4 ms·

I think the poster you are replying to is saying that shutting down people for spreading false conspiracies will be a net negative, because all of net harm fro

by kian 6y ago

I think the poster you are replying to is saying that shutting down people for spreading false conspiracies will be a net negative, because all of net harm from spreading false conspiracies is a tiny little drop against the vast hurricane of actual governmental conspiracies and the harm that can come from them, and that anything that might make it harder to hear about those conspiracies is far more harmful to the world than letting people say things that are untrue. (as evinced, here, by the poster pointing out that there was an actual governmental conspiracy in living memory, whereby hundreds of thousands or millions of (innocent) people died, in part because people were shut down as conspiracies theorists [or in some cases, even branded enemies of the state] and removed from discourse.) I find it hard, as the poster seems to, to imagine a scenario in which even 100k clones of Alex Jones could cause the same level of harm. And while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?), that doesn't mean the same tactics used on him won't be turned on someone who has uncovered genuine malfeasance. (keep in mind, I've never been a fan, and I think he is a personally odious, obnoxious, and ill-intentioned individual who no one should listen to. Still, he shouldn't be silenced.)

roywiggins 6y ago
Who said anything about shutting him down? I was talking about the damage he's caused and why people shouldn't just shrug and say, well, he's "thinking for himself" as if there's some independent virtue to coming up with nonsense that outweighs the damage that coming up with nonsense can do. > while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?), I can probably "uncover" real conspiracies by claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag. At some point, I'll be correct. That doesn't mean I'm actually performing a public service, a mindless chatbot could do that. If he's not lying[0] and actually was psychotic when he said those things, then we should not take any of the conspiricizing he says seriously because it was literally the product of his own disordered thinking. If he was lying, then he's the sort of person who will disclaim all his positions as soon as they get uncomfortable for him to hold. [0] he is
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Who said anything about shutting him down? Several had more than just something to say about it: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/7/17659026/alex-jones-deplatformed-misinformation-hate-speech-apple-facebook-youtube https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/7/17659026/alex-jones-deplat... >> The great de-platforming of Alex Jones began last week, when Spotifyand Stitcher removed Infowars podcasts from their respective networks. (Spotify initially removed a handful of episodes before removing whole shows.) On Sunday night, Apple followed suit, removing his podcast from iTunes for violating its rules against hate speech. >> Apple’s move was followed almost immediately by a rash of similar moves. Facebook removed Jones’ pages, citing repeated hate speech violations. YouTube followed suit, terminating an account that had 2.4 million subscribers. Pinterest came next. > I was talking about the damage he's caused Exactly how much damage has he caused? Serious question. > and why people shouldn't just shrug and say, well, he's "thinking for himself" People also shouldn't accept their subconscious heuristic predictions about the thoughts of others as representative of reality - this is a wise strategy not only when it comes to people who have a different skin color than you. > ...as if there's some independent virtue to coming up with nonsense that outweighs the damage that coming up with nonsense can do. Present your numbers and we can discuss. > I can probably "uncover" real conspiracies by claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag. At some point, I'll be correct. That doesn't mean I'm actually performing a public service, a mindless chatbot could do that. Are you suggesting that "claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag" is what (the average) conspiracy theorists do? If you don't mind, could you please state, in detail, which specific conspiracy communities you frequent, and how much time you spend there per week/month? I have a hunch that you're running purely on intuition and stories that you've read about conspiracy theory communities, as most people here clearly do. > If he's not lying[0] and actually was psychotic when he said those things, then we should not take any of the conspiricizing he says seriously because it was literally the product of his own disordered thinking. This is some interesting logic. > [0] he is This is some interesting mind reading. You know who are often big believers in ESP? Conspiracy theorists.
mistermann 6y ago
> I think the poster you are replying to is saying... You are exactly correct. > ...against the vast hurricane of actual governmental conspiracies and the harm that can come from them, and that anything that might make it harder to hear about those conspiracies is far more harmful to the world than letting people say things that are untrue There are several going on at all times. What's fascinating is how easily the vast majority of people, even smart ones, can so easily have heuristics planted in their minds that result in a Pavlovian response to the very mention of a conspiracy theory - any story that has had a "conspiracy theory" label attached to it by the media is from that point immediately classified as False - many people seem quite literally unable to concede there's a possibility that not every single conspiracy theory is wrong. What makes it even funnier is, from reading many comments on HN, it couldn't be more clear that people's knowledge of what the conspiracy world consists of comes directly from the mainstream media. The average /r/conspiracy subscriber has far(!) superior epistemic skills than the average that I've observed here.

