5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

pstuart 5y ago
> How do you create a way to have conversations which lead to understanding We could start by having dialog that tries to find commonality rather than division.
- kokanator 5y ago
  This is where my original comment was intended. It would seem anyone reading this document in its entirety and extracting the focus on any group or any specific event should see that the premise is a prescription for censorship.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    It's understandable that censorship is not a good thing. But when we talk about "the marketplace of ideas" it's easy to forget that marketplaces can have scammers and bad actors. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that flooding the market with fakes is a good thing. I do know that most people don't like to be wrong and there's a human tendency to double down rather than admit a mistake. I've tried to engage in conflicting opinions here trying to find a common ground and