parts of the world and many parts of history, voters' choices are determined by quiet words from the secret police or louder words from the guys with guns. AFAIK we don't really have those problems in the US or places like the UK. Why? Because we have laws against it and game-theoretic payoff matrices involved in the enforcement and adherence to those laws that make it generally better for everyone if those laws are enforced and adhered to. I think that there probably is a regulatory solution to this. I just don't know what it looks like yet, because it's a problem domain we haven't discovered a good notation or vocabulary for and can't discuss very well. I think that efforts like this report, which attempt to carefully define "misinformation" and "disinformation" to clear up the ambiguity of "fake news", are leading us in the right direction.

Amezarak 8y ago
> In many parts of the world and many parts of history, voters' choices are determined by quiet words from the secret police or louder words from the guys with guns. And, of course, they are helped along with the state-controlled media that is very careful not to air "fake news" and rigorous social media censorship to make sure news and opinions that are "misinformed" or "disruptive" to public peace are not widely disseminated. The view that we need social media censorship to stop "fake news" is the view that one's owns beliefs are the ironclad, objective truth, and all other beliefs are wrong and should be censored, since they lead people away from the truth. This isn't a road you want to go down if you want to live in a liberal democracy. This isn't a new argument for those opposed to democracy even in America. At the Constitutional Convention, we had plenty of arguments like this: > Mr. GERRY. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massts. it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute. One principal evil arises from the want of due provision for those employed in the administration of Governmt. It would seem to be a maxim of democracy to starve the public servants. He mentioned the popular clamour in Massts. for the reduction of salaries and the attack made on that of the Govr. though secured by the spirit of the Constitution itself. He had he said been too republican heretofore: he was still however republican, but had been taught by experience the danger of the levilling spirit. There's always something "new." Other commenters in this thread note that legacy media doesn't have these problems, but that's almost entirely due to the massive corporate consolidation of news media. Back in early America, newspapers were much different and more democratic, in the sense that a much wider variety of views were available; many were extremely shrill, and "fake news" was a problem. Even then, people made the same arguments for shutting them down and censoring them, and briefly succeeded with the Sedition Act, which was heavily abused to arrest people who even criticized the President. Nevertheless when the Sedition Act expired with Adams' defeat and freedom of the press was restored, America did not collapse, but prospered. Advocating for "fact control" of social media is tantamount to arguing that only the opinions and preferences of the elite are correct, and we actually need corporate control of the media to make sure we don't stray from the right opinions. This is an okay view, I guess, but it doesn't fit in a liberal democracy. But don't pretend this is a "new" problem domain. We're just dressing up old arguments in new clothes because the Internet re-democratized the media, which has for decades been captured by government (mainstream media in the US has become very close to state-controlled media thanks to the way reporting works now and the prevalence of "anonymous officials") and corporate interests.

azangru 8y ago

> The logical consequence of the belief in people being unable to defend their minds against elaborate ads is that we should abolish democracy. Totally! And it’s a disheartening thought the more you think about it. How can people who, in their majority, do not have an informed opinion on _any_ issue (not because they are necessarily stupid, but because for almost any given issue there will be fewer people who have thought really deeply and clearly about it or were specially trained to think about it than those who haven’t) be trusted to make a choice? And, to continue this bleak train of thought, why should your fate as an individual be governed by the choice of the uninformed? It is all very depressing.