5 ms·

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! The problem with that idea is that it takes more effort to debunk a lie than to tell one. It also t

by ardy42 6y ago

> misinformation is combat with MORE discussion, not less! The problem with that idea is that it takes more effort to debunk a lie than to tell one. It also takes more effort to absorb a debunking than a lie. That's why disinformation works. Here's an example: JFK ate babies occasionally, and the media hushed it up. Oswald was actually a secret high-level CIA operative, and was so outraged by this that he assassinated JFK for it. It took me two seconds to write that. How much effort would it take you to debunk it? It's just not practical to put all the burden of combating misinformation on each individual's shoulders. It's also necessary to stop the spread of misinformation. That doesn't need to be done by a central authority, but people who've been convinced by a lie will perceive that as "censorship" by one. > scientific consensus is not arrived at when every scientific paper says the same thing. this is a fundamentally wrong view of science and also reality. on any given topic, the corpus includes opposing conclusions. eventually we figure out why and discern the underlying principles. Scientific consensus is also not arrived at by publishing literally every crackpot idea, and answering each with "more discussion." Science has several mechanisms for "censoring" bullshit and misinformation (e.g. peer review), and it couldn't function without it. "More discussion" is saved for cases where those mechanisms failed.

temp8964 6y ago
Your example actually tells something. Nobody would believe your JFK baby eating story. It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story. "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people, not because they are "bullshit" like your example.
- drwiggly 6y ago
  The problem with your calling this example out, is that people will believe this stuff if down the rabbit hole enough. Jan 20th Biden and Harris were supposed to be arrested and their pedo evidence was suppose to be shown to all, along with evidence of election fraud. The next one is what March 7th? A lot of people think an ancient all powerful being will re-appear and lift up adherents on high, and punish "bad" non believers.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  > It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story. I thought so too before Pizzagate, Q-Anon....
- jesseryoung 6y ago
  Perhaps a better example: Jewish people are telling you the earth is round so that way they can distract you from the fact they're kidnapping children and drinking their blood. A fantastic video on the topic of difficult to debunk, but easy to produce content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44.
- josephorjoe 6y ago
  I wish you were right, but you are not. It is very easy to have lots of people believe a fake story. QAnon conspiracy theories are incoherent and absurd yet are embraced by thousands and cause needless harm to many.
- parineum 6y ago
  > "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people Conspiracy theories are only believed by those who already mistrust the target. If there's a lot of conspiracies revolving around something/someone, you have a trust problem.
- mcguire 6y ago
  How about Jewish space lasers?
rayiner 6y ago
> Scientific consensus also not arrived at by publishing literally every crackpot idea, and answering each with "more discussion." Science has several mechanisms for "censoring" bullshit and misinformation (e.g. peer review), and it couldn't function without it. What counts as a "crackpot idea?" We don't have to dabble in hypotheticals about JFK eating babies. We have real examples from current political events that show we're not talking about "slippery slopes" here. We have rolled down the slope with stunning speed. In March 2020, the Surgeon General suggested that wearing masks was effective to prevent spread of COVID was a crackpot idea: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/485332-surgeon-general-stop-buying-masks https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/485332-surgeon-general... ("Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus[.]"). 10 months later, the Surgeon General is calling that same assertion a "myth": https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/1318972724207898624?lang=en https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/13189727242078986... ("There is a currently circulating MYTH suggesting masks don’t work to prevent spread of COVID-19."). I have a degree in aerospace engineering--I totally get that scientific understanding evolves. But it doesn't evolve like that. The truth is that the Surgeon General's March 2020 statement was ill-advised and overly-certain, and so was the October 2020 statement. Whether masks are effective at limiting the spread of COVID is quite uncertain. Mask-wearing rates vary quite dramatically between countries with similar COVID death rates: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/08/face-off-over-face-masks-europes-latest-north-south-split https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/08/face-off.... By June 2020, the U.S. had mask-wearing rates of 75%. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were under 20%. Out of those, Sweden and the U.S. have death rates (per population) 5-10 times higher than Denmark and Norway. Despite that uncertainty, I think most people worried about "misinformation" would use mask-denialism as a motivating example for why restrictions are needed. So what are the restrictionists really advocating for here?
- pen2l 6y ago
  > The issue is actually pretty uncertain, and government bodies are making categorical statements for political reasons I think it's more complicated than just politics, as I was saying elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26139732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26139732), public health officials advised against mask-wearing for general public initially for a very particular reason (possible shortages for medical frontline workers). As far as public healthy policy is concerned, where you cannot pass a certain threshold of complexity in communicating best practices to grandmas around the nation, masks work is a good enough message and it stands on pretty solid science: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v...
CivBase 6y ago
> It took me two seconds to write that. How much effort would it take you to debunk it? How long would it take you to establish enough credibility to be able to make an accusation like that and have people actually take your word for it? There might be a few nutters out there who are so predisposed to hate JFK that they'll believe anything negative about him, but most people - even those who dislike him - would rightfully question such an outlandish statement made by someone with no credentials. Dishonest people retain credibility when their supporters are trapped in echo chambers designed to keep the truth out. Censorship is a powerful tool for establishing and maintaining echo chambers. We need to fight echo chambers, not promote censorship.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > How long would it take you to establish enough credibility to be able to make an accusation like that and have people actually take your word for it? Keep this in mind: Q is literally some dude on 4chan/8chan with a tripcode. > There might be a few nutters out there who are so predisposed to hate JFK that they'll believe anything negative about him, but most people - even those who dislike him - would rightfully question such an outlandish statement made by someone with no credentials. I make no claim that my example lie is a good example of misinformation/disinformation. It was only meant to show the asymmetry of effort implicit in "more discussion." The key thing about getting a lie to stick is to hitting the right emotional buttons with it. And it's so easy broadcast lies nowadays that you can even discover those buttons stochastically, by just throwing random lies out there and seeing what sticks. Furthermore, if your goal is not to convince anyone of anything in particular, but to just to gum up a society (which is the goal of disinformation, properly understood), you don't event need to find particular lies with a broad appeal across society. You just need enough lies that enough people fall for one or two.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    I believe it is reasonable to speculate that QAnon members are generally trapped in extreme, right-wing echo chambers. Echo chambers enable people to retain undeserved credibility.
cassalian 6y ago
So you'd like to make lying illegal...? I have an amendment to show you, it's actually the very first one!

