8 ms·

>It seems like we're moving in the opposite direction these days Good. >with the internet as a means to control, oppress, and indoctrinate. No, we're just no

>It seems like we're moving in the opposite direction these days Good. >with the internet as a means to control, oppress, and indoctrinate. No, we're just not allowing "information anarchy." Not all information is beneficial, useful, or constructive. Some of it has net negatives. Stop assuming there are enough rational/good actors to counter act the bad/ignorant actors who propagate bad information. We don't have the public education infrastructure in a good enough place to assume that. So stop assuming it, because the data is telling you you're wrong. We're seeing the opposite of what everyone claimed would happen if everyone had access to as much information from as many different sources as possible. And we've just tip toed into this era and we're already seeing bad effects. The internet of yesteryear (and I mean decades ago) was largely populated by well educated people. Most of them were educated in a fairly structured environment, and knew how to qualify credible sources and credible information against information that was most likely incorrect or uncredible. That's not indoctrination. That's not "oppressive." The exact opposite paradigm you want for the internet created a populace that allowed the internet to be a great place to have civil, intellectual, and life altering conversations. Someone saying something absurd/incorrect/dangerous never could go far. It was always beaten or it was ignored, left to die because there wasn't an audience for those ideas. Now you can present almost any idea, no matter how ridiculous, harmful, or "bad" it may be and there will most likely be audience. And that's a problem. The idea that again, we can just let ideas fly off the wall and it'll slowly get filtered out is not tenable and has every ounce of data loudly saying this perspective is not true. You might be well educated enough, or even just have the intelligence, to discuss certain topics in an intellectually curious manner from a distance. But others, a lot of others, are going to take them at face value and run with them. It's information anarchy. Anarchy always results in new power structures that are less suitable to civil existence.

