5 ms·

> The only way to prevent dark ages beliefs is to shine light on them. This is the sort of principled belief I used to hold that I’m no longer sure holds up to

> The only way to prevent dark ages beliefs is to shine light on them. This is the sort of principled belief I used to hold that I’m no longer sure holds up to scrutiny. There's always been a fringe that was willing to believe anything. But how do you call something like Infowars “fringe” when it’s on the same “network” as NPR and CNN podcasts? Placement like that legitimizes Infowars. That “light shining” on Infowars was a spotlight. You’re probably right that this will galvanize the true believers, but what was going to turn their beliefs around? The flipside is that this move may cauterize a growing infection.

nailer 8y ago
I like CNN a lot more than InfoWars, but there's a few instances - the Trump fish feeding video editing incident, and claiming the Obama admin rep said they didn't seperate children when they just recorded him doing so - where CNN has deliberately and demonstrably lied / misrepresented the truth. Would you support banning them? FB has a strong 'anti fake news' stance. Jones is an asshole, but we should have specific ToS violations, not "we banned you because we've decided glorifying violence is the same as graphic violence now" (which, logically, it is not) and then apply them consistently. We currently have people seeming banning anything they don't like, and allowing ToS violations by people they do like (not just on FB, but also Twitter recently). FB should have said: "we're taking action because we believe your video on this date harassed the Sandy Hook survivors". And they should punish fake news wherever they see it, in the same way Twitter should punish racist trolls.
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  Trying to put CNN on the same (low) level as InfoWars is disgusting and a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.
  - resters 8y ago
    To avoid a flamewar about the parent of your comment, I think it's appropriate to interpret it as a broad observation about the decline in journalistic standards and the shift in focus of news organizations into content farms for like-minded people.
  - nailer 8y ago
    Good thing I didn't - read the very first sentence of the comment you're replying to. Then read the rest of it, which is about wanting specific consistently enforced ToS violation handling, regardless of where they're needed or the magnitude of the violation, or how much of an asshole they are. Infowars are trash. CNN is trashy, but not as trashy as Infowars. I make that abuntantly clear. I think you're smart enough to know that, so it seems as if you're deliberately misreading the comment in order to either get attention or deflect criticism of ToS violations you support. Which indeed is a disgusting and deliberate misrepresentation of fact. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mrguyorama 8y ago
      Why does facebook need an excuse to remove something you describe as trash? Spreading trash on their platform reduces its value. Do you claim that spreading CNN on their platform ALSO reduces its value?
      - nailer 8y ago
        1. Because having a consistent set of rules ensures everyone follows them. 2. Yes, demonstrably false news reduces the value of Facebook. That anyone would think it doesn't illustrates the need for 1.
  - tootahe45 8y ago
    Apart from the obvious acting of Alex Jones, i put post-Trump CNN on the same level as Infowars. Jones definitely puts out less hysteria than CNN if you monitor both youtube channels.
- Redoubts 8y ago
  > Good thing I didn't You literally did.
resters 8y ago
> ... but what was going to turn their beliefs around? Educating people about morally correct beliefs is a separate undertaking that is typically what members of the clergy undertake with worshipers. I don't think there is any need for such a role in secular society. If you disagree, don't just downvote this, explain what level of moral education and policing is appropriate in a free society. > ...this move may cauterize a growing infection. I understand the point you are making, but I would like to add that I think it's a bit dangerous to use nazi-style rhetoric like "infection" or "infestation" to describe people we oppose politically.
- Eric_WVGG 8y ago
  > explain what level of moral education and policing is appropriate in a free society. The problem, as I currently perceive it, is not how society performs moral education or policing on adults, but rather how we teach critical thinking skills to children. For a related example, there was an excellent article recently where someone visited a “flat earth” convention and interviewed various participants. What he found was that adherents didn’t exactly disbelieve in a globe; they were instead embracing rejection of factual authority. https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-on-a-flat-earth https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-... I don’t see Infowars types as those I “oppose politically.” Their beliefs are not merely “right-wing” — their worldview is simply craziness. If I’m right that this is a problem of rubber-stamping students through graduation who are unable to think coherently, then "moral policing" is a post-facto treatment, and what’s really necessary is prevention. (These ideas are mostly spread through memes, for crying out loud; the term is literally defined as an infection.) (I didn't downvote you, incidentally.)
  - resters 8y ago
    Interesting thoughts. I agree that students should learn critical thinking in school, but I'd argue that Alex Jones has not gained popularity by appealing to untrained minds, but by appealing to human emotional needs. I take solace in the realization that humans are extraordinarily hypocritical. Consider the massive engagement numbers from Youporn in the most religious counties in the US. Belief has virtually nothing to do with action, so there is no reason to be concerned about anyone's beliefs. People act for emotional reasons that are beneath the level of belief. Jones appeals to people for those reasons, and I fear that censoring him only strengthens the emotional meaning of his existence for his followers, and will motivate them to share his messages more actively now that the content isn't as easy to find by accident.

nailer 8y ago

I like CNN a lot more than InfoWars, but there's a few instances - the Trump fish feeding video editing incident, and claiming the Obama admin rep said they didn't seperate children when they just recorded him doing so - where CNN has deliberately and demonstrably lied / misrepresented the truth. Would you support banning them? FB has a strong 'anti fake news' stance. Jones is an asshole, but we should have specific ToS violations, not "we banned you because we've decided glorifying violence is the same as graphic violence now" (which, logically, it is not) and then apply them consistently. We currently have people seeming banning anything they don't like, and allowing ToS violations by people they do like (not just on FB, but also Twitter recently). FB should have said: "we're taking action because we believe your video on this date harassed the Sandy Hook survivors". And they should punish fake news wherever they see it, in the same way Twitter should punish racist trolls.

mrguyorama 8y ago
Trying to put CNN on the same (low) level as InfoWars is disgusting and a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.
- resters 8y ago
  To avoid a flamewar about the parent of your comment, I think it's appropriate to interpret it as a broad observation about the decline in journalistic standards and the shift in focus of news organizations into content farms for like-minded people.
- nailer 8y ago
  Good thing I didn't - read the very first sentence of the comment you're replying to. Then read the rest of it, which is about wanting specific consistently enforced ToS violation handling, regardless of where they're needed or the magnitude of the violation, or how much of an asshole they are. Infowars are trash. CNN is trashy, but not as trashy as Infowars. I make that abuntantly clear. I think you're smart enough to know that, so it seems as if you're deliberately misreading the comment in order to either get attention or deflect criticism of ToS violations you support. Which indeed is a disgusting and deliberate misrepresentation of fact. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mrguyorama 8y ago
    Why does facebook need an excuse to remove something you describe as trash? Spreading trash on their platform reduces its value. Do you claim that spreading CNN on their platform ALSO reduces its value?
    - nailer 8y ago
      1. Because having a consistent set of rules ensures everyone follows them. 2. Yes, demonstrably false news reduces the value of Facebook. That anyone would think it doesn't illustrates the need for 1.
- tootahe45 8y ago
  Apart from the obvious acting of Alex Jones, i put post-Trump CNN on the same level as Infowars. Jones definitely puts out less hysteria than CNN if you monitor both youtube channels.
Redoubts 8y ago
> Good thing I didn't You literally did.

resters 8y ago

> ... but what was going to turn their beliefs around? Educating people about morally correct beliefs is a separate undertaking that is typically what members of the clergy undertake with worshipers. I don't think there is any need for such a role in secular society. If you disagree, don't just downvote this, explain what level of moral education and policing is appropriate in a free society. > ...this move may cauterize a growing infection. I understand the point you are making, but I would like to add that I think it's a bit dangerous to use nazi-style rhetoric like "infection" or "infestation" to describe people we oppose politically.

Eric_WVGG 8y ago
> explain what level of moral education and policing is appropriate in a free society. The problem, as I currently perceive it, is not how society performs moral education or policing on adults, but rather how we teach critical thinking skills to children. For a related example, there was an excellent article recently where someone visited a “flat earth” convention and interviewed various participants. What he found was that adherents didn’t exactly disbelieve in a globe; they were instead embracing rejection of factual authority. https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-on-a-flat-earth https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-... I don’t see Infowars types as those I “oppose politically.” Their beliefs are not merely “right-wing” — their worldview is simply craziness. If I’m right that this is a problem of rubber-stamping students through graduation who are unable to think coherently, then "moral policing" is a post-facto treatment, and what’s really necessary is prevention. (These ideas are mostly spread through memes, for crying out loud; the term is literally defined as an infection.) (I didn't downvote you, incidentally.)
- resters 8y ago
  Interesting thoughts. I agree that students should learn critical thinking in school, but I'd argue that Alex Jones has not gained popularity by appealing to untrained minds, but by appealing to human emotional needs. I take solace in the realization that humans are extraordinarily hypocritical. Consider the massive engagement numbers from Youporn in the most religious counties in the US. Belief has virtually nothing to do with action, so there is no reason to be concerned about anyone's beliefs. People act for emotional reasons that are beneath the level of belief. Jones appeals to people for those reasons, and I fear that censoring him only strengthens the emotional meaning of his existence for his followers, and will motivate them to share his messages more actively now that the content isn't as easy to find by accident.