by ardy42 6y ago

temp8964 6y ago

Your example actually tells something. Nobody would believe your JFK baby eating story. It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story. "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people, not because they are "bullshit" like your example.

drwiggly 6y ago
The problem with your calling this example out, is that people will believe this stuff if down the rabbit hole enough. Jan 20th Biden and Harris were supposed to be arrested and their pedo evidence was suppose to be shown to all, along with evidence of election fraud. The next one is what March 7th? A lot of people think an ancient all powerful being will re-appear and lift up adherents on high, and punish "bad" non believers.
JKCalhoun 6y ago
> It is easy to write a fake story, but it is not easy to have lots of people believe your fake story. I thought so too before Pizzagate, Q-Anon....
jesseryoung 6y ago
Perhaps a better example: Jewish people are telling you the earth is round so that way they can distract you from the fact they're kidnapping children and drinking their blood. A fantastic video on the topic of difficult to debunk, but easy to produce content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44.
josephorjoe 6y ago
I wish you were right, but you are not. It is very easy to have lots of people believe a fake story. QAnon conspiracy theories are incoherent and absurd yet are embraced by thousands and cause needless harm to many.
parineum 6y ago
> "Misinformation" can spread because they seem plausible to enough people Conspiracy theories are only believed by those who already mistrust the target. If there's a lot of conspiracies revolving around something/someone, you have a trust problem.
mcguire 6y ago
How about Jewish space lasers?

