4 ms·

> What is there to be afraid of? Propaganda and asymmetric warfare trying to disrupt the information commons is something to be afraid of. The idealistic trop

> What is there to be afraid of? Propaganda and asymmetric warfare trying to disrupt the information commons is something to be afraid of. The idealistic tropes that you are quoting are not born out in real-life experience, and we have some large eveents of the last 100 years that make us wary of people who use propaganda as warfare tactics.

stcredzero 8y ago
Propaganda and asymmetric warfare trying to disrupt the information commons is something to be afraid of...we have some large events of the last 100 years that make us wary of people who use propaganda as warfare tactics. In the short term, propaganda can get an entire country of people to do just about anything. In the long term, people come back to themselves and tell the charlatans to take a hike. The big danger, as borne out all across history, is to invest concentrated power in someone to take care of the problem. People like Cincinnatus are rare, and most people don't give up power once they have it. The public discourse will eventually relegate the nutters. Lose Free Speech, not just in the letter of the law, but in the spirit throughout society, and you lose the public discourse. That's not somewhere we want to go.
- glangdale 8y ago
  Who is suggesting that the solution to this is to restrict speech? I think it's fair enough to accurately label this as a high-end disinformation campaign, and Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I think it's fair enough to accurately label this as a high-end disinformation campaign That is very apt. Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship. Likewise, we don't want to encourage the habit of not thinking, not reading, and just going by emotional name association. To quote one of Frank Miller's more popular characters, "These of the tools of the enemy. We do not need them. We will not use them."
    - glangdale 8y ago
      There's only so many hours in the day. If you were genuinely curious about climate science, do you think your understanding will be improved by reading people who have been carefully selected by a billionaire with no background in the field, or by reading from within the world of peer-reviewed climate science papers (which are by no means monolithic). In theory we should never have the habit of not thinking/ not reading... it's worthy. But with finite resources - and being mindful of the prospect of swallowing stuff that's just out there to shift the window of acceptable dialogue - you might do well to be selective. If you were reading about racial justice in the USA, you might read both left/liberal/libertarian/conservative thinkers, but would you feel the need to make sure you give perspective from Stormfront a good evaluation too?
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        do you think your understanding will be improved by reading people who have been carefully selected by a billionaire with no background in the field When I first got to the Bay Area, I met a Thiel fellow. It was interesting, let me say that. Don't think I don't roll my eyes at some of what Peter Thiel spends his money on. That said, contrarians need to be able to have a voice. This is the only way they might eventually be convinced. If you were reading about racial justice in the USA, you might read both left/liberal/libertarian/conservative thinkers, but would you feel the need to make sure you give perspective from Stormfront a good evaluation too? I'd prefer not to read the last source. The few times I've tried, I've only lasted about 2 paragraphs and half a minute. However, understanding why the extreme fringe thinks as they do, and how they fit into the larger historical perspective is important. Extremists get a foothold when experts stop explaining, when discourse breaks down, and silencing is practiced instead. Extremists especially should get freedom of speech. It's quite instructive how both far extremes manage to resemble each other.
  - charliesharding 8y ago
    > Who is suggesting that the solution is to restrict speech? Look at the comments, you'll see that people are more than willing to take it upon themselves to ostracize independent thinkers and skeptics. Look at the article and how it's been upvoted on HN because of the premise of how evil and ridiculous it is.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >Look at the comments, you'll see that people are more than willing to take it upon themselves to ostracize independent thinkers and skeptics. Why do you believe "independent thinkers and skeptics" should be allowed to disagree with the status quo, but that disagreeing with them is tantamount to censorship and restricting speech? >Look at the article and how it's been upvoted on HN because of the premise of how evil and ridiculous it is. Yes. People believe it's ridiculous... and meanwhile plenty of skeptics believe mainstream science is ridiculous. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't support criticism and not expect criticism in return.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Why do you believe "independent thinkers and skeptics" should be allowed to disagree with the status quo, but that disagreeing with them is tantamount to censorship and restricting speech? Disagreeing and debunking is fine. Deplatforming isn't. Trying to garner emotional sentiment against people without rational argument is a bit beyond the line. Throwing around headlines to create emotional associations is a bit beyond the line. Discussing the facts is good. and meanwhile plenty of skeptics believe mainstream science is ridiculous. There are some far left progressives who would deny all evolutionary biology in order to completely deny biological sex differences, primarily on ideological grounds. I find that just as bad as denying evolution on ideological grounds. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't support criticism and not expect criticism in return. Criticism is fine. Engaging in that in good faith is supporting Free Speech. Deplatforming and tactics for silencing argument aren't fine. Those go against the spirit of Free Speech.
        8y ago
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Propaganda and asymmetric warfare" Is it possible to have a discussion in public without something being labelled as 'propaganda' because it's not perfectly consistent with the current popular orthodoxy? Maybe we should just let these guys meander through a few ideas on their little site before getting into Nazis, Communists and World Wars. :)
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Maybe we should just let these guys meander through a few ideas on their little site before getting into Nazis, Communists and World Wars. :) I think the world would be much better off if we could have functional, substantive discussions about Nazis, Communists and World Wars. Those are all harsh outliers of where groupthink can lead entire countries. As groupthink is one of the hardest things to remain aware of and truly think about, these outliers are something we should be able to talk dispassionately about. (Much as the educated portion of the population has embraced the utility of being able to think and talk calmly and rationally about sex and sex education.)
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I agree, we should!

