3 ms·

Exactly this. HN is a cesspool of misinformation. Whether it comes from people pushing an agenda, or just plain ignorance. I take everything said here with a gr

Exactly this. HN is a cesspool of misinformation. Whether it comes from people pushing an agenda, or just plain ignorance. I take everything said here with a grain of salt, and fact check everything. Because I have seen some very creative and convincing misinformation here, that when researched doesn't hold up under scrutiny. My point is that people casually browsing this place are going to be infected by the misinformation and spread it to others. All while the mods overfit on whether someone's response wasn't polite enough, which in a lot of cases is biased to begin with. Stack Exchange is a much, MUCH more reliable source of information than the horse shit I see pranced around here on a daily basis. Their moderation system actually works because it empowers knowledgeable users.

tlb 7y ago
I don't find this to be the case. Usually, when someone is wrong, they are quickly corrected. So when reading a thread, I rarely come away with an incorrect belief. Maybe some example would help me understand what you mean. Could you link to some clear misinformation on HN that wasn't convincingly refuted elsewhere in the thread?
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Plenty examples here, even with people coming out of the woodwork to support eugenics under false pretenses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542738 Look up some accounts (jlawson) and you will find they consistently post right wing BS here. Or just search HN for eugenics and see all the crazy claims made... Plenty other examples, but due to ignorance, like someone giving a long convincing explanation of the thermodynamics behind the efficiency of steam engines which sounded entirely convincing. But was complete utter horse shit once researched, and no one refuted it. But it was upvoted plenty.
  - tlb 7y ago
    I looked in the places you suggested but none of them seem like cesspools of misinformation. Political opinions from across the right-left spectrum, if presented in a civil and substantive way and without fake facts, are not against the rules here. Extreme opinions tend to get downvoted pretty quickly, though.
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      I guess you didn't look hard enough. Because the top comment is a lie: If you outlaw this, people like me (who think inflicting stupidly and ill-health on their children by withholding these technologies is morally wrong) will just fly to Singapore. Even if you could enforce this, not every country will. 5+ standard deviation increases in many traits is on the table Nope, 5+ std deviations is not on the table.
      - tlb 7y ago
        You might disapprove of the sentiment, but that does not appear to be a lie. A lie has to be factually incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
        codesushi42 7y ago
        Claiming 5+ std deviations is a statement, not a sentiment. The author cites a paper that makes no such claim. That counts as a lie.
        tlb 7y ago
        The citation by Gwern mentions a number of traits which could plausibly be improved 5 SD, like height (which would be +20 inches -- ie, a 7'5" man).
        codesushi42 7y ago
        Height has nothing to do with intelligence, which is what the discussion thread is about.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        tlb 7y ago
        I think pointing to evidence that many traits are susceptible to +5 SD increases by genetic screening is reasonable in the context a discussion about intelligence, even though +5 SD change in intelligence hasn't been demonstrated. +5 SD change in intelligence (ie, average IQ of 175) would be amazing, but it's not obviously impossible. So it's "on the table" in the sense that cities on Mars are "on the table". It's not prohibited by any known laws of nature, and some experts are working on it. There are lots of actual lies in circulation, so I encourage you to reserve the use of the word for things that are demonstrably false, not just ambitious claims that one might be skeptical of.
  - chr1 7y ago
    You seem to have some kind of misconception about eugenics, the thing that everyone agrees to be unacceptable is "improving" mankind by forcing some people to not marry or to not have children. The thing talked about in that thread is voluntary modification of ones own dna. Deleting comments simply supporting this would be crazy. HN is not a crowdsourced knowledge base like stackexchange or wikipedia, to expect high percentage of accuracy on all posts, it is place of conversations and having people with different viewpoints makes it more interesting. For the thermodynamics example did you post the correct version after researching? Or maybe you found it too late when conversation have already moved on? Unfortunately that's the way all conversations work in real world too, best arguments come after it. I am not saying that hn voting is the perfect system, but it is way better than the system where moderators check if comments are true or "right wing BS" because then instead of discussions you'd get echo chamber of everyone agreeing with moderator, and it's not guaranteed that it will be left wing echo chamber you wish for.

tlb 7y ago

I don't find this to be the case. Usually, when someone is wrong, they are quickly corrected. So when reading a thread, I rarely come away with an incorrect belief. Maybe some example would help me understand what you mean. Could you link to some clear misinformation on HN that wasn't convincingly refuted elsewhere in the thread?

codesushi42 7y ago
Plenty examples here, even with people coming out of the woodwork to support eugenics under false pretenses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542738 Look up some accounts (jlawson) and you will find they consistently post right wing BS here. Or just search HN for eugenics and see all the crazy claims made... Plenty other examples, but due to ignorance, like someone giving a long convincing explanation of the thermodynamics behind the efficiency of steam engines which sounded entirely convincing. But was complete utter horse shit once researched, and no one refuted it. But it was upvoted plenty.
- tlb 7y ago
  I looked in the places you suggested but none of them seem like cesspools of misinformation. Political opinions from across the right-left spectrum, if presented in a civil and substantive way and without fake facts, are not against the rules here. Extreme opinions tend to get downvoted pretty quickly, though.
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    I guess you didn't look hard enough. Because the top comment is a lie: If you outlaw this, people like me (who think inflicting stupidly and ill-health on their children by withholding these technologies is morally wrong) will just fly to Singapore. Even if you could enforce this, not every country will. 5+ standard deviation increases in many traits is on the table Nope, 5+ std deviations is not on the table.
    - tlb 7y ago
      You might disapprove of the sentiment, but that does not appear to be a lie. A lie has to be factually incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
      - codesushi42 7y ago
        Claiming 5+ std deviations is a statement, not a sentiment. The author cites a paper that makes no such claim. That counts as a lie.
        tlb 7y ago
        The citation by Gwern mentions a number of traits which could plausibly be improved 5 SD, like height (which would be +20 inches -- ie, a 7'5" man).
        codesushi42 7y ago
        Height has nothing to do with intelligence, which is what the discussion thread is about.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        tlb 7y ago
        I think pointing to evidence that many traits are susceptible to +5 SD increases by genetic screening is reasonable in the context a discussion about intelligence, even though +5 SD change in intelligence hasn't been demonstrated. +5 SD change in intelligence (ie, average IQ of 175) would be amazing, but it's not obviously impossible. So it's "on the table" in the sense that cities on Mars are "on the table". It's not prohibited by any known laws of nature, and some experts are working on it. There are lots of actual lies in circulation, so I encourage you to reserve the use of the word for things that are demonstrably false, not just ambitious claims that one might be skeptical of.
- chr1 7y ago
  You seem to have some kind of misconception about eugenics, the thing that everyone agrees to be unacceptable is "improving" mankind by forcing some people to not marry or to not have children. The thing talked about in that thread is voluntary modification of ones own dna. Deleting comments simply supporting this would be crazy. HN is not a crowdsourced knowledge base like stackexchange or wikipedia, to expect high percentage of accuracy on all posts, it is place of conversations and having people with different viewpoints makes it more interesting. For the thermodynamics example did you post the correct version after researching? Or maybe you found it too late when conversation have already moved on? Unfortunately that's the way all conversations work in real world too, best arguments come after it. I am not saying that hn voting is the perfect system, but it is way better than the system where moderators check if comments are true or "right wing BS" because then instead of discussions you'd get echo chamber of everyone agreeing with moderator, and it's not guaranteed that it will be left wing echo chamber you wish for.