5 ms·

I think you're right, but I don't think the previous status quo was tenable either, and maybe even more problematic. Disclaimer: these are opinions. We allow m

I think you're right, but I don't think the previous status quo was tenable either, and maybe even more problematic. Disclaimer: these are opinions. We allow mainstream press, owned by allies of a politician, to make outlandish claims unverified in the weeks leading up to an election. This has always been "correctable" in the past, in a world where articles could be retracted or condemned, particularly by even more mainstream outlets (because there is a spectrum from tabloid journalism to "respectable"). With social media, the genie is out the bottle with that initial statement, and there's no way to set the record straight anymore, let alone in two weeks before an election. I realize that I used a ton of loaded terms here. That reflects a couple of opinions that I hold: that there is value in institutions, that truth is a social construct, that maintaining order in people's lives has intrinsic value. Folks are free to disagree, but please be clear about whether it's with the premise or the conclusion.

mullr 6y ago
It’s completely correctable. If fb/Twitter wanted to, they could track every person who saw a piece of “wrong” information, and plaster the retraction in front of their face.
- darkerside 6y ago
  I'd argue that, if anything, that would make some people more certain that it was true
disown 6y ago
> With social media, the genie is out the bottle with that initial statement, and there's no way to set the record straight anymore, let alone in two weeks before an election. Isn't it actually easier to correct the record with social media since you can correct it immediately and reach the people immediately? Whereas with newspapers, you'd have to wait days/weeks and have to search the tiny section they reserve for corrections? It's what made newspapers such great tools of propaganda. You push misinformation, spread it and then "retract" quietly relatively unseen. Edit: > If the idea that a particular professor or candidate is sexually exploitative becomes viral, can you really undo the damage? My point is that it's easier to "unring the bell" via social media than via newspapers. We are discussing the "previous status quo" : A newspaper writes a lie. How do you "unring the bell"? You have to wait until the next time you publish - which varies depending on whether you are a daily, weekly, monthly. Whereas in the social media era, you can just post on facebook, twitter, etc your retraction. The retraction is immediate and can be as visible as you want it to be.
- darkerside 6y ago
  What you can't stop are the conversations that continue about the topic itself, irrespective of the news story.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Wildfire also spreads much faster on the web. If the idea that a particular professor or candidate is sexually exploitative becomes viral, can you really undo the damage?
- darkerside 6y ago
  To your edit, we can rebuild cities after nuclear destruction much faster these days thanks to technology
- pjc50 6y ago
  It turns out this doesn't work. The relative prominence of the counter-information doesn't change people's first impressions. People are still doing "but her emails" despite all the investigations into what happened. It's clear that the Hunter Biden story is an attempt to fabricate a "but his emails" narrative; there may be some facts in there, but none that impinge on Joe Biden.
PaulAJ 6y ago
The truth is not a social construct. Either Hunter Biden received that "thanks for the meeting with your father" email or he didn't. Importance is a social construct. If that email is what it puports to be, then whether it is important is a point of view. The media don't (mis)lead us by telling us lies, they do so by deciding which parts of the truth are important enough to tell us.
- darkerside 6y ago
  You can argue about facts all day, but I would argue that "truth" ends up being something more. Innocence or guilt, vindication on the history books, really any assignment of a quality is done by a collection of people, and the results apply with the bubble of people who have agreed to no longer question what is agreed upon as true. I promise I could argue all day about whether your initial simple statement was true or not. What does received mean? What did the email say, and did it actually mean what you paraphrase? You'd probably view it as bad faith (and you'd be right), but that faith already implies the exact social consensus I'm taking about.
- barrkel 6y ago
  The accepted narrative is a social construct, and most people's understanding of the truth is closer to a narrative than a series of facts.
- skybrian 6y ago
  Our understanding of the truth of things we read online is a social construct. Whether or not Hunter Biden received an email isn’t something ordinary readers like us will ever know, having no direct access to any of the evidence. At best we can read accounts written by others and decide whether they seem plausible. Even our understanding of Hunter Biden’s existence is a social construct to most of us, since we have never met him and never will. (It’s much easier to make the call on that one, though, based on pictures and it being undisputed.)
- comex 6y ago
  The email didn't say "thanks for the meeting with your father"; it thanked Hunter for "inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father", wording that leaves it ambiguous whether the meeting had already occurred or was in the future. This is important because, even if it is authentic, it does not necessarily contradict Biden's claim that (according to his schedules) no such meeting occurred.
hackyhacky 6y ago
I agree. Fabricating damaging information on the eve of an election is easier than ever, and impossible to correct. Allowing propagation of such fabrications is to be complicit with the bad actors responsible. Disinformation could be tolerated if we, as a society, have the time and means to determine its veracity. But with the ticking clock of an election, disinformation is too easy. Some countries have laws prohibiting any political news stories in the run-up to an election for precisely this reason.
- j8hn 6y ago
  So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election? Have you heard of an October surprise? "On October 20, 1880, shortly before the 1880 presidential election, a forged letter was published purportedly written by James A. Garfield voicing support for Chinese immigration to the United States. At the time, most white Americans opposed Chinese immigration and both presidential candidates were in favor of immigration restrictions.[3]" And a list of many more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise
  - hackyhacky 6y ago
    > So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election? That's exactly what I propose, precisely because October surprises are not in the best interest of democracy. Many countries [1] prohibit all political news stories during their election cycle. An added benefit of this policy would be to limit the length of the election cycle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence
    - bialpio 6y ago
      Election silence is unenforceable and becomes muddy in the era of the internet - with elections in USA, who do you sue if UK news outlet runs with some story? Who has jurisdiction? Besides, reporting news itself is usually still allowed as long as it is not political agitation ("Biden did something bad" is ok, "vote Trump" is not). I've been tempted to test this by posting agitation to Facebook from the USA (Poland still has election silence) or showing up with slogans to the polling stations (you can still vote when abroad in a few places set up by consulates), but I still like to visit my family from time to time.