stcredzero 8y ago

Propaganda and asymmetric warfare trying to disrupt the information commons is something to be afraid of...we have some large events of the last 100 years that make us wary of people who use propaganda as warfare tactics. In the short term, propaganda can get an entire country of people to do just about anything. In the long term, people come back to themselves and tell the charlatans to take a hike. The big danger, as borne out all across history, is to invest concentrated power in someone to take care of the problem. People like Cincinnatus are rare, and most people don't give up power once they have it. The public discourse will eventually relegate the nutters. Lose Free Speech, not just in the letter of the law, but in the spirit throughout society, and you lose the public discourse. That's not somewhere we want to go.

glangdale 8y ago
Who is suggesting that the solution to this is to restrict speech? I think it's fair enough to accurately label this as a high-end disinformation campaign, and Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I think it's fair enough to accurately label this as a high-end disinformation campaign That is very apt. Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship. Likewise, we don't want to encourage the habit of not thinking, not reading, and just going by emotional name association. To quote one of Frank Miller's more popular characters, "These of the tools of the enemy. We do not need them. We will not use them."
  - glangdale 8y ago
    There's only so many hours in the day. If you were genuinely curious about climate science, do you think your understanding will be improved by reading people who have been carefully selected by a billionaire with no background in the field, or by reading from within the world of peer-reviewed climate science papers (which are by no means monolithic). In theory we should never have the habit of not thinking/ not reading... it's worthy. But with finite resources - and being mindful of the prospect of swallowing stuff that's just out there to shift the window of acceptable dialogue - you might do well to be selective. If you were reading about racial justice in the USA, you might read both left/liberal/libertarian/conservative thinkers, but would you feel the need to make sure you give perspective from Stormfront a good evaluation too?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      do you think your understanding will be improved by reading people who have been carefully selected by a billionaire with no background in the field When I first got to the Bay Area, I met a Thiel fellow. It was interesting, let me say that. Don't think I don't roll my eyes at some of what Peter Thiel spends his money on. That said, contrarians need to be able to have a voice. This is the only way they might eventually be convinced. If you were reading about racial justice in the USA, you might read both left/liberal/libertarian/conservative thinkers, but would you feel the need to make sure you give perspective from Stormfront a good evaluation too? I'd prefer not to read the last source. The few times I've tried, I've only lasted about 2 paragraphs and half a minute. However, understanding why the extreme fringe thinks as they do, and how they fit into the larger historical perspective is important. Extremists get a foothold when experts stop explaining, when discourse breaks down, and silencing is practiced instead. Extremists especially should get freedom of speech. It's quite instructive how both far extremes manage to resemble each other.
- charliesharding 8y ago
  > Who is suggesting that the solution is to restrict speech? Look at the comments, you'll see that people are more than willing to take it upon themselves to ostracize independent thinkers and skeptics. Look at the article and how it's been upvoted on HN because of the premise of how evil and ridiculous it is.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >Look at the comments, you'll see that people are more than willing to take it upon themselves to ostracize independent thinkers and skeptics. Why do you believe "independent thinkers and skeptics" should be allowed to disagree with the status quo, but that disagreeing with them is tantamount to censorship and restricting speech? >Look at the article and how it's been upvoted on HN because of the premise of how evil and ridiculous it is. Yes. People believe it's ridiculous... and meanwhile plenty of skeptics believe mainstream science is ridiculous. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't support criticism and not expect criticism in return.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Why do you believe "independent thinkers and skeptics" should be allowed to disagree with the status quo, but that disagreeing with them is tantamount to censorship and restricting speech? Disagreeing and debunking is fine. Deplatforming isn't. Trying to garner emotional sentiment against people without rational argument is a bit beyond the line. Throwing around headlines to create emotional associations is a bit beyond the line. Discussing the facts is good. and meanwhile plenty of skeptics believe mainstream science is ridiculous. There are some far left progressives who would deny all evolutionary biology in order to completely deny biological sex differences, primarily on ideological grounds. I find that just as bad as denying evolution on ideological grounds. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't support criticism and not expect criticism in return. Criticism is fine. Engaging in that in good faith is supporting Free Speech. Deplatforming and tactics for silencing argument aren't fine. Those go against the spirit of Free Speech.
      - 8y ago

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"Propaganda and asymmetric warfare" Is it possible to have a discussion in public without something being labelled as 'propaganda' because it's not perfectly consistent with the current popular orthodoxy? Maybe we should just let these guys meander through a few ideas on their little site before getting into Nazis, Communists and World Wars. :)

stcredzero 8y ago
Maybe we should just let these guys meander through a few ideas on their little site before getting into Nazis, Communists and World Wars. :) I think the world would be much better off if we could have functional, substantive discussions about Nazis, Communists and World Wars. Those are all harsh outliers of where groupthink can lead entire countries. As groupthink is one of the hardest things to remain aware of and truly think about, these outliers are something we should be able to talk dispassionately about. (Much as the educated portion of the population has embraced the utility of being able to think and talk calmly and rationally about sex and sex education.)
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I agree, we should!