5 ms·

> is a matter of opinion, and each individual opinion is based on what the individual knows about [X] While true, this technicality can be applied to almost an

> is a matter of opinion, and each individual opinion is based on what the individual knows about [X] While true, this technicality can be applied to almost anything. This type of statement tends to shut down discussion instead of encouraging it. We should be striving to come to a consensus on topics and to share perspectives - not to just throw our hands up because we might not have perfect knowledge. Regarding QAnon, while media stories might be sensationalist, QAnon itself is a disturbing trend. QAnon originated in conspiracy theories (on 4chan) and is still promoting some pretty fringe theories. In my opinion, the real danger of QAnon is their use of social media to take people further and further into their theories. I was disturbed when the "save the children" campaign was in full force on Facebook/Twitter. I did not need a media story to tell me about QAnon in these moments, I could personally click on stories and follow the rabbit hole back to QAnon. They led to conspiracy theories about politicians trafficking children, the "deep state," etc. These were not hidden - they were only a couple clicks away from the "save the children" posts that were trending. These types of conspiracy theories do not contribute to any sort of rational discourse - they only push people farther into the QAnon group. I believe Facebook (and Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, etc) has the responsibility to not allow these "rabbit holes" that feed conspiracy theories. Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality.

disown 6y ago
> They led to conspiracy theories about politicians trafficking children, the "deep state," etc. Oh no. The horror. Lets shut everything down. Won't you think of the poor politicians? We must do everything possible to protect the reputation of politicians? Are you a journalist because you sound like one. So what about all the nasty things said about putin, xi, erdogan, etc? Should we also censor those? Or are you just talking about protecting politicians of your preferred political party? > Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality. So should facebook, youtube, twitter, instagram, etc also shutdown every news organization on their site? For all the talk about "Qanon", the biggest conspiracies peddled are by traditional media. And why stop at social media? Should telephone companies, ISPs, Office Depot, CDNs, etc censor "disinformation"? It's amazing to shallow logic of authoritarian types. Just because they think "big tech" is on their side.
a1369209993 6y ago
> This type of statement tends to shut down discussion instead of encouraging it. ... You... do realize TFA is about censorship, that is, a attempt to actively and deliberately shut down discussion, right?
mistermann 6y ago
> While true, this technicality can be applied to almost anything. Exactly, and the reason for this is fundamental: reality is largely unknown. Whether we choose to acknowledge that is up to each of us, but it doesn't change the underlying fact. > We should be striving to come to a consensus on topics Not me, not if we are lying to ourselves in the process. If something is literally unknown, it should be acknowledged thusly. We're not comfortable relying on pure intuition in science or programming, why do it in the rest of life if it isn't necessary? Shall we think logically and scientifically, as we're told, or shall we not? Pick a side. > and to share perspectives Yes, but as it, perspectives are often misperceived (and in turn, mass-broadcast) as facts (distorting the perceptions of reality of unknow numbers of other people). I imagine you can see the harm in the case of conspiracy theories, but can you see the possible harm of it outside of that sphere? Does your thinking methodology change, depending on the scenario? Have you ever spent any serious time thinking about such things? I suspect people here would prefer that conspiracy theorists tighten up their epistemology levels - but if we refuse to do the same, who are we to be lecturing others? > not to just throw our hands up because we might not have perfect knowledge. I've never understood this style of thinking - just because one acknowledges reality as it is, you have to throw up your hands and give up? Why? You can still make decisions, just be honest about the fact that they are based on speculation. > Regarding QAnon, while media stories might be sensationalist, QAnon itself is a disturbing trend. QAnon originated in conspiracy theories (on 4chan) and is still promoting some pretty fringe theories. 95% agree, except for the origin. There is a plausible theory that QAnon is actually a state sponsored psy op. You have to admit, the QAnon story (and coverage in the media) has been incredibly effective in shaping widespread public opinion on the epistemic validity of not just QAnon, but conspiracy theories in general. The effects of this can be observed right here on HN, a community with far above average critical thinking skills. Surely you realize that propaganda has always existed, right? Is it impossible(!) that this is a new, more sophisticated form of propaganda? (Here is an example of where not lying to ourselves might be a good idea - or at least, trying to.) > In my opinion, the real danger of QAnon is their use of social media to take people further and further into their theories. This will eventually materialize into a (currently unknowable) harm of magnitude X. The QAnon phenomenon is also being used as a justification for censorship, which will eventually materialize into a harm of magnitude Y. Which is higher, X or Y? Do we know? Do we care? Or, will we instead assert as "fact" that such concerns are "gish-galloping* (ie: choosing to lie to ourselves, and broadcasting those lies into the minds of others)? > I was disturbed when the "save the children" campaign was in full force on Facebook/Twitter. I did not need a media story to tell me about QAnon in these moments, I could personally click on stories and follow the rabbit hole back to QAnon. They led to conspiracy theories about politicians trafficking children, the "deep state," etc. These were not hidden - they were only a couple clicks away from the "save the children" posts that were trending. These types of conspiracy theories do not contribute to any sort of rational discourse - they only push people farther into the QAnon group. I'm disturbed by the percentage of the population that is more concerned about conspiracy theories (with no concern for the actual magnitude of harm such theories cause [1]) about children, than they are about the possibility that children are actually being sexually abused. Do you believe the whole Epstein thing is a nothingburger? Totally made up by QAnon? Do you perceive that your mind contains the sum total knowledge of all that occurs on planet Earth with respect to the abuse of children? Of course, it seems that way, but if you stop and think, are you able to realize that you are only aware of the subset of knowledge that you have consumed? Maybe you can when thinking directly and abstractly about the notion...but what about when you don't stop and think, and are just going about your day....are you consciously aware at all times that you only have access to a small portion of reality, or do you actually accept as fact that it seems like you have access to the entirety of reality? Have you ever considered in depth the potential consequences of this phenomenon, and how it can be (and historically has been) exploited? > I believe Facebook (and Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, etc) has the responsibility to not allow these "rabbit holes" that feed conspiracy theories. Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality. You're not wrong, but don't forget that you are guessing at what the right thing to so is, and that the X vs Y comparison above is very much in play - Mother Nature does not require our agreement when setting the state of reality. [1] ...in cases where the accusation has had a conspiracy theory label attached to it. EDIT: I reckon I've hit my comment cap for the day so may not be able to respond to criticism in a timely manner, but I enthusiastically encourage any you may have. These are complicated topics, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

disown 6y ago

> They led to conspiracy theories about politicians trafficking children, the "deep state," etc. Oh no. The horror. Lets shut everything down. Won't you think of the poor politicians? We must do everything possible to protect the reputation of politicians? Are you a journalist because you sound like one. So what about all the nasty things said about putin, xi, erdogan, etc? Should we also censor those? Or are you just talking about protecting politicians of your preferred political party? > Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality. So should facebook, youtube, twitter, instagram, etc also shutdown every news organization on their site? For all the talk about "Qanon", the biggest conspiracies peddled are by traditional media. And why stop at social media? Should telephone companies, ISPs, Office Depot, CDNs, etc censor "disinformation"? It's amazing to shallow logic of authoritarian types. Just because they think "big tech" is on their side.

a1369209993 6y ago

> This type of statement tends to shut down discussion instead of encouraging it. ... You... do realize TFA is about censorship, that is, a attempt to actively and deliberately shut down discussion, right?

mistermann 6y ago

> While true, this technicality can be applied to almost anything. Exactly, and the reason for this is fundamental: reality is largely unknown. Whether we choose to acknowledge that is up to each of us, but it doesn't change the underlying fact. > We should be striving to come to a consensus on topics Not me, not if we are lying to ourselves in the process. If something is literally unknown, it should be acknowledged thusly. We're not comfortable relying on pure intuition in science or programming, why do it in the rest of life if it isn't necessary? Shall we think logically and scientifically, as we're told, or shall we not? Pick a side. > and to share perspectives Yes, but as it, perspectives are often misperceived (and in turn, mass-broadcast) as facts (distorting the perceptions of reality of unknow numbers of other people). I imagine you can see the harm in the case of conspiracy theories, but can you see the possible harm of it outside of that sphere? Does your thinking methodology change, depending on the scenario? Have you ever spent any serious time thinking about such things? I suspect people here would prefer that conspiracy theorists tighten up their epistemology levels - but if we refuse to do the same, who are we to be lecturing others? > not to just throw our hands up because we might not have perfect knowledge. I've never understood this style of thinking - just because one acknowledges reality as it is, you have to throw up your hands and give up? Why? You can still make decisions, just be honest about the fact that they are based on speculation. > Regarding QAnon, while media stories might be sensationalist, QAnon itself is a disturbing trend. QAnon originated in conspiracy theories (on 4chan) and is still promoting some pretty fringe theories. 95% agree, except for the origin. There is a plausible theory that QAnon is actually a state sponsored psy op. You have to admit, the QAnon story (and coverage in the media) has been incredibly effective in shaping widespread public opinion on the epistemic validity of not just QAnon, but conspiracy theories in general. The effects of this can be observed right here on HN, a community with far above average critical thinking skills. Surely you realize that propaganda has always existed, right? Is it impossible(!) that this is a new, more sophisticated form of propaganda? (Here is an example of where not lying to ourselves might be a good idea - or at least, trying to.) > In my opinion, the real danger of QAnon is their use of social media to take people further and further into their theories. This will eventually materialize into a (currently unknowable) harm of magnitude X. The QAnon phenomenon is also being used as a justification for censorship, which will eventually materialize into a harm of magnitude Y. Which is higher, X or Y? Do we know? Do we care? Or, will we instead assert as "fact" that such concerns are "gish-galloping* (ie: choosing to lie to ourselves, and broadcasting those lies into the minds of others)? > I was disturbed when the "save the children" campaign was in full force on Facebook/Twitter. I did not need a media story to tell me about QAnon in these moments, I could personally click on stories and follow the rabbit hole back to QAnon. They led to conspiracy theories about politicians trafficking children, the "deep state," etc. These were not hidden - they were only a couple clicks away from the "save the children" posts that were trending. These types of conspiracy theories do not contribute to any sort of rational discourse - they only push people farther into the QAnon group. I'm disturbed by the percentage of the population that is more concerned about conspiracy theories (with no concern for the actual magnitude of harm such theories cause [1]) about children, than they are about the possibility that children are actually being sexually abused. Do you believe the whole Epstein thing is a nothingburger? Totally made up by QAnon? Do you perceive that your mind contains the sum total knowledge of all that occurs on planet Earth with respect to the abuse of children? Of course, it seems that way, but if you stop and think, are you able to realize that you are only aware of the subset of knowledge that you have consumed? Maybe you can when thinking directly and abstractly about the notion...but what about when you don't stop and think, and are just going about your day....are you consciously aware at all times that you only have access to a small portion of reality, or do you actually accept as fact that it seems like you have access to the entirety of reality? Have you ever considered in depth the potential consequences of this phenomenon, and how it can be (and historically has been) exploited? > I believe Facebook (and Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, etc) has the responsibility to not allow these "rabbit holes" that feed conspiracy theories. Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality. You're not wrong, but don't forget that you are guessing at what the right thing to so is, and that the X vs Y comparison above is very much in play - Mother Nature does not require our agreement when setting the state of reality. [1] ...in cases where the accusation has had a conspiracy theory label attached to it. EDIT: I reckon I've hit my comment cap for the day so may not be able to respond to criticism in a timely manner, but I enthusiastically encourage any you may have. These are complicated topics, and I certainly don't have all the answers.