8 ms·

Rechanneling Beliefs: How information flows hinder or help democracy [pdf]

31 points by curmudgeon22 5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago
In the event your reading is also frustrated by a non-dismissable overlay and non-clickable download links, the webpage is merely a brief introduction to a 12 page PDF article here: https://snfagora.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Rechanneling-Beliefs.pdf https://snfagora.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Rechanne...
- dang 5y ago
  Ok, I've changed the URL to that from https://snfagora.jhu.edu/publication/rechanneling-beliefs/ https://snfagora.jhu.edu/publication/rechanneling-beliefs/. Thanks!
caramelcream 5y ago
Summary of the article: Republicans bad, Democrats good. It's a shame that partisanship makes it impossible to notice certain issues. The article completely ignores the erosion of journalistic standards, censorship on social media, "woke" takeover of academia and demonization of white males. It's not a surprise that the situation keeps getting worse.
- spiritplumber 5y ago
  You are helping how?
  - pdonis 5y ago
    By making it clear that the problem is not that one side has the "right" beliefs and the other side has the "wrong" beliefs, and that the way to make progress is to convince the people with the "wrong" beliefs to fix their beliefs. Ironically, the title page of the article (by contrast with the actual article) gets this right: it says the point of democracy is that it "enables people with different beliefs and ideas to coexist". You don't do that by one set of people trying to forcibly get another set of people to change their beliefs, by shaming them or canceling them or using the legal system against them. You do that by accepting the fact that people are going to have different beliefs, and that if you can't justify a particular policy on the basis of beliefs that everybody (or at least enough of a majority of both sides) shares, that policy should not be enacted by a democratic government. The biggest problem we have with democracy today is that whichever party is in power thinks that they thereby have a mandate to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. The way to fix it is to stop doing that. This article does not help.
motohagiography 5y ago
This horse seems to have left the barn. A significant portion of politically engaged people in the US and other countries will never believe electronic voting is legtimate again. Interesting that Bruce Schneier is a co-author, and the paper seems timed to be positioned for a reckoning about the integrity of those systems, and perhaps a justification of them because an election with physical integrity could have had problematic results.
- WalterGR 5y ago
  How is it both a reckoning and at the same time a justification of conspiracy theories?
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    Unsure how a technologist with any understanding of security questioning the integrity of electronic voting could be considered a conspiracy theory, instead of the default position on which the integrity of the most important election in the world is based. The entire history of elections is defined by the mechanisms for corrupting them and the rituals used to preserve their integrity and proof of chain of custody. The burden of proof is on the election authorities and using electronic systems did everything we predicted it would, which is sow the discord that results in civil unrest. When you take the integrity of that process away, the results are predictable.
- kokanator 5y ago
  Just as an interesting note. Here is Bruce Schneier stating that electronic voting systems by their nature are not secure and it is possible votes were hacked in the 2016 election ( by Russia ): https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/599452050/the-u-s-voting-system-remains-vulnerable-6-months-before-election-day-what-now https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/599452050/the-u-s-voting-syst...
kokanator 5y ago
This document is about silencing people who don't agree with the 'norm' which should be handled by independent parties ( 'gatekeepers' ) with oversight from the government. ( yes I read the entire document ). This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem. """Our prescriptions are not intended to weaken the Republican Party, but instead to redirect its energies so that its extremists don’t undermine a basic shared understanding of democracy.""" Spin it how you want, it is censorship.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > his document is about silencing people who don't agree with the 'norm' Apparently you're implying "The norm" is always nothing more than just another possible range of opinions, or worse, that it's some arbitrary standard that outsiders are forcing upon you. Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a norm may represent a well-established consensus should be readily apparent. As should the idea that there is such a thing as "noise" that obscures true signal and it's desirably sometimes to filter noise out of well-functioning systems. Is that tricky when it comes to the marketplace of ideas? Sure. Does that mean every effort to come to grips with the problem is censorship? Nope. > This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem. Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum. It doesn't have to be that way -- there are conservatives who are capable of advocacy on honest merits -- but it is that way right now.
  - kokanator 5y ago
    > Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a norm may represent a well-established consensus should be readily apparent. So which view is the 'well-established consensus'? In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle on the 'well-established consensus'. > Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum. This seems bit naive. The statement at the beginning of the document is simply a vail the author is using in order to proceed with a reprogramming plan for republicans and conservatives. "How do you know a politician is lying, [their] mouth is moving." We just had a full year of misinformation from all directions. To single one group out is disingenuous at best. ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ). The nation is split ideologically. How do you create a way to have conversations which lead to understanding? That is the real question that needs to be asked.
foolinaround 5y ago
how about the authors of this paper exposing their own political biases, how they voted etc? Similar to how financial analysts who write on a stock have a disclaimer about their relationship with the stock?
- epgui 5y ago
  What impact would that have on the merits of the text?
  - kokanator 5y ago
    It would help to inform the "intent" of the text.
    - epgui 5y ago
      The intent of the text is pretty clearly laid out in the first page of the text, is it not?
      - kokanator 5y ago
        What the author excuses is clear. Their intent is something all together different. For instance: I say to a group of people, "I am really not trying to single anyone out here but half of the people in this room do x,y and z. Therefore we need to reprogram how people like that think." Although I stated my "intent" I was actually excusing my actions ahead of time.
        epgui 5y ago
        It's not clear to me whether the text could reasonably be perceived as causing harm to anyone, even if it does criticize a specific group of people... So, what is there to excuse? Is there some expectation that whenever criticism or advice is written down, that there must be something in there that applies to everyone and every group?
Ericson2314 5y ago
I hope some small state can be convinced to do proportional legislation for its state legislature. I think that would have a large effect in the long term.
thegrim33 5y ago
At this point I honestly ignore anyone who tries to talk about "democracy", because that term has already become to mean, not what democracy actually is, but whatever political ideology the author supports. If the author supports an ideology, then it's "democracy", if they don't support it, it's the "end of democracy". Which, ironically, is the exact viewpoint that IS the end of democracy.