by kian 6y ago

roywiggins 6y ago

Who said anything about shutting him down? I was talking about the damage he's caused and why people shouldn't just shrug and say, well, he's "thinking for himself" as if there's some independent virtue to coming up with nonsense that outweighs the damage that coming up with nonsense can do. > while Alex himself may never uncover any real conspiracies (and really, how could you personally guarantee that?), I can probably "uncover" real conspiracies by claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag. At some point, I'll be correct. That doesn't mean I'm actually performing a public service, a mindless chatbot could do that. If he's not lying[0] and actually was psychotic when he said those things, then we should not take any of the conspiricizing he says seriously because it was literally the product of his own disordered thinking. If he was lying, then he's the sort of person who will disclaim all his positions as soon as they get uncomfortable for him to hold. [0] he is

mistermann 6y ago
> Who said anything about shutting him down? Several had more than just something to say about it: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/7/17659026/alex-jones-deplatformed-misinformation-hate-speech-apple-facebook-youtube https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/7/17659026/alex-jones-deplat... >> The great de-platforming of Alex Jones began last week, when Spotifyand Stitcher removed Infowars podcasts from their respective networks. (Spotify initially removed a handful of episodes before removing whole shows.) On Sunday night, Apple followed suit, removing his podcast from iTunes for violating its rules against hate speech. >> Apple’s move was followed almost immediately by a rash of similar moves. Facebook removed Jones’ pages, citing repeated hate speech violations. YouTube followed suit, terminating an account that had 2.4 million subscribers. Pinterest came next. > I was talking about the damage he's caused Exactly how much damage has he caused? Serious question. > and why people shouldn't just shrug and say, well, he's "thinking for himself" People also shouldn't accept their subconscious heuristic predictions about the thoughts of others as representative of reality - this is a wise strategy not only when it comes to people who have a different skin color than you. > ...as if there's some independent virtue to coming up with nonsense that outweighs the damage that coming up with nonsense can do. Present your numbers and we can discuss. > I can probably "uncover" real conspiracies by claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag. At some point, I'll be correct. That doesn't mean I'm actually performing a public service, a mindless chatbot could do that. Are you suggesting that "claiming that every single government action is a lie or a false flag" is what (the average) conspiracy theorists do? If you don't mind, could you please state, in detail, which specific conspiracy communities you frequent, and how much time you spend there per week/month? I have a hunch that you're running purely on intuition and stories that you've read about conspiracy theory communities, as most people here clearly do. > If he's not lying[0] and actually was psychotic when he said those things, then we should not take any of the conspiricizing he says seriously because it was literally the product of his own disordered thinking. This is some interesting logic. > [0] he is This is some interesting mind reading. You know who are often big believers in ESP? Conspiracy theorists.

mistermann 6y ago

> I think the poster you are replying to is saying... You are exactly correct. > ...against the vast hurricane of actual governmental conspiracies and the harm that can come from them, and that anything that might make it harder to hear about those conspiracies is far more harmful to the world than letting people say things that are untrue There are several going on at all times. What's fascinating is how easily the vast majority of people, even smart ones, can so easily have heuristics planted in their minds that result in a Pavlovian response to the very mention of a conspiracy theory - any story that has had a "conspiracy theory" label attached to it by the media is from that point immediately classified as False - many people seem quite literally unable to concede there's a possibility that not every single conspiracy theory is wrong. What makes it even funnier is, from reading many comments on HN, it couldn't be more clear that people's knowledge of what the conspiracy world consists of comes directly from the mainstream media. The average /r/conspiracy subscriber has far(!) superior epistemic skills than the average that I've observed here.