5 ms·

Dear fellow HN'ers, please don't downvote a comment as a reflex if you disagree with it and consider engaging a point on its merits. Hiding viewpoints you disag

Dear fellow HN'ers, please don't downvote a comment as a reflex if you disagree with it and consider engaging a point on its merits. Hiding viewpoints you disagree with creates an echo chamber.

op00to 7y ago
Please don't try to influence people how to vote with replies to the comment.
- LocalH 7y ago
  Outside of that, do you disagree with the rest of their statement?
  - ooobit2 7y ago
    Late, but wanted to point out: No, they can read but they also can't read too.
LocalH 7y ago
I agree with your comment, but unfortunately HN guidelines suggest that we shouldn't discuss comment voting (outside of, perhaps, a larger meta-HN discussion). So I don't expect your comment to last long either. For what it's worth, I upvoted the originally-referenced comment.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
The comment is getting downvoted because it claims the BBC spreads fake news but then gives no evidence for it, instead pointing to Hearst publications from more than a hundred years ago. Hiding poorly argued viewpoints creates an echo chamber of well-reasoned arguments, which converges on the truth. Do you consider arithmetic textbooks an echo chamber for endlessly parroting that 2+2=4?
- knolax 7y ago
  I think there's more nuance to that. Not all truths are as easily proven as 2+2=4. Usually an echo chamber is only considered as such when the people parroting a "fact" do so with confidence that far exceeds any proof that they can provide. The mask issue GP brings up is a great example. Before the COVID-19 outbreak most people generally regarded the practice of wearing face masks in Asia with scorn. If you asked them about it they would invariably bring up the same fact that "virii are too small and will pass through the mask". However, very few would be able to cite sources, and even fewer then would have an accurate enough understanding of how virii spread to know that most of the time the virus is a part of a much larger particle[1][2] that masks are effective at preventing to some extant[3]. It's not surprising that most people wouldn't have a perfect understanding of epidemiology, but it does become suspicious when a large group of people all become overconfidently wrong in exactly the same way. This is what I would consider to be an echo chamber. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmissi... This source confirms that coronavirus spreads via droplet. [2] https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/drugresist/WHO_CDS_CSR_EPH_2002_12/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/drugresist/WH... This source defines "droplet as being particles greater than μm in diameter on page 44. [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/#!po=35.9375 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/#!po=35... This article measures a protection factor of ~4 for a surgical mask when measuring with a detector that detects particles ranging from 0.02 to 1㎛.

Dear fellow HN'ers, please don't downvote a comment as a reflex if you disagree with it and consider engaging a point on its merits. Hiding viewpoints you disagree with creates an echo chamber.

op00to 7y ago

Please don't try to influence people how to vote with replies to the comment.

LocalH 7y ago
Outside of that, do you disagree with the rest of their statement?
- ooobit2 7y ago
  Late, but wanted to point out: No, they can read but they also can't read too.

LocalH 7y ago

I agree with your comment, but unfortunately HN guidelines suggest that we shouldn't discuss comment voting (outside of, perhaps, a larger meta-HN discussion). So I don't expect your comment to last long either. For what it's worth, I upvoted the originally-referenced comment.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

The comment is getting downvoted because it claims the BBC spreads fake news but then gives no evidence for it, instead pointing to Hearst publications from more than a hundred years ago. Hiding poorly argued viewpoints creates an echo chamber of well-reasoned arguments, which converges on the truth. Do you consider arithmetic textbooks an echo chamber for endlessly parroting that 2+2=4?

knolax 7y ago
I think there's more nuance to that. Not all truths are as easily proven as 2+2=4. Usually an echo chamber is only considered as such when the people parroting a "fact" do so with confidence that far exceeds any proof that they can provide. The mask issue GP brings up is a great example. Before the COVID-19 outbreak most people generally regarded the practice of wearing face masks in Asia with scorn. If you asked them about it they would invariably bring up the same fact that "virii are too small and will pass through the mask". However, very few would be able to cite sources, and even fewer then would have an accurate enough understanding of how virii spread to know that most of the time the virus is a part of a much larger particle[1][2] that masks are effective at preventing to some extant[3]. It's not surprising that most people wouldn't have a perfect understanding of epidemiology, but it does become suspicious when a large group of people all become overconfidently wrong in exactly the same way. This is what I would consider to be an echo chamber. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmissi... This source confirms that coronavirus spreads via droplet. [2] https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/drugresist/WHO_CDS_CSR_EPH_2002_12/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/drugresist/WH... This source defines "droplet as being particles greater than μm in diameter on page 44. [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/#!po=35.9375 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/#!po=35... This article measures a protection factor of ~4 for a surgical mask when measuring with a detector that detects particles ranging from 0.02 to 1㎛.