31 points by curmudgeon22 5y ago

In the event your reading is also frustrated by a non-dismissable overlay and non-clickable download links, the webpage is merely a brief introduction to a 12 page PDF article here: https://snfagora.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Rechanneling-Beliefs.pdf https://snfagora.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Rechanne...

dang 5y ago
Ok, I've changed the URL to that from https://snfagora.jhu.edu/publication/rechanneling-beliefs/ https://snfagora.jhu.edu/publication/rechanneling-beliefs/. Thanks!

caramelcream 5y ago

Summary of the article: Republicans bad, Democrats good. It's a shame that partisanship makes it impossible to notice certain issues. The article completely ignores the erosion of journalistic standards, censorship on social media, "woke" takeover of academia and demonization of white males. It's not a surprise that the situation keeps getting worse.

spiritplumber 5y ago
You are helping how?
- pdonis 5y ago
  By making it clear that the problem is not that one side has the "right" beliefs and the other side has the "wrong" beliefs, and that the way to make progress is to convince the people with the "wrong" beliefs to fix their beliefs. Ironically, the title page of the article (by contrast with the actual article) gets this right: it says the point of democracy is that it "enables people with different beliefs and ideas to coexist". You don't do that by one set of people trying to forcibly get another set of people to change their beliefs, by shaming them or canceling them or using the legal system against them. You do that by accepting the fact that people are going to have different beliefs, and that if you can't justify a particular policy on the basis of beliefs that everybody (or at least enough of a majority of both sides) shares, that policy should not be enacted by a democratic government. The biggest problem we have with democracy today is that whichever party is in power thinks that they thereby have a mandate to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. The way to fix it is to stop doing that. This article does not help.

motohagiography 5y ago

This horse seems to have left the barn. A significant portion of politically engaged people in the US and other countries will never believe electronic voting is legtimate again. Interesting that Bruce Schneier is a co-author, and the paper seems timed to be positioned for a reckoning about the integrity of those systems, and perhaps a justification of them because an election with physical integrity could have had problematic results.

