4 ms·

Devils advocate - there is no evidence that it isn’t already occurring in subtle ways. Russia’s strategy is sowing discord, which would be fairly easy if one go

by soared 6y ago

Devils advocate - there is no evidence that it isn’t already occurring in subtle ways. Russia’s strategy is sowing discord, which would be fairly easy if one government controls the algorithm deciding what media the other country’s citizens sees.

dvtrn 6y ago
Devils advocate - there is no evidence that it isn’t already occurring in subtle ways. This isn’t playing the “devil’s advocate” (which-the devil here does not need any advocacy) this is a request to prove a potential negative. Can we please retire the tactic of giving the devil representation in such a blatant and cavalier fashion?
- soared 6y ago
  Language adapts to common use, common use doesn’t adapt to linguistic rules. But I see your point.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
notatoad 6y ago
so is just saying the words "national security" enough for you to believe that this is justified? should the US government be allowed to block any private company from doing business just by saying those magic words, with no further justification? or just any foreign-owned company? or just any chinese company - if it's china, what makes china special? there's got to be some limitation on where you draw the line on the government exercising this absolute and arbitrary power, i'm curious where exactly it is. could they shut down twitter for national security reasons? what about shopify - they're canadian, and the government is already levying tariffs against canadian imports for national security reasons, so the national security threat is already justified. should they be able to ban shopify with no concrete justification beyond claiming it's a vague threat to national security?
- soared 6y ago
  I don’t really know where I stand on the issue, but it is fairly clear how this is a potentially serious threat to national security. Maybe a better solution is allowing the us government unfettered access to source code, algorithms, data collection, etc. Edit - it seems reasonable that if a private company is able to massively influence the countries politics they should be scrutinized more closely. IMO it’s like have 1 national newspaper, but it’s a social platform rather than newspaper.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    "but it is fairly clear how this is a potentially serious threat to national security." Yeah... the Chinese could, like, get the inside scoop on some serious teen drama.
    - soared 6y ago
      They decide what content is viewed by millions of teens who will be voting in a few years. It’s not that far fetched to show them more violent content / mildly biased content / etc in order to move their political views a bit.
      - Drew_ 6y ago
        The KGB already did this in 2016 and the White House conveniently doesn't care and actually vehemently denies anything happened. Now, in the lead up to an election, suddenly they care about foreign intervention of elections? Or is it more likely that Donald Trump is just trying to tally as many "wins" as possible in the lead up an election like any politician would? The CCP already compromised our technology supply chain not even 2 years ago [1] did the White House do anything then? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
        sudosysgen 6y ago
yibg 6y ago
How do you exactly prove something isn’t occurring?
- sjy 6y ago
  In court? By calling a credible witness, perhaps an expert, who says “X isn’t occurring.”
  - yibg 6y ago
    Yea but you can’t prove it’s not occurring. All you can show is lack of evidence that it is occurring.
    - sjy 6y ago
      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but evidence of absence does exist. “Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

by soared 6y ago

dvtrn 6y ago

Devils advocate - there is no evidence that it isn’t already occurring in subtle ways. This isn’t playing the “devil’s advocate” (which-the devil here does not need any advocacy) this is a request to prove a potential negative. Can we please retire the tactic of giving the devil representation in such a blatant and cavalier fashion?

soared 6y ago
Language adapts to common use, common use doesn’t adapt to linguistic rules. But I see your point.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

notatoad 6y ago

so is just saying the words "national security" enough for you to believe that this is justified? should the US government be allowed to block any private company from doing business just by saying those magic words, with no further justification? or just any foreign-owned company? or just any chinese company - if it's china, what makes china special? there's got to be some limitation on where you draw the line on the government exercising this absolute and arbitrary power, i'm curious where exactly it is. could they shut down twitter for national security reasons? what about shopify - they're canadian, and the government is already levying tariffs against canadian imports for national security reasons, so the national security threat is already justified. should they be able to ban shopify with no concrete justification beyond claiming it's a vague threat to national security?

soared 6y ago
I don’t really know where I stand on the issue, but it is fairly clear how this is a potentially serious threat to national security. Maybe a better solution is allowing the us government unfettered access to source code, algorithms, data collection, etc. Edit - it seems reasonable that if a private company is able to massively influence the countries politics they should be scrutinized more closely. IMO it’s like have 1 national newspaper, but it’s a social platform rather than newspaper.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  "but it is fairly clear how this is a potentially serious threat to national security." Yeah... the Chinese could, like, get the inside scoop on some serious teen drama.
  - soared 6y ago
    They decide what content is viewed by millions of teens who will be voting in a few years. It’s not that far fetched to show them more violent content / mildly biased content / etc in order to move their political views a bit.
    - Drew_ 6y ago
      The KGB already did this in 2016 and the White House conveniently doesn't care and actually vehemently denies anything happened. Now, in the lead up to an election, suddenly they care about foreign intervention of elections? Or is it more likely that Donald Trump is just trying to tally as many "wins" as possible in the lead up an election like any politician would? The CCP already compromised our technology supply chain not even 2 years ago [1] did the White House do anything then? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
      - sudosysgen 6y ago

yibg 6y ago

How do you exactly prove something isn’t occurring?

sjy 6y ago
In court? By calling a credible witness, perhaps an expert, who says “X isn’t occurring.”
- yibg 6y ago
  Yea but you can’t prove it’s not occurring. All you can show is lack of evidence that it is occurring.
  - sjy 6y ago
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but evidence of absence does exist. “Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence