14 ms·

Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? I don't know where we get if

Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? I don't know where we get if we walk down this train of thought, probably nowhere good, but when a not inconsiderable portion of the population has been directly targeted to cause them to believe the whole thing is just Bill Gates fault, who magically caused the Coronavirus and is holding back a cure, does debate have value? This might be a good time when a representative democracy, composed of people who are willing to listen to experts and make the hard, unpopular, decisions, would be the best choice.

thinkingemote 7y ago
The key bit is "not inconsiderable portion of the population". That is a very human perception failure and one that all politics and tribal psychology use. "Others are more dangerous than they are because they are other.and we say they are" not because they have an actual threat. The reality is that these are incredibly small numbers but the hype about them is real.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Based upon this survey, more than a quarter of people don't want the United States shut down. That's a considerable proportion. That's the amount of people who vote in a president. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494028-poll-more-than-70-percent-of-americans-support-stay-at-home-orders https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494028-poll-more-th...
Consultant32452 7y ago
We needn't go to the margins of Bill Gates somehow creating corona virus. Here's some of the blatant lies and misinformation that came straight out of the supposedly legitimate leadership. * Masks don't work, and you're too stupid to wear one anyways (WHO and US Surgeon General) * There is no human to human transmission (WHO) * The fact that there is a biolab in the exact area where the virus started spreading from is just a wild coincidence you racist (media Cathedral) I have a hard time blaming people for going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes about Gates when all the people who should be setting us straight have no credibility.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  To be fair at least one of those three you posted is still a conspiracy theory, unless you have a source about the virus being man made - I don't think there's any evidence outside of coincidence.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I would highly recommend parsing the statements by Chinese media and WHO very carefully. They're using explicitly non-scientific squishy language to describe the whole thing. One example: >All available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else,” WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib told a Geneva news briefing. “It is probable, likely, that the virus is of animal origin. What the heck does that mean, exactly? It sounds like MAYBE it suggests the virus' genome was not explicitly manipulated with CRISPR. Okay. Was the lab growing virus in human cadaver tissue? Was the lab putting selective pressure on the virus in bats? Was the lab even studying the virus which had been discovered totally as-is in the wild? Make no mistake. There has been no blanket denial of the lab's involvement with the virus. Only carefully worded PR responses and calling you racist for asking questions.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      You're still not providing evidence for. There is evidence against: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.h... You do understand that the scientific method is couched entirely in current best understanding, right? We assume the theory of gravity is how gravity works up and can assume it's probably true until a better theory comes up. You'll notice they didn't mention the animal - can we then safely assume it's a moose flu? That's even better supported as they did confirm in the affirmative it was an animal. And the other lies you posted were said with 100% certainty - how is the use of probable more evidence of a lie?
DuskStar 7y ago
> Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? Wasn't there an article here yesterday about the San Francisco anti-mask league [0] from 1918? I don't think misinformation and people acting incorrectly is something new. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask_League_of_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask_League_of_San_Franci...
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Totally true. Really shows it's a longstanding flaw in the idea that we can use direct democracy for topics like this.
pdonis 7y ago
> Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? The problem is not misinformation. The problem is whether a country is really willing to enforce a law that says every citizen has a positive responsibility to not infect others. If you really enforce that law, then anyone who gets COVID-19 because they didn't take reasonable precautions, and then infects someone else, is legally liable for damages. They could be sued for all of the health care costs of anyone they infect. They could be sued for wrongful death if someone they infect dies. Depending on the circumstances and the details of the statute, they could be liable to criminal charges. That's what "individual responsibility" means--holding individuals responsible, legally, when they harm others. And in a legal environment like that, misinformation isn't a problem, because people who act on misinformation end up harming others and being held responsible, and since nobody wants to be in that position, everyone learns, in their own self-interest, to not act on misinformation. Which in turn means that information sources that continually propagate misinformation die because nobody listens to them. And information sources that can reliably report accurate information thrive, and have an incentive to continue reporting accurate information. > This might be a good time when a representative democracy, composed of people who are willing to listen to experts and make the hard, unpopular, decisions, would be the best choice. Representative democracy will only be composed of such people if people have a strong incentive to act on accurate information and to not act on misinformation. Which, as you yourself point out, does not describe societies today.
carlmr 7y ago
>This might be a good time when a representative democracy, composed of people who are willing to listen to experts and make the hard, unpopular, decisions, would be the best choice. There's always the next election. It's hard to do unpopular things if you don't expect them eventually to become popular. E.g. lockdowns may be unpopular now, but if crisis can be avoided, it wouldn't hurt your election results. There is an exception though; if countries like Sweden don't have strict measures and still thrive, a lot of people will see that as a failure of your government.
leetcrew 7y ago
> Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? maybe so, but if you assume this to be true, it's guaranteed.
- pembrook 7y ago
  The supposed "age of mass misinformation" isn't as big of a problem in Sweden as it is in the US. For one, test scores and reading levels indicate the average Swede is far better educated than the average American. Second, Sweden's media industry doesn't have competing private 24 hour cable news conglomerates fighting over eyeballs. In Europe, government financed media is more common, and thus there is not the same private incentives to drive fear and anger. Does Sweden has issues with misinformation? Of course (mostly around fear of immigrants). But they don't have anywhere near the problem we have in the US with misinformation.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  You right, that may be too far. But I don't know if we assume that direct democracy works well in the face of extremely important, time critical, issues requiring a lot of specialized information. I still have faith in democracy finding decent leaders, but I don't know if the populace has the required ability to consider all the nuance of this pandemic we're facing and then making an educated, forward thinking, and in all probability incredibly painful decision. It's been clear from a lot of the arguments I've heard people neither have a good grasp on exponential growth and it's consequences in terms of containment, nor on the timeline or steps required to get this all under control.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    to be clear, I don't think america should have a national vote on quarantine or just let people do whatever they want. the current situation has degraded too far for that. what I refuse to accept is that the notion of individual responsibility and reasoned debate is over forever. maybe this is naive, but I do believe that it's more effective to convince people they should work towards a goal than to impose rules by force. I will concede that the US is missing many of the prerequisites to make this realistic. people not being able to reason about exponential growth is a failure of the education system, not an intrinsic limitation of the human mind. people distrust information/directions from the government because it has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy. people are unwilling to sacrifice months of income because they were barely getting by before.
Hermel 7y ago
Misinformation is nothing new and just as the amount of misinformation has increased, the amount of information has increased too. I would bet that the average citizen is better informed overall today than say 50 years ago.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Possibly. But there's been a huge signal boost for the extreme views. 50 years ago you couldn't find out about the corona protests and half an hour later be reading website after website after website about how 5G causes a virus.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    You couldn't read a website, so you'd go down to the cult's headquarters to learn about it in person. It was a huge social problem in the 70s!
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Which, ironically, would have probably kept a large portion of the rural populace and the smaller urban centers without a HQ immune to it.
    - kadoban 7y ago
      That's still a much larger barrier to entry though. Getting someone to click a link is much easier than getting them to visit you in person at a particular place and time.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  The misinformed weren't winning elections 50 years ago.
  - gammarator 7y ago
    Richard J. Hofstadter would like a word.
jajag 7y ago
> This might be a good time when a representative democracy, composed of people who are willing to listen to experts and make the hard, unpopular, decisions, would be the best choice. So basically, you want a return to some form of Aristocracy?
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  No. A representative democracy, like most nations whose citizens don't directly vote on everything have, have right now.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  As opposed to the aristocracy we have now? How many Senators and Congresspeople (and MPs in the UK) aren't multi-millionaires?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
flohofwoe 7y ago
Your comment reminds me of the that Swedish "If crisis or war comes" pamphlet sent to all Swedish households in 2018. Right on the second page is a warning about "false information": https://www.dinsakerhet.se/siteassets/dinsakerhet.se/broschyren-om-krisen-eller-kriget-kommer/om-krisen-eller-kriget-kommer---engelska-2.pdf https://www.dinsakerhet.se/siteassets/dinsakerhet.se/broschy... Maybe a "mental herd immunity" against viral propaganda is a necessary first step to develop a biological herd immunity ;)
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Many would argue that the pamphlet is in itself untrustworthy state propaganda, so I can't even begin to guess at a good solution.
- f38zf5vdt 7y ago
  Well, surely it's not working at the present time. A politician interviewed who went out to get the virus and then attended meetings was completely unconcerned about spreading it to his peers. Interviewer: "But can you understand his concern [about his risk due to his health conditions]?" Persson: "No, I do not. He's 50 years old. There is no risk to him. He doesn't get sick of this." Interviewer: "But do you know that even younger people get sick and die of corona?" Persson: "There is no reason to be worried. It's a hysteria. It is the same as with the climate. It is not possible to change. We cannot influence it politically." https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/storforspolitiker-akte-till-stockholm-for-att-fa-corona https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/storforspolitiker... And yet, somewhat bizarrely, Sweden has been latched onto as the model for a sane response to the virus amongst many conservative circles. I will hold my breath as they fail to take action against a disease with 10 times the IFR of the flu and many fold the transmissibility, with the CDC now reporting an r0 of 3.8–8.9 in a 95% CI.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    That interviewed person is from a local party in a small municipality. Very fringe. Of course the US right tries to score points from the lack of a hard lockdown here. But I wonder how well that would have worked without universal healthcare and salaries partly (80%?) paid by government for the time being.

