7 ms·

This is a fascinating example of real world propaganda that, given the impact of the pandemic, has a high probability of being in history textbooks. Given that,

by hysan 7y ago

This is a fascinating example of real world propaganda that, given the impact of the pandemic, has a high probability of being in history textbooks. Given that, I’m curious, how do does the HN population think we should respond? Imagine looking back on this in hindsight. What type of picture would we want to paint for future generations to learn from?

rootusrootus 7y ago
Either we successfully manage to educate the majority of Americans on how to apply critical thinking skills to what they see on the Internet, or we balkanize the 'net and try to keep the bad actors out (or at least force them to attack from a location we have legal jurisdiction over). I feel like this is just one more nail in the coffin of the free worldwide Internet. I really don't see any good solutions. It is super difficult to defend against entities acting in bad faith when their cost of their actions is essentially zero.
- jacobush 7y ago
  People will not be educated because they see right past “truth” and look for their “group” or “tribe”. Like a deeper truth. (Autocorrect suggested deeper trump.)
- knolax 7y ago
  What makes you think the bad actors aren't already within "our" legal jurisdiction. The "Foreign" part of misinformation campaigns is a red herring. Case in point TFA is more likely the doing of domestic neoliberals than foreign actors.
ngold 7y ago
This is just weaponized public relations. The public will become educated. It reminds me of the Flintstones brought to you by cigarette brand x.
- empath75 7y ago
  Public relations was always weaponized.
MattGaiser 7y ago
The problem is that finding truth is so much more time consuming than lying. A couple friends and I looked at creating a Canadian fact-checking website as we don't really have a Politifact up north, especially not for the smaller provinces. We gave up when we went on Twitter to see just how much nonsense was floating around and realizing that even basic lies took 30 minutes each to refute. Assuming that we had perfect access to people's information feeds and assuming they all believed us anyway (and many wouldn't), we would still need 6x as many people as popular trolls/liars existed to fight back. You would basically need to have a legion of volunteers willing to spend 30 minutes undoing 5 minutes of damage.
- chameleon_world 7y ago
  Would there be any way to crowdsource this kind of application? Like wikipedia. 'Heres one source to back up this claim' 'Heres 8 sources that go against this claim'
  - iso947 7y ago
    Snopes
    - battery_cowboy 7y ago
      Snopes is already seen as a 'leftist' source by those folks who need it most.
      - dntbnmpls 7y ago
        The problem is that snopes is actually leftist so the "folks who need it most" would see right through their agenda. Just like you see the obvious agenda of foxnews and others see the obvious agenda of msnbc/cnn/etc. But you are blind to the bias of msnbc/cnn/snopes/etc just like they are blind to foxnews/etc. It's hilarious seeing the most brainwashed and biased people thinking they are on the side of "truth/logic/science/etc". Whether you like it or not, all media is about pushing agenda/propaganda/etc. No media exists today and has ever existed to produce truth/facts/etc. The ones claiming to be the least biased or the ones you think are the least biased are actually the best at lying to you or deceiving you. Media is about control. If you think there is a media outlet that is honest, then you are one of the duped individuals.
snowwrestler 7y ago
Here's a whole thread about a similar movement during the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic, in San Francisco: https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1251936242834563073 https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1251936242834563073
euske 7y ago
Government censorship! No, I'm kidding. But I think something akin to mass surveillance will be needed (hopefully not in a way like China). The fundamental principle is that a bigger (more popular, more powerful, etc.) entity needs more scrutiny. The common strategy to do this is constant monitoring and quick response. So we would build a mechanism that keeps watching the popularity of all the information sources all the time, and allocate public eyeballs accordingly. And all the findings (including the surveillance system itself) must be published. I don't know how to do it exactly, but I can kinda imagine a world that implements such a system. And you know what's the catch? I think we should probably lose our privacy by a large margin. Now the question is, are we ready to sacrifice some of our rights to fight a bigger enemy like this?
- csense 7y ago
  So basically by "mass surveillance," you mean some kind of decentralized system that does the kind of work that Google does (quickly indexing new or changed data)? You might be on to something here.
libtard123 7y ago
propaganda? how about american civil rights?

