6 ms·

Another problem is that something like this can function as "evidence" for the claim. There are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this val

Another problem is that something like this can function as "evidence" for the claim. There are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. It's similar to the Streisand Effect or "Banned in Boston" but for belief rather than attention. It seems like the better solution is to have an outpouring of discussion around how and why the claim is wrong. Let others ridicule the statements, rather than shutting down discussion. You'll never convince everyone, but at least you'd avoid the validation-by-censorship effect. I could be wrong on this though. I don't really have any evidence or data that would show doing it one way is better than the other. I suppose I simply prefer open discussion.

lupire 6y ago
It's a hard problem. Liars can spam lies much faster than honest people can debunk it.
- BaseS4 6y ago
  To counter this we should preemptively ban people just to make sure no one lies ever again.
hrktb 6y ago
One issue is that it’s asymmetrical. Made up statements have more resonance and shocking value than well thought rebuffs or ridicule. If you accuse your opponent of eating babies at breakfast, other parties will have a hard time to find something as punchy, and some minority of people will swallow your statement. Throw around enough of these and you’ll have a large base covered, with your opponents left scrambling for boring or after the fact retorts that won’t have the same reach.
- aetherson 6y ago
  And that is why you, yourself, believe lots of wrong things like this, right?
  - hrktb 6y ago
    I think that yes, I am effectively exposed to random baseless lies, and only a few of the voices crying foul will ever reach my eyes. For instance I read a headline about future rising petrol prices due to the stuck Evergreen boat, and honestly I have no idea how true it is, don’t care enough to go down the rabbit hole, but still remembered it as an information, and might subconsciously be influenced by it on some decisions. This is less likely to happen on fields I have decent interest or expertise in, but that only represents a tiny fragment of the information we consume everyday.
anovikov 6y ago
Thing is, any substantiative discussion will be way too complex for most people who could fall to these conspiracy theories, to understand, and they will arrive to a conclusion like "these Jews are trying to look too smart and bullshit us". Sadly, this asymmetrical warfare from authoritarian nations hits the right point: it forces us to either let misinformation flow and people become manipulated by it, or to revert to authoritarian measures by gradually chipping away freedom of speech.
- postmeta 6y ago
  or increase transparency and demand accountability from platforms amplifying messages without transparent traceability of information.
  - anovikov 6y ago
    ...which is the exact opposite of what these platforms, as businesses, were designed to do: maximally amplify and disperse the most "clickable" information - which is the one understandable to everyone (dumb) and appealing to people's instincts (authoritarian, because we are herd animals). given the power these platforms have, i highly doubt this attempt to regulate their business in a clearly negative way to them, can be successful. they are so powerful, even CCP is afraid of them, starting a crackdown on social media in China.
mistermann 6y ago
> There are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. It's similar to the Streisand Effect or "Banned in Boston" but for belief rather than attention. Similarly, there are large groups of people that believe there are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. The degree to which the respective beliefs of these two groups of people are actually correct, is unknown. I suspect that the group of people that believe this is considerably smaller than the other two groups, at least in Western cultures. I believe this phenomenon is (at least in part) what Hindus refer to as Maya. https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp
tomjen3 6y ago
You would only have an outpouring of discussion as to why the claim is wrong if you are 100% certain the claim is wrong. Last spring the CDC and the WHO were consistently wrong on masks, on asymmetric spread, etc on just about everything. Maybe the experts themselves don't even trust what is supposedly the truth anymore.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

lupire 6y ago

It's a hard problem. Liars can spam lies much faster than honest people can debunk it.

BaseS4 6y ago
To counter this we should preemptively ban people just to make sure no one lies ever again.

hrktb 6y ago

One issue is that it’s asymmetrical. Made up statements have more resonance and shocking value than well thought rebuffs or ridicule. If you accuse your opponent of eating babies at breakfast, other parties will have a hard time to find something as punchy, and some minority of people will swallow your statement. Throw around enough of these and you’ll have a large base covered, with your opponents left scrambling for boring or after the fact retorts that won’t have the same reach.

aetherson 6y ago
And that is why you, yourself, believe lots of wrong things like this, right?
- hrktb 6y ago
  I think that yes, I am effectively exposed to random baseless lies, and only a few of the voices crying foul will ever reach my eyes. For instance I read a headline about future rising petrol prices due to the stuck Evergreen boat, and honestly I have no idea how true it is, don’t care enough to go down the rabbit hole, but still remembered it as an information, and might subconsciously be influenced by it on some decisions. This is less likely to happen on fields I have decent interest or expertise in, but that only represents a tiny fragment of the information we consume everyday.

anovikov 6y ago

Thing is, any substantiative discussion will be way too complex for most people who could fall to these conspiracy theories, to understand, and they will arrive to a conclusion like "these Jews are trying to look too smart and bullshit us". Sadly, this asymmetrical warfare from authoritarian nations hits the right point: it forces us to either let misinformation flow and people become manipulated by it, or to revert to authoritarian measures by gradually chipping away freedom of speech.

postmeta 6y ago
or increase transparency and demand accountability from platforms amplifying messages without transparent traceability of information.
- anovikov 6y ago
  ...which is the exact opposite of what these platforms, as businesses, were designed to do: maximally amplify and disperse the most "clickable" information - which is the one understandable to everyone (dumb) and appealing to people's instincts (authoritarian, because we are herd animals). given the power these platforms have, i highly doubt this attempt to regulate their business in a clearly negative way to them, can be successful. they are so powerful, even CCP is afraid of them, starting a crackdown on social media in China.

mistermann 6y ago

> There are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. It's similar to the Streisand Effect or "Banned in Boston" but for belief rather than attention. Similarly, there are large groups of people that believe there are large groups of people who believe that censorship like this validates a worldview in which powerful interests are censoring true information in order to maintain control. The degree to which the respective beliefs of these two groups of people are actually correct, is unknown. I suspect that the group of people that believe this is considerably smaller than the other two groups, at least in Western cultures. I believe this phenomenon is (at least in part) what Hindus refer to as Maya. https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp

tomjen3 6y ago

You would only have an outpouring of discussion as to why the claim is wrong if you are 100% certain the claim is wrong. Last spring the CDC and the WHO were consistently wrong on masks, on asymmetric spread, etc on just about everything. Maybe the experts themselves don't even trust what is supposedly the truth anymore.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]