thinkingemote 7y ago

The key bit is "not inconsiderable portion of the population". That is a very human perception failure and one that all politics and tribal psychology use. "Others are more dangerous than they are because they are other.and we say they are" not because they have an actual threat. The reality is that these are incredibly small numbers but the hype about them is real.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Based upon this survey, more than a quarter of people don't want the United States shut down. That's a considerable proportion. That's the amount of people who vote in a president. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494028-poll-more-than-70-percent-of-americans-support-stay-at-home-orders https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494028-poll-more-th...

Consultant32452 7y ago

We needn't go to the margins of Bill Gates somehow creating corona virus. Here's some of the blatant lies and misinformation that came straight out of the supposedly legitimate leadership. * Masks don't work, and you're too stupid to wear one anyways (WHO and US Surgeon General) * There is no human to human transmission (WHO) * The fact that there is a biolab in the exact area where the virus started spreading from is just a wild coincidence you racist (media Cathedral) I have a hard time blaming people for going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes about Gates when all the people who should be setting us straight have no credibility.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
To be fair at least one of those three you posted is still a conspiracy theory, unless you have a source about the virus being man made - I don't think there's any evidence outside of coincidence.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I would highly recommend parsing the statements by Chinese media and WHO very carefully. They're using explicitly non-scientific squishy language to describe the whole thing. One example: >All available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else,” WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib told a Geneva news briefing. “It is probable, likely, that the virus is of animal origin. What the heck does that mean, exactly? It sounds like MAYBE it suggests the virus' genome was not explicitly manipulated with CRISPR. Okay. Was the lab growing virus in human cadaver tissue? Was the lab putting selective pressure on the virus in bats? Was the lab even studying the virus which had been discovered totally as-is in the wild? Make no mistake. There has been no blanket denial of the lab's involvement with the virus. Only carefully worded PR responses and calling you racist for asking questions.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    You're still not providing evidence for. There is evidence against: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.h... You do understand that the scientific method is couched entirely in current best understanding, right? We assume the theory of gravity is how gravity works up and can assume it's probably true until a better theory comes up. You'll notice they didn't mention the animal - can we then safely assume it's a moose flu? That's even better supported as they did confirm in the affirmative it was an animal. And the other lies you posted were said with 100% certainty - how is the use of probable more evidence of a lie?

DuskStar 7y ago

> Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? Wasn't there an article here yesterday about the San Francisco anti-mask league [0] from 1918? I don't think misinformation and people acting incorrectly is something new. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask_League_of_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask_League_of_San_Franci...

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Totally true. Really shows it's a longstanding flaw in the idea that we can use direct democracy for topics like this.

pdonis 7y ago

> Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? The problem is not misinformation. The problem is whether a country is really willing to enforce a law that says every citizen has a positive responsibility to not infect others. If you really enforce that law, then anyone who gets COVID-19 because they didn't take reasonable precautions, and then infects someone else, is legally liable for damages. They could be sued for all of the health care costs of anyone they infect. They could be sued for wrongful death if someone they infect dies. Depending on the circumstances and the details of the statute, they could be liable to criminal charges. That's what "individual responsibility" means--holding individuals responsible, legally, when they harm others. And in a legal environment like that, misinformation isn't a problem, because people who act on misinformation end up harming others and being held responsible, and since nobody wants to be in that position, everyone learns, in their own self-interest, to not act on misinformation. Which in turn means that information sources that continually propagate misinformation die because nobody listens to them. And information sources that can reliably report accurate information thrive, and have an incentive to continue reporting accurate information. > This might be a good time when a representative democracy, composed of people who are willing to listen to experts and make the hard, unpopular, decisions, would be the best choice. Representative democracy will only be composed of such people if people have a strong incentive to act on accurate information and to not act on misinformation. Which, as you yourself point out, does not describe societies today.

carlmr 7y ago

>This might be a good time when a representative democracy, composed of people who are willing to listen to experts and make the hard, unpopular, decisions, would be the best choice. There's always the next election. It's hard to do unpopular things if you don't expect them eventually to become popular. E.g. lockdowns may be unpopular now, but if crisis can be avoided, it wouldn't hurt your election results. There is an exception though; if countries like Sweden don't have strict measures and still thrive, a lot of people will see that as a failure of your government.