mullr 6y ago

It’s completely correctable. If fb/Twitter wanted to, they could track every person who saw a piece of “wrong” information, and plaster the retraction in front of their face.

darkerside 6y ago
I'd argue that, if anything, that would make some people more certain that it was true

disown 6y ago

> With social media, the genie is out the bottle with that initial statement, and there's no way to set the record straight anymore, let alone in two weeks before an election. Isn't it actually easier to correct the record with social media since you can correct it immediately and reach the people immediately? Whereas with newspapers, you'd have to wait days/weeks and have to search the tiny section they reserve for corrections? It's what made newspapers such great tools of propaganda. You push misinformation, spread it and then "retract" quietly relatively unseen. Edit: > If the idea that a particular professor or candidate is sexually exploitative becomes viral, can you really undo the damage? My point is that it's easier to "unring the bell" via social media than via newspapers. We are discussing the "previous status quo" : A newspaper writes a lie. How do you "unring the bell"? You have to wait until the next time you publish - which varies depending on whether you are a daily, weekly, monthly. Whereas in the social media era, you can just post on facebook, twitter, etc your retraction. The retraction is immediate and can be as visible as you want it to be.

darkerside 6y ago
What you can't stop are the conversations that continue about the topic itself, irrespective of the news story.
threatofrain 6y ago
Wildfire also spreads much faster on the web. If the idea that a particular professor or candidate is sexually exploitative becomes viral, can you really undo the damage?
darkerside 6y ago
To your edit, we can rebuild cities after nuclear destruction much faster these days thanks to technology
pjc50 6y ago
It turns out this doesn't work. The relative prominence of the counter-information doesn't change people's first impressions. People are still doing "but her emails" despite all the investigations into what happened. It's clear that the Hunter Biden story is an attempt to fabricate a "but his emails" narrative; there may be some facts in there, but none that impinge on Joe Biden.

PaulAJ 6y ago

The truth is not a social construct. Either Hunter Biden received that "thanks for the meeting with your father" email or he didn't. Importance is a social construct. If that email is what it puports to be, then whether it is important is a point of view. The media don't (mis)lead us by telling us lies, they do so by deciding which parts of the truth are important enough to tell us.

darkerside 6y ago
You can argue about facts all day, but I would argue that "truth" ends up being something more. Innocence or guilt, vindication on the history books, really any assignment of a quality is done by a collection of people, and the results apply with the bubble of people who have agreed to no longer question what is agreed upon as true. I promise I could argue all day about whether your initial simple statement was true or not. What does received mean? What did the email say, and did it actually mean what you paraphrase? You'd probably view it as bad faith (and you'd be right), but that faith already implies the exact social consensus I'm taking about.
barrkel 6y ago
The accepted narrative is a social construct, and most people's understanding of the truth is closer to a narrative than a series of facts.
skybrian 6y ago
Our understanding of the truth of things we read online is a social construct. Whether or not Hunter Biden received an email isn’t something ordinary readers like us will ever know, having no direct access to any of the evidence. At best we can read accounts written by others and decide whether they seem plausible. Even our understanding of Hunter Biden’s existence is a social construct to most of us, since we have never met him and never will. (It’s much easier to make the call on that one, though, based on pictures and it being undisputed.)
comex 6y ago
The email didn't say "thanks for the meeting with your father"; it thanked Hunter for "inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father", wording that leaves it ambiguous whether the meeting had already occurred or was in the future. This is important because, even if it is authentic, it does not necessarily contradict Biden's claim that (according to his schedules) no such meeting occurred.

hackyhacky 6y ago

I agree. Fabricating damaging information on the eve of an election is easier than ever, and impossible to correct. Allowing propagation of such fabrications is to be complicit with the bad actors responsible. Disinformation could be tolerated if we, as a society, have the time and means to determine its veracity. But with the ticking clock of an election, disinformation is too easy. Some countries have laws prohibiting any political news stories in the run-up to an election for precisely this reason.

j8hn 6y ago
So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election? Have you heard of an October surprise? "On October 20, 1880, shortly before the 1880 presidential election, a forged letter was published purportedly written by James A. Garfield voicing support for Chinese immigration to the United States. At the time, most white Americans opposed Chinese immigration and both presidential candidates were in favor of immigration restrictions.[3]" And a list of many more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise
- hackyhacky 6y ago
  > So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election? That's exactly what I propose, precisely because October surprises are not in the best interest of democracy. Many countries [1] prohibit all political news stories during their election cycle. An added benefit of this policy would be to limit the length of the election cycle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence
  - bialpio 6y ago
    Election silence is unenforceable and becomes muddy in the era of the internet - with elections in USA, who do you sue if UK news outlet runs with some story? Who has jurisdiction? Besides, reporting news itself is usually still allowed as long as it is not political agitation ("Biden did something bad" is ok, "vote Trump" is not). I've been tempted to test this by posting agitation to Facebook from the USA (Poland still has election silence) or showing up with slogans to the polling stations (you can still vote when abroad in a few places set up by consulates), but I still like to visit my family from time to time.