4 ms·

Why is it that everybody suddenly thinks they should get to decide what's "misinformation" for everybody else? Who gets to decide? Tech companies built on sur

Why is it that everybody suddenly thinks they should get to decide what's "misinformation" for everybody else? Who gets to decide? Tech companies built on surveillance and manipulation of people for engagement and advertising? The state, with all its history of mistreating various groups of citizens, and constant propaganda? The media, who have recently abandoned even the pretence of honestly reporting on, rather than trying to steer, political winds? None of these institutions can be trusted, therefore the idea of "controlling misinformation" itself is anathema to a free society.

titzer 5y ago
> therefore the idea of "controlling misinformation" itself is anathema to a free society. Have you ever considered that maybe "free societies" have never really existed, or maybe if they have, they might have vulnerabilities that cause them to taken over by misinformation, cults, and psychotic megalomaniacs, and destroy themselves? Because this is the question that some of us are honestly wrestling with. Society doesn't look super stable right now, and it's not because there's too little freedom of information. You can tune into whatever brand of crazy turns your crank and absolutely disappear into it. The echo chambers are numerous and labyrinthine. There's just too many nutjobs out there sucking down propaganda and there's too many nutjobs producing it. Societies, like people, can become mentally deranged. Nobody really knows what to do in that case, but in general it doesn't end pretty.
- textgel 5y ago
  No, the threat at the moment is coming from malicious actors claiming that the sky is falling and that they are the ones who can protect you from it if you'll just give them the power to rule. Those advocating for this have been shown to consistently have both a history and an ideology built on lying and making efforts to hurt people. I'm grateful to see the kickback against those who would be cheering on book burning during the 1900s.
DubiousPusher 5y ago
> media, who have recently abandoned even the pretence of honestly reporting on, rather than trying to steer, political winds? This has been going on for a long time. The media has been doing this as long as there has been media. There's probably just a pretty good chance that your personal preferences were fairly well reflected in the Northeast centric, government institution trusting, upper middle class value holding, media establishment. IMO, as someone whose views were rarely reflected there and rarely saw questions asked that I'd like asked, I feel we're much better off. News organizations are being more clear about their biases (intentionally or not) and there is a much better variety of news.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Groxx 5y ago
Perfect is the enemy of good, as always. Say I claim that Donald Trump is the love-child of Barack Obama and George Bush, born through the help of alien technology, and has only lived for a few years prior to becoming president. We should rise up and bring back our lovely innocent miracle-child, because aliens know best. Now say this gets picked up seriously, by people in the millions. Riots start because of it. Maybe a capital building gets invaded. Why in the world wouldn't we try to stop it from getting worse? (this is not in any way meant to claim that I think "modern AI" is a solution here. or that I have a solution. but I do think looking for techniques is a reasonable thing to do)
- zamadatix 5y ago
  If we had such a technique we wouldn't need somebody else to tell us. By all means, let's find such a holy grail, but let's not call "the authoritative source said so" said grail and act like we've solved anything.
anigbrowl 5y ago
It'd be great if we could get to substantive debate instead of thought-terminating cliches like 'who gets to decide'. A moment's thought will suggest a range of possible answers, and one can then advocate for one's favorite. It's unhelpful to stymie discussion of real phenomena by throwing up one's hands in performative horror. None of these institutions can be trusted, therefore the idea of "controlling misinformation" itself is anathema to a free society. I think the institutionalization of lying is anathema to a free society, because honest people waste valuable time debunking liars, and it's faster to spread lies that truth. How about you offer some positive suggestions for engaging with that issue instead of negating others' attempts to discuss it?
- Sophistifunk 5y ago
  > How about you offer some positive suggestions for engaging with that issue instead of negating others' attempts to discuss it? How about I don't, because in a free society nobody gets to vet what dumb "news" I'm allowed to see.
- Covzire 5y ago
  Ah yes, the "Stop wasting your time demanding your freedoms and tell me exactly what will finally convince you to bow down to me" defense.
- zarp 5y ago
  Definitely agree that important problems like this require diverse opinions and meaningful dialogue, but I don't feel that pointing out the failures of human institutions is an attempt to shut down discussion. Rather, I think the point being made was that we need to reframe the problem at hand; instead of trying to "control misinformation" maybe we need to work on ways to _amplify_ true information in ways that render misinformation powerless.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    That'd be great, but suggestions like that are in short supply. Education for better truth-detection is a popular one, but takes a long time to pay off and doesn't amplify, as such.