leetcrew 7y ago

> Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? maybe so, but if you assume this to be true, it's guaranteed.

pembrook 7y ago
The supposed "age of mass misinformation" isn't as big of a problem in Sweden as it is in the US. For one, test scores and reading levels indicate the average Swede is far better educated than the average American. Second, Sweden's media industry doesn't have competing private 24 hour cable news conglomerates fighting over eyeballs. In Europe, government financed media is more common, and thus there is not the same private incentives to drive fear and anger. Does Sweden has issues with misinformation? Of course (mostly around fear of immigrants). But they don't have anywhere near the problem we have in the US with misinformation.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
You right, that may be too far. But I don't know if we assume that direct democracy works well in the face of extremely important, time critical, issues requiring a lot of specialized information. I still have faith in democracy finding decent leaders, but I don't know if the populace has the required ability to consider all the nuance of this pandemic we're facing and then making an educated, forward thinking, and in all probability incredibly painful decision. It's been clear from a lot of the arguments I've heard people neither have a good grasp on exponential growth and it's consequences in terms of containment, nor on the timeline or steps required to get this all under control.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  to be clear, I don't think america should have a national vote on quarantine or just let people do whatever they want. the current situation has degraded too far for that. what I refuse to accept is that the notion of individual responsibility and reasoned debate is over forever. maybe this is naive, but I do believe that it's more effective to convince people they should work towards a goal than to impose rules by force. I will concede that the US is missing many of the prerequisites to make this realistic. people not being able to reason about exponential growth is a failure of the education system, not an intrinsic limitation of the human mind. people distrust information/directions from the government because it has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy. people are unwilling to sacrifice months of income because they were barely getting by before.

Hermel 7y ago

Misinformation is nothing new and just as the amount of misinformation has increased, the amount of information has increased too. I would bet that the average citizen is better informed overall today than say 50 years ago.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Possibly. But there's been a huge signal boost for the extreme views. 50 years ago you couldn't find out about the corona protests and half an hour later be reading website after website after website about how 5G causes a virus.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  You couldn't read a website, so you'd go down to the cult's headquarters to learn about it in person. It was a huge social problem in the 70s!
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Which, ironically, would have probably kept a large portion of the rural populace and the smaller urban centers without a HQ immune to it.
  - kadoban 7y ago
    That's still a much larger barrier to entry though. Getting someone to click a link is much easier than getting them to visit you in person at a particular place and time.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
The misinformed weren't winning elections 50 years ago.
- gammarator 7y ago
  Richard J. Hofstadter would like a word.

jajag 7y ago

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
No. A representative democracy, like most nations whose citizens don't directly vote on everything have, have right now.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
As opposed to the aristocracy we have now? How many Senators and Congresspeople (and MPs in the UK) aren't multi-millionaires?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

flohofwoe 7y ago

Your comment reminds me of the that Swedish "If crisis or war comes" pamphlet sent to all Swedish households in 2018. Right on the second page is a warning about "false information": https://www.dinsakerhet.se/siteassets/dinsakerhet.se/broschyren-om-krisen-eller-kriget-kommer/om-krisen-eller-kriget-kommer---engelska-2.pdf https://www.dinsakerhet.se/siteassets/dinsakerhet.se/broschy... Maybe a "mental herd immunity" against viral propaganda is a necessary first step to develop a biological herd immunity ;)

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Many would argue that the pamphlet is in itself untrustworthy state propaganda, so I can't even begin to guess at a good solution.
f38zf5vdt 7y ago
Well, surely it's not working at the present time. A politician interviewed who went out to get the virus and then attended meetings was completely unconcerned about spreading it to his peers. Interviewer: "But can you understand his concern [about his risk due to his health conditions]?" Persson: "No, I do not. He's 50 years old. There is no risk to him. He doesn't get sick of this." Interviewer: "But do you know that even younger people get sick and die of corona?" Persson: "There is no reason to be worried. It's a hysteria. It is the same as with the climate. It is not possible to change. We cannot influence it politically." https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/storforspolitiker-akte-till-stockholm-for-att-fa-corona https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/storforspolitiker... And yet, somewhat bizarrely, Sweden has been latched onto as the model for a sane response to the virus amongst many conservative circles. I will hold my breath as they fail to take action against a disease with 10 times the IFR of the flu and many fold the transmissibility, with the CDC now reporting an r0 of 3.8–8.9 in a 95% CI.
- jacobush 7y ago
  That interviewed person is from a local party in a small municipality. Very fringe. Of course the US right tries to score points from the lack of a hard lockdown here. But I wonder how well that would have worked without universal healthcare and salaries partly (80%?) paid by government for the time being.