4 ms·

We aren't talking about objective empirical science. We are talking about partial, subjective and biased media. NewsGuard was created by media insiders with fu

We aren't talking about objective empirical science. We are talking about partial, subjective and biased media. NewsGuard was created by media insiders with funding from media insider foundations. There is most definitely cause for worry there. Would you say china's media "experts" should control what the chinese citizens see? Would you say the same about russia, europe or anywhere in the world? Blind appeal to authority is just as bad as blindly ignoring authority. I'm not saying I have the answers here. I don't know what the solution is. But I'm certain either extreme is bad for society.

tptacek 8y ago
The argument I responded to, as I read it, is that you can't trust any organization to evaluate news sources. That can't be true. I don't so much care about NewsGuard --- I don't use it --- but we delegate all kinds of judgements, many more important than this one --- to experts, for good reason. By all means, pick NewsGuard apart.
- patrec 8y ago
  Maybe we should just directly delegate voting to experts? Or are you saying that you can't trust any organization to evaluate political candidates and programs? That can't be true. We delegate all kinds of judgements, many more important than voting to experts, for good reason.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    In general, we do delegate voting to experts: we vote for the nominees of our preferred parties. Note that I'm not saying you should be forced to do that, just that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
    - patrec 8y ago
      The "preferred parties" is a bit of a sleight of hand here. Why not delegate the choice what party you should prefer to experts, too? Works for China!
      - tptacek 8y ago
        In what way is it a sleight of hand? I'd argue that most people delegate almost the entirety of their voting decision to some external authority, in almost exactly the same way as they'd sign up for and use a service like NewsGuard.
        patrec 8y ago
        Is the election of Trump largely a result of independent expert advice? Would you like to see more adoption of a similar system for news curation?
        tptacek 8y ago
        The question isn't whether we should delegate. We make bad decisions when we don't. The question is who we should delegate it to. Anyone who told you to vote for Trump was a bad source.
        HNContentMod 8y ago
        Yes. Technology should be used to suppress anyone who says to vote for Trump in much the same way we should reject anyone who says vaccines cause autism. In fact, both views should be censored because of how dangerous they are.
        patrec 8y ago
        Maybe we need more delegation experts? Recursively? ;) Anyway, you originally wrote: > you can't trust any organization to evaluate news sources. That can't be true. But it can. Successful delegation requires alignment of incentives, oversight or some (well founded) trust relationship. Otherwise, if the stakes are high enough (and if you get to shape the voting or news-consumption and non-consumption of a sizeable fraction of people, they are) bad things will happen to those who are willing delegate, in aggregate. What makes the expert more trustworthy than the politician or news-source itself? Why would you be better at picking one than the other? Credentials? Max Boot is one of the “world's leading authorities on armed conflict” and well-credentialed (academically and organizationally). Do you trust him? Did the American Tax Payers get a good return of investment of following his expertise laid out in “The Case for American Empire” to the tune of a few trillion Dollars? Tucker Carlson says no, we shouldn't trust Max Boot. Should we trust him instead? Why not? The answer is that you can only delegate these things to the extent you're able and willing to critically evaluate the quality and basis of the advice (since you have no mechanism to align incentives). And I'd be shocked if you could come up with a single broadly trustworthy news source evaluation organization -- I am not aware of one, are you? Assuming there is one, how would it stay that way longer term?

tptacek 8y ago

The argument I responded to, as I read it, is that you can't trust any organization to evaluate news sources. That can't be true. I don't so much care about NewsGuard --- I don't use it --- but we delegate all kinds of judgements, many more important than this one --- to experts, for good reason. By all means, pick NewsGuard apart.

patrec 8y ago
Maybe we should just directly delegate voting to experts? Or are you saying that you can't trust any organization to evaluate political candidates and programs? That can't be true. We delegate all kinds of judgements, many more important than voting to experts, for good reason.
- tptacek 8y ago
  In general, we do delegate voting to experts: we vote for the nominees of our preferred parties. Note that I'm not saying you should be forced to do that, just that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
  - patrec 8y ago
    The "preferred parties" is a bit of a sleight of hand here. Why not delegate the choice what party you should prefer to experts, too? Works for China!
    - tptacek 8y ago
      In what way is it a sleight of hand? I'd argue that most people delegate almost the entirety of their voting decision to some external authority, in almost exactly the same way as they'd sign up for and use a service like NewsGuard.
      - patrec 8y ago
        Is the election of Trump largely a result of independent expert advice? Would you like to see more adoption of a similar system for news curation?
        tptacek 8y ago
        The question isn't whether we should delegate. We make bad decisions when we don't. The question is who we should delegate it to. Anyone who told you to vote for Trump was a bad source.
        HNContentMod 8y ago
        Yes. Technology should be used to suppress anyone who says to vote for Trump in much the same way we should reject anyone who says vaccines cause autism. In fact, both views should be censored because of how dangerous they are.
        patrec 8y ago
        Maybe we need more delegation experts? Recursively? ;) Anyway, you originally wrote: > you can't trust any organization to evaluate news sources. That can't be true. But it can. Successful delegation requires alignment of incentives, oversight or some (well founded) trust relationship. Otherwise, if the stakes are high enough (and if you get to shape the voting or news-consumption and non-consumption of a sizeable fraction of people, they are) bad things will happen to those who are willing delegate, in aggregate. What makes the expert more trustworthy than the politician or news-source itself? Why would you be better at picking one than the other? Credentials? Max Boot is one of the “world's leading authorities on armed conflict” and well-credentialed (academically and organizationally). Do you trust him? Did the American Tax Payers get a good return of investment of following his expertise laid out in “The Case for American Empire” to the tune of a few trillion Dollars? Tucker Carlson says no, we shouldn't trust Max Boot. Should we trust him instead? Why not? The answer is that you can only delegate these things to the extent you're able and willing to critically evaluate the quality and basis of the advice (since you have no mechanism to align incentives). And I'd be shocked if you could come up with a single broadly trustworthy news source evaluation organization -- I am not aware of one, are you? Assuming there is one, how would it stay that way longer term?