titzer 5y ago

> therefore the idea of "controlling misinformation" itself is anathema to a free society. Have you ever considered that maybe "free societies" have never really existed, or maybe if they have, they might have vulnerabilities that cause them to taken over by misinformation, cults, and psychotic megalomaniacs, and destroy themselves? Because this is the question that some of us are honestly wrestling with. Society doesn't look super stable right now, and it's not because there's too little freedom of information. You can tune into whatever brand of crazy turns your crank and absolutely disappear into it. The echo chambers are numerous and labyrinthine. There's just too many nutjobs out there sucking down propaganda and there's too many nutjobs producing it. Societies, like people, can become mentally deranged. Nobody really knows what to do in that case, but in general it doesn't end pretty.

textgel 5y ago
No, the threat at the moment is coming from malicious actors claiming that the sky is falling and that they are the ones who can protect you from it if you'll just give them the power to rule. Those advocating for this have been shown to consistently have both a history and an ideology built on lying and making efforts to hurt people. I'm grateful to see the kickback against those who would be cheering on book burning during the 1900s.

DubiousPusher 5y ago

> media, who have recently abandoned even the pretence of honestly reporting on, rather than trying to steer, political winds? This has been going on for a long time. The media has been doing this as long as there has been media. There's probably just a pretty good chance that your personal preferences were fairly well reflected in the Northeast centric, government institution trusting, upper middle class value holding, media establishment. IMO, as someone whose views were rarely reflected there and rarely saw questions asked that I'd like asked, I feel we're much better off. News organizations are being more clear about their biases (intentionally or not) and there is a much better variety of news.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Groxx 5y ago

Perfect is the enemy of good, as always. Say I claim that Donald Trump is the love-child of Barack Obama and George Bush, born through the help of alien technology, and has only lived for a few years prior to becoming president. We should rise up and bring back our lovely innocent miracle-child, because aliens know best. Now say this gets picked up seriously, by people in the millions. Riots start because of it. Maybe a capital building gets invaded. Why in the world wouldn't we try to stop it from getting worse? (this is not in any way meant to claim that I think "modern AI" is a solution here. or that I have a solution. but I do think looking for techniques is a reasonable thing to do)

zamadatix 5y ago
If we had such a technique we wouldn't need somebody else to tell us. By all means, let's find such a holy grail, but let's not call "the authoritative source said so" said grail and act like we've solved anything.

anigbrowl 5y ago

It'd be great if we could get to substantive debate instead of thought-terminating cliches like 'who gets to decide'. A moment's thought will suggest a range of possible answers, and one can then advocate for one's favorite. It's unhelpful to stymie discussion of real phenomena by throwing up one's hands in performative horror. None of these institutions can be trusted, therefore the idea of "controlling misinformation" itself is anathema to a free society. I think the institutionalization of lying is anathema to a free society, because honest people waste valuable time debunking liars, and it's faster to spread lies that truth. How about you offer some positive suggestions for engaging with that issue instead of negating others' attempts to discuss it?

Sophistifunk 5y ago
> How about you offer some positive suggestions for engaging with that issue instead of negating others' attempts to discuss it? How about I don't, because in a free society nobody gets to vet what dumb "news" I'm allowed to see.
Covzire 5y ago
Ah yes, the "Stop wasting your time demanding your freedoms and tell me exactly what will finally convince you to bow down to me" defense.
zarp 5y ago
Definitely agree that important problems like this require diverse opinions and meaningful dialogue, but I don't feel that pointing out the failures of human institutions is an attempt to shut down discussion. Rather, I think the point being made was that we need to reframe the problem at hand; instead of trying to "control misinformation" maybe we need to work on ways to _amplify_ true information in ways that render misinformation powerless.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  That'd be great, but suggestions like that are in short supply. Education for better truth-detection is a popular one, but takes a long time to pay off and doesn't amplify, as such.