rayiner 6y ago

> Scientific consensus also not arrived at by publishing literally every crackpot idea, and answering each with "more discussion." Science has several mechanisms for "censoring" bullshit and misinformation (e.g. peer review), and it couldn't function without it. What counts as a "crackpot idea?" We don't have to dabble in hypotheticals about JFK eating babies. We have real examples from current political events that show we're not talking about "slippery slopes" here. We have rolled down the slope with stunning speed. In March 2020, the Surgeon General suggested that wearing masks was effective to prevent spread of COVID was a crackpot idea: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/485332-surgeon-general-stop-buying-masks https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/485332-surgeon-general... ("Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus[.]"). 10 months later, the Surgeon General is calling that same assertion a "myth": https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/1318972724207898624?lang=en https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/13189727242078986... ("There is a currently circulating MYTH suggesting masks don’t work to prevent spread of COVID-19."). I have a degree in aerospace engineering--I totally get that scientific understanding evolves. But it doesn't evolve like that. The truth is that the Surgeon General's March 2020 statement was ill-advised and overly-certain, and so was the October 2020 statement. Whether masks are effective at limiting the spread of COVID is quite uncertain. Mask-wearing rates vary quite dramatically between countries with similar COVID death rates: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/08/face-off-over-face-masks-europes-latest-north-south-split https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/08/face-off.... By June 2020, the U.S. had mask-wearing rates of 75%. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were under 20%. Out of those, Sweden and the U.S. have death rates (per population) 5-10 times higher than Denmark and Norway. Despite that uncertainty, I think most people worried about "misinformation" would use mask-denialism as a motivating example for why restrictions are needed. So what are the restrictionists really advocating for here?

pen2l 6y ago
> The issue is actually pretty uncertain, and government bodies are making categorical statements for political reasons I think it's more complicated than just politics, as I was saying elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26139732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26139732), public health officials advised against mask-wearing for general public initially for a very particular reason (possible shortages for medical frontline workers). As far as public healthy policy is concerned, where you cannot pass a certain threshold of complexity in communicating best practices to grandmas around the nation, masks work is a good enough message and it stands on pretty solid science: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v...

CivBase 6y ago

> It took me two seconds to write that. How much effort would it take you to debunk it? How long would it take you to establish enough credibility to be able to make an accusation like that and have people actually take your word for it? There might be a few nutters out there who are so predisposed to hate JFK that they'll believe anything negative about him, but most people - even those who dislike him - would rightfully question such an outlandish statement made by someone with no credentials. Dishonest people retain credibility when their supporters are trapped in echo chambers designed to keep the truth out. Censorship is a powerful tool for establishing and maintaining echo chambers. We need to fight echo chambers, not promote censorship.

ardy42 6y ago
> How long would it take you to establish enough credibility to be able to make an accusation like that and have people actually take your word for it? Keep this in mind: Q is literally some dude on 4chan/8chan with a tripcode. > There might be a few nutters out there who are so predisposed to hate JFK that they'll believe anything negative about him, but most people - even those who dislike him - would rightfully question such an outlandish statement made by someone with no credentials. I make no claim that my example lie is a good example of misinformation/disinformation. It was only meant to show the asymmetry of effort implicit in "more discussion." The key thing about getting a lie to stick is to hitting the right emotional buttons with it. And it's so easy broadcast lies nowadays that you can even discover those buttons stochastically, by just throwing random lies out there and seeing what sticks. Furthermore, if your goal is not to convince anyone of anything in particular, but to just to gum up a society (which is the goal of disinformation, properly understood), you don't event need to find particular lies with a broad appeal across society. You just need enough lies that enough people fall for one or two.
- CivBase 6y ago
  I believe it is reasonable to speculate that QAnon members are generally trapped in extreme, right-wing echo chambers. Echo chambers enable people to retain undeserved credibility.

cassalian 6y ago

So you'd like to make lying illegal...? I have an amendment to show you, it's actually the very first one!