npsimons 8y ago
> Now you can present almost any idea, no matter how ridiculous, harmful, or "bad" it may be and there will most likely be audience. Like anti-vax, or AGW denialism, or white supremacy, or flat-eartherism, or creationism, or trickle down economics . . . Need I go on?
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  No need. It really says a lot about the linked article in question where the best arguments he had for debate were allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles. He seemed kind of angry at other people for bringing it up as a way to demonstrate what he was doing was wrong but then turned around used those topics as an example of why his moderation and general platform were so great. Guess he can just have it both ways because. It's nothing but pseudo-intellectual masturbation. The idea of meaningful debate is apparently more important than actually meaningfully debating something to people like the author of the article being linked. Anyone who apparently brings attention to the absurdity and uselessness (or sometimes harmfulness) of what he's doing is "just against him" or is just too morally disgusted to actually think about the topics. Which is actually kind of a funny view point when you think about it; he truly believes other people just don't "get it" which is the summary of the entire article. It's arrogance and foolishness masquerading as an enterprise in advancing knowledge.
  - Diederich 8y ago
    I don't agree with you, and I think your tone is harsher than it should be, but I don't think this comment merits being flagged to [dead].
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      I mean it was immediately set as [dead]. Not even 30 seconds after posting. Is that characteristic of a moderator action?
      - dang 8y ago
        Software did that; your comment triggered a spam filter. Then a user came vouched for it, which is the intended use of vouching. Moderators didn't touch it.
        Diederich 8y ago
        How about this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=0x54D5 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=0x54D5 (meaning: this isn't a super new account, why is it dead? I think I've been the one vouching for quite a few of the comments)
berberous 8y ago
And who decides which information is beneficial, useful or constructive? What makes you think you are on the right side? By the way, I note that you have been downvoted/flagged to oblivion. I only see your comment because I prefer to browse with 'showdead' enabled. So, you presumably post here because you like this forum, yet your peers think your comment was not worth anyone even _viewing_. I think your comment was a coherent, good faith attempt to express a view. While I disagree with your view, I'd prefer people debate it with you rather than flag it away. But how do you feel knowing that your view has been deemed to be net negative and harmful enough that no one should even view it?
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  It's not about what information is useful. It's controlling what information is bad/can be abused. How do I feel about my comment being flagged? It's totally expected. This is a heavy technolibertarian site. The idea that "things will just sort themselves out" in any field can never be questioned. Saying that maybe things should be a little bit controlled is always met with extreme cult like fervor. The current effects of status quo paradigms are never taken into consideration. And because of this the term "free speech" has become a thought terminating cliche. You apparently can't ever know what's right or wrong, or say what's good or bad. What a terrible way to think.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Do you see the irony in your first sentence? Your concern about information isn't about it being useful but about it can be bad/abuseable? What you decry in "technolibertarians" you are for with censorship. The same logic applies to both of them except information is a way more useful tool with less potential for abuse and has censorship has proven full of more bads. You complain of status quos and norms not being taken into consideration yet never think of the downsides of your "careful" approach which is actually recklessness driven by fear. You can always attempt to validate claims that you hear that may be false. There is nothing that can be done to claims not heard and spread. And that is one hell of a camel's nose under the tent. Abuse is all about the wielder anyway. To give up potential and put oneself in the position of much worse abusers because of "bad people might abuse it".
ufmace 8y ago
> Stop assuming there are enough rational/good actors to counter act the bad/ignorant actors who propagate bad information. It took me a few minutes to think of what really bothered me about this line of thinking, and I think it comes down to this sentence. If you believe that this is true, why should it stop with just the internet? Why not all of life? This is exactly the line of thinking that, when applied to real life, translates to "We must have a dictatorship of the enlightened because people are not smart enough to function in a Democracy". This philosophy has been put forth a great many times by a great many people. The end result of it is typically not very pleasant for anyone. Particularly for those who thought that they were one of the smarter ones who were too well-educated and enlightened to fall for anything really bad.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  Before I continue, how exactly does a dictatorship play into what I said? You realize say, peer review is a thing. You can't just publish whatever on a news site. Or in scientific journals, or your community bulltein board. So I'm a bit confused.
- rosser 8y ago
  > If you believe that this is true, why should it stop with just the internet? Why not all of life? It is true of "all of life" but the social dynamics (coupled with bog-standard H. sapiens cognitive foibles) in play when you aren't interacting with a "real person", but merely a name on a screen, empowers the bad/ignorant actors far moreso than it does the good/rational ones. Even the most reprehensible forum troll knows that if he behaved that way to someone's face, he'd get punched.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    >Even the most reprehensible forum troll knows that if he behaved that way to someone's face, he'd get punched. Honestly, in my experience, this isn't true. "Troll"-type demonstrators and protesters behave like, well, trolls to people's face all the time, and it's generally considered part of Good Public Decorum and Free Speech not to punch them.
MFLoon 8y ago
Just to be clear: you're arguing in favor of doxing/no-platforming/otherwise suppressing people who espouse 'ridiculous, harmful, or "bad"' ideas? Leaving aside the issue of pre-judging which ideas fall into that bucket, what about the fallible targeting mechanisms of the mob? Do you think that what happened to the culture war thread was good and justified?
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  Where does "doxing" come into play? Why did you just whimsically group those together? Feels like a bad faith question.
  - MFLoon 8y ago
    Because they were grouped together in the original article, as tactics Scott Alexander's detractors had employed against him in trying to silence the CW threads.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      But I replied to the comment directly. So why would you think that original, not really congruent, grouping of concepts applies?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

npsimons 8y ago

> Now you can present almost any idea, no matter how ridiculous, harmful, or "bad" it may be and there will most likely be audience. Like anti-vax, or AGW denialism, or white supremacy, or flat-eartherism, or creationism, or trickle down economics . . . Need I go on?

kadendogthing 8y ago
No need. It really says a lot about the linked article in question where the best arguments he had for debate were allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles. He seemed kind of angry at other people for bringing it up as a way to demonstrate what he was doing was wrong but then turned around used those topics as an example of why his moderation and general platform were so great. Guess he can just have it both ways because. It's nothing but pseudo-intellectual masturbation. The idea of meaningful debate is apparently more important than actually meaningfully debating something to people like the author of the article being linked. Anyone who apparently brings attention to the absurdity and uselessness (or sometimes harmfulness) of what he's doing is "just against him" or is just too morally disgusted to actually think about the topics. Which is actually kind of a funny view point when you think about it; he truly believes other people just don't "get it" which is the summary of the entire article. It's arrogance and foolishness masquerading as an enterprise in advancing knowledge.
- Diederich 8y ago
  I don't agree with you, and I think your tone is harsher than it should be, but I don't think this comment merits being flagged to [dead].
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    I mean it was immediately set as [dead]. Not even 30 seconds after posting. Is that characteristic of a moderator action?
    - dang 8y ago
      Software did that; your comment triggered a spam filter. Then a user came vouched for it, which is the intended use of vouching. Moderators didn't touch it.
      - Diederich 8y ago
        How about this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=0x54D5 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=0x54D5 (meaning: this isn't a super new account, why is it dead? I think I've been the one vouching for quite a few of the comments)

