4 ms·

People should be held accountable for what they say on media platforms, and lies shouldn't be allowed.. but i can't see that even happening.

_qulr 6y ago
Held accountable by whom? The government? Which is controlled roughly half the time by a party which you probably disagree with vehemently?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  In countries in which the truth is defended as OP demands clowns don't tend it to make it into government in the first place, but I see your point it's hard to see how the US gets out of this cycle
  - salawat 6y ago
    Didn't Iceland literally have a clown for a mayor or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_Gnarr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_Gnarr Comedian technically, but eh.
    - jimmygrapes 6y ago
      Ukraine as well.
  - testrun 6y ago
    Which countries?
artificialLimbs 6y ago
"lies shouldn't be allowed" Uh huh, and who decides what is a lie? There is a term called "slippery slope" and free speech may have been its founding issue.
- baq 6y ago
  But who’s paying for verifying free speech full of lies? Right now the price for no verification is viewable on all news channels.
- xienze 6y ago
  > Uh huh, and who decides what is a lie? Well obviously that would be unelected “fact checkers” who aren’t held accountable for anything and suspiciously seem to find nearly everything said by people in one particular political party to be “pants on fire” lies.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > unelected “fact checkers” You're right to point out the dangers of entrusting an unaccountable group with the responsibility of determining what is and isn't true, but I'm not sure that electing the fact checkers would improve their accuracy. Also, if you think it is suspicious that people in one political party make statements that are deemed lies, your problem might not be with the checkers.
    - xienze 6y ago
      > Also, if you think it is suspicious that people in one political party make statements that are deemed lies, your problem might not be with the checkers. Come on, I could easily remove context and/or provide a misleading "authoritative" interpretation to basically anything a Democrat says in order to brand it a lie. How new are you to this game?
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Courts. Even USA has laws against libel and slander, it's not like the status quo is that you can just say whatever you want with no fear of consequences.
nsajko 6y ago
This is an interesting point and my sibling comments are wrong: I'm sure the judiciary could provide that accountability, given new law. Even though I think Wikipedia is a failed project (because of it's own guidelines not being followed), it's actually got pretty good guidelines regarding verifiability and due weight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I'm imagining the media could be structured upon some sort of protocol codified in law that would ensure those guidelines would be respected. However the main thing that's necessary is probably instilling some sense of duty, honor and integrity in a large number of individuals. No idea how to go about that. EDIT: in the USA the FCC actually had regulation with a similar intent in the near past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
mistermann 6y ago
> People should be held accountable for what they say on media platforms, and lies shouldn't be allowed.. but i can't see that even happening. I've suggested to @dang that he tries implementing a kind of experimental discussion mode like that right here on HN, where for certain types of topics he could enable this mode and see what the effect would be on the human mind. I don't know all the particulars of what changes should be included in such a mode (would be a good topic for a discussion), but the main one I would include is an additional guideline something along the lines of "Please exert some effort in restricting your statements to the discussion of reasonably conclusive true facts about physical reality." This way, when people inevitably succumb to mistaking the virtual reality in their mind (where one has supernatural powers like omniscience, the ability to read minds at scale, predict the future with precise accuracy, completely understand infinitely complex indeterminate/chaotic systems, etc) for physical reality (where we do not have these powers), such comments could be flagged and reviewed a few days later (when cooler heads prevail) in a group Post Incident Review process of some sort (maybe a zoom meeting), where we could examine our behavior from a more metaphysical perspective, the goal being to increase awareness of the fact that inaccurate beliefs about reality are not something that only members of our personal outgroups suffer from, but rather something we all suffer from. It is simply a consequence of the same base software we all run in our minds. Unfortunately, this idea seems to be rather unpopular (shocking!) - so, the beatings will continue until morale improves (or some variation of that), or until this never ending process comes to its natural conclusion. Mother Nature is a cruel mistress. https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-morphology-of-a-humorous-phrase/ https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-morpholo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHExbJGIQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHExbJGIQs https://youtu.be/smX2UtdJFq8 https://youtu.be/smX2UtdJFq8 (not recommended for filthy casuals)
- NateEag 6y ago
  Your proposed system seems mostly unaware that bias pervades all people and therefore all systems. I don't think there's a way to system-design ourselves out of this situation.
  - mistermann 6y ago

_qulr 6y ago

Held accountable by whom? The government? Which is controlled roughly half the time by a party which you probably disagree with vehemently?

Barrin92 6y ago
In countries in which the truth is defended as OP demands clowns don't tend it to make it into government in the first place, but I see your point it's hard to see how the US gets out of this cycle
- salawat 6y ago
  Didn't Iceland literally have a clown for a mayor or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_Gnarr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_Gnarr Comedian technically, but eh.
  - jimmygrapes 6y ago
    Ukraine as well.
- testrun 6y ago
  Which countries?

artificialLimbs 6y ago

"lies shouldn't be allowed" Uh huh, and who decides what is a lie? There is a term called "slippery slope" and free speech may have been its founding issue.

baq 6y ago
But who’s paying for verifying free speech full of lies? Right now the price for no verification is viewable on all news channels.
xienze 6y ago
> Uh huh, and who decides what is a lie? Well obviously that would be unelected “fact checkers” who aren’t held accountable for anything and suspiciously seem to find nearly everything said by people in one particular political party to be “pants on fire” lies.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > unelected “fact checkers” You're right to point out the dangers of entrusting an unaccountable group with the responsibility of determining what is and isn't true, but I'm not sure that electing the fact checkers would improve their accuracy. Also, if you think it is suspicious that people in one political party make statements that are deemed lies, your problem might not be with the checkers.
  - xienze 6y ago
    > Also, if you think it is suspicious that people in one political party make statements that are deemed lies, your problem might not be with the checkers. Come on, I could easily remove context and/or provide a misleading "authoritative" interpretation to basically anything a Democrat says in order to brand it a lie. How new are you to this game?
maxerickson 6y ago
Courts. Even USA has laws against libel and slander, it's not like the status quo is that you can just say whatever you want with no fear of consequences.

nsajko 6y ago

This is an interesting point and my sibling comments are wrong: I'm sure the judiciary could provide that accountability, given new law. Even though I think Wikipedia is a failed project (because of it's own guidelines not being followed), it's actually got pretty good guidelines regarding verifiability and due weight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I'm imagining the media could be structured upon some sort of protocol codified in law that would ensure those guidelines would be respected. However the main thing that's necessary is probably instilling some sense of duty, honor and integrity in a large number of individuals. No idea how to go about that. EDIT: in the USA the FCC actually had regulation with a similar intent in the near past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

mistermann 6y ago

> People should be held accountable for what they say on media platforms, and lies shouldn't be allowed.. but i can't see that even happening. I've suggested to @dang that he tries implementing a kind of experimental discussion mode like that right here on HN, where for certain types of topics he could enable this mode and see what the effect would be on the human mind. I don't know all the particulars of what changes should be included in such a mode (would be a good topic for a discussion), but the main one I would include is an additional guideline something along the lines of "Please exert some effort in restricting your statements to the discussion of reasonably conclusive true facts about physical reality." This way, when people inevitably succumb to mistaking the virtual reality in their mind (where one has supernatural powers like omniscience, the ability to read minds at scale, predict the future with precise accuracy, completely understand infinitely complex indeterminate/chaotic systems, etc) for physical reality (where we do not have these powers), such comments could be flagged and reviewed a few days later (when cooler heads prevail) in a group Post Incident Review process of some sort (maybe a zoom meeting), where we could examine our behavior from a more metaphysical perspective, the goal being to increase awareness of the fact that inaccurate beliefs about reality are not something that only members of our personal outgroups suffer from, but rather something we all suffer from. It is simply a consequence of the same base software we all run in our minds. Unfortunately, this idea seems to be rather unpopular (shocking!) - so, the beatings will continue until morale improves (or some variation of that), or until this never ending process comes to its natural conclusion. Mother Nature is a cruel mistress. https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-morphology-of-a-humorous-phrase/ https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-morpholo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHExbJGIQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHExbJGIQs https://youtu.be/smX2UtdJFq8 https://youtu.be/smX2UtdJFq8 (not recommended for filthy casuals)

NateEag 6y ago
Your proposed system seems mostly unaware that bias pervades all people and therefore all systems. I don't think there's a way to system-design ourselves out of this situation.
- mistermann 6y ago