by hysan 7y ago

rootusrootus 7y ago

Either we successfully manage to educate the majority of Americans on how to apply critical thinking skills to what they see on the Internet, or we balkanize the 'net and try to keep the bad actors out (or at least force them to attack from a location we have legal jurisdiction over). I feel like this is just one more nail in the coffin of the free worldwide Internet. I really don't see any good solutions. It is super difficult to defend against entities acting in bad faith when their cost of their actions is essentially zero.

jacobush 7y ago
People will not be educated because they see right past “truth” and look for their “group” or “tribe”. Like a deeper truth. (Autocorrect suggested deeper trump.)
knolax 7y ago
What makes you think the bad actors aren't already within "our" legal jurisdiction. The "Foreign" part of misinformation campaigns is a red herring. Case in point TFA is more likely the doing of domestic neoliberals than foreign actors.

ngold 7y ago

This is just weaponized public relations. The public will become educated. It reminds me of the Flintstones brought to you by cigarette brand x.

empath75 7y ago
Public relations was always weaponized.

MattGaiser 7y ago

The problem is that finding truth is so much more time consuming than lying. A couple friends and I looked at creating a Canadian fact-checking website as we don't really have a Politifact up north, especially not for the smaller provinces. We gave up when we went on Twitter to see just how much nonsense was floating around and realizing that even basic lies took 30 minutes each to refute. Assuming that we had perfect access to people's information feeds and assuming they all believed us anyway (and many wouldn't), we would still need 6x as many people as popular trolls/liars existed to fight back. You would basically need to have a legion of volunteers willing to spend 30 minutes undoing 5 minutes of damage.

chameleon_world 7y ago
Would there be any way to crowdsource this kind of application? Like wikipedia. 'Heres one source to back up this claim' 'Heres 8 sources that go against this claim'
- iso947 7y ago
  Snopes
  - battery_cowboy 7y ago
    Snopes is already seen as a 'leftist' source by those folks who need it most.
    - dntbnmpls 7y ago
      The problem is that snopes is actually leftist so the "folks who need it most" would see right through their agenda. Just like you see the obvious agenda of foxnews and others see the obvious agenda of msnbc/cnn/etc. But you are blind to the bias of msnbc/cnn/snopes/etc just like they are blind to foxnews/etc. It's hilarious seeing the most brainwashed and biased people thinking they are on the side of "truth/logic/science/etc". Whether you like it or not, all media is about pushing agenda/propaganda/etc. No media exists today and has ever existed to produce truth/facts/etc. The ones claiming to be the least biased or the ones you think are the least biased are actually the best at lying to you or deceiving you. Media is about control. If you think there is a media outlet that is honest, then you are one of the duped individuals.

snowwrestler 7y ago

Here's a whole thread about a similar movement during the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic, in San Francisco: https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1251936242834563073 https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1251936242834563073

euske 7y ago

Government censorship! No, I'm kidding. But I think something akin to mass surveillance will be needed (hopefully not in a way like China). The fundamental principle is that a bigger (more popular, more powerful, etc.) entity needs more scrutiny. The common strategy to do this is constant monitoring and quick response. So we would build a mechanism that keeps watching the popularity of all the information sources all the time, and allocate public eyeballs accordingly. And all the findings (including the surveillance system itself) must be published. I don't know how to do it exactly, but I can kinda imagine a world that implements such a system. And you know what's the catch? I think we should probably lose our privacy by a large margin. Now the question is, are we ready to sacrifice some of our rights to fight a bigger enemy like this?

csense 7y ago
So basically by "mass surveillance," you mean some kind of decentralized system that does the kind of work that Google does (quickly indexing new or changed data)? You might be on to something here.

libtard123 7y ago

propaganda? how about american civil rights?