berberous 8y ago

And who decides which information is beneficial, useful or constructive? What makes you think you are on the right side? By the way, I note that you have been downvoted/flagged to oblivion. I only see your comment because I prefer to browse with 'showdead' enabled. So, you presumably post here because you like this forum, yet your peers think your comment was not worth anyone even _viewing_. I think your comment was a coherent, good faith attempt to express a view. While I disagree with your view, I'd prefer people debate it with you rather than flag it away. But how do you feel knowing that your view has been deemed to be net negative and harmful enough that no one should even view it?

kadendogthing 8y ago
It's not about what information is useful. It's controlling what information is bad/can be abused. How do I feel about my comment being flagged? It's totally expected. This is a heavy technolibertarian site. The idea that "things will just sort themselves out" in any field can never be questioned. Saying that maybe things should be a little bit controlled is always met with extreme cult like fervor. The current effects of status quo paradigms are never taken into consideration. And because of this the term "free speech" has become a thought terminating cliche. You apparently can't ever know what's right or wrong, or say what's good or bad. What a terrible way to think.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Do you see the irony in your first sentence? Your concern about information isn't about it being useful but about it can be bad/abuseable? What you decry in "technolibertarians" you are for with censorship. The same logic applies to both of them except information is a way more useful tool with less potential for abuse and has censorship has proven full of more bads. You complain of status quos and norms not being taken into consideration yet never think of the downsides of your "careful" approach which is actually recklessness driven by fear. You can always attempt to validate claims that you hear that may be false. There is nothing that can be done to claims not heard and spread. And that is one hell of a camel's nose under the tent. Abuse is all about the wielder anyway. To give up potential and put oneself in the position of much worse abusers because of "bad people might abuse it".

ufmace 8y ago

> Stop assuming there are enough rational/good actors to counter act the bad/ignorant actors who propagate bad information. It took me a few minutes to think of what really bothered me about this line of thinking, and I think it comes down to this sentence. If you believe that this is true, why should it stop with just the internet? Why not all of life? This is exactly the line of thinking that, when applied to real life, translates to "We must have a dictatorship of the enlightened because people are not smart enough to function in a Democracy". This philosophy has been put forth a great many times by a great many people. The end result of it is typically not very pleasant for anyone. Particularly for those who thought that they were one of the smarter ones who were too well-educated and enlightened to fall for anything really bad.

kadendogthing 8y ago
Before I continue, how exactly does a dictatorship play into what I said? You realize say, peer review is a thing. You can't just publish whatever on a news site. Or in scientific journals, or your community bulltein board. So I'm a bit confused.
rosser 8y ago
> If you believe that this is true, why should it stop with just the internet? Why not all of life? It is true of "all of life" but the social dynamics (coupled with bog-standard H. sapiens cognitive foibles) in play when you aren't interacting with a "real person", but merely a name on a screen, empowers the bad/ignorant actors far moreso than it does the good/rational ones. Even the most reprehensible forum troll knows that if he behaved that way to someone's face, he'd get punched.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >Even the most reprehensible forum troll knows that if he behaved that way to someone's face, he'd get punched. Honestly, in my experience, this isn't true. "Troll"-type demonstrators and protesters behave like, well, trolls to people's face all the time, and it's generally considered part of Good Public Decorum and Free Speech not to punch them.

MFLoon 8y ago

Just to be clear: you're arguing in favor of doxing/no-platforming/otherwise suppressing people who espouse 'ridiculous, harmful, or "bad"' ideas? Leaving aside the issue of pre-judging which ideas fall into that bucket, what about the fallible targeting mechanisms of the mob? Do you think that what happened to the culture war thread was good and justified?

kadendogthing 8y ago
Where does "doxing" come into play? Why did you just whimsically group those together? Feels like a bad faith question.
- MFLoon 8y ago
  Because they were grouped together in the original article, as tactics Scott Alexander's detractors had employed against him in trying to silence the CW threads.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    But I replied to the comment directly. So why would you think that original, not really congruent, grouping of concepts applies?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]