WalterGR 5y ago
How is it both a reckoning and at the same time a justification of conspiracy theories?
- motohagiography 5y ago
  Unsure how a technologist with any understanding of security questioning the integrity of electronic voting could be considered a conspiracy theory, instead of the default position on which the integrity of the most important election in the world is based. The entire history of elections is defined by the mechanisms for corrupting them and the rituals used to preserve their integrity and proof of chain of custody. The burden of proof is on the election authorities and using electronic systems did everything we predicted it would, which is sow the discord that results in civil unrest. When you take the integrity of that process away, the results are predictable.
kokanator 5y ago
Just as an interesting note. Here is Bruce Schneier stating that electronic voting systems by their nature are not secure and it is possible votes were hacked in the 2016 election ( by Russia ): https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/599452050/the-u-s-voting-system-remains-vulnerable-6-months-before-election-day-what-now https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/599452050/the-u-s-voting-syst...

kokanator 5y ago

This document is about silencing people who don't agree with the 'norm' which should be handled by independent parties ( 'gatekeepers' ) with oversight from the government. ( yes I read the entire document ). This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem. """Our prescriptions are not intended to weaken the Republican Party, but instead to redirect its energies so that its extremists don’t undermine a basic shared understanding of democracy.""" Spin it how you want, it is censorship.

wwweston 5y ago
> his document is about silencing people who don't agree with the 'norm' Apparently you're implying "The norm" is always nothing more than just another possible range of opinions, or worse, that it's some arbitrary standard that outsiders are forcing upon you. Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a norm may represent a well-established consensus should be readily apparent. As should the idea that there is such a thing as "noise" that obscures true signal and it's desirably sometimes to filter noise out of well-functioning systems. Is that tricky when it comes to the marketplace of ideas? Sure. Does that mean every effort to come to grips with the problem is censorship? Nope. > This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem. Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum. It doesn't have to be that way -- there are conservatives who are capable of advocacy on honest merits -- but it is that way right now.
- kokanator 5y ago
  > Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a norm may represent a well-established consensus should be readily apparent. So which view is the 'well-established consensus'? In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle on the 'well-established consensus'. > Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum. This seems bit naive. The statement at the beginning of the document is simply a vail the author is using in order to proceed with a reprogramming plan for republicans and conservatives. "How do you know a politician is lying, [their] mouth is moving." We just had a full year of misinformation from all directions. To single one group out is disingenuous at best. ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ). The nation is split ideologically. How do you create a way to have conversations which lead to understanding? That is the real question that needs to be asked.

foolinaround 5y ago

how about the authors of this paper exposing their own political biases, how they voted etc? Similar to how financial analysts who write on a stock have a disclaimer about their relationship with the stock?

epgui 5y ago
What impact would that have on the merits of the text?
- kokanator 5y ago
  It would help to inform the "intent" of the text.
  - epgui 5y ago
    The intent of the text is pretty clearly laid out in the first page of the text, is it not?
    - kokanator 5y ago
      What the author excuses is clear. Their intent is something all together different. For instance: I say to a group of people, "I am really not trying to single anyone out here but half of the people in this room do x,y and z. Therefore we need to reprogram how people like that think." Although I stated my "intent" I was actually excusing my actions ahead of time.
      - epgui 5y ago
        It's not clear to me whether the text could reasonably be perceived as causing harm to anyone, even if it does criticize a specific group of people... So, what is there to excuse? Is there some expectation that whenever criticism or advice is written down, that there must be something in there that applies to everyone and every group?

Ericson2314 5y ago

I hope some small state can be convinced to do proportional legislation for its state legislature. I think that would have a large effect in the long term.

thegrim33 5y ago

At this point I honestly ignore anyone who tries to talk about "democracy", because that term has already become to mean, not what democracy actually is, but whatever political ideology the author supports. If the author supports an ideology, then it's "democracy", if they don't support it, it's the "end of democracy". Which, ironically, is the exact viewpoint that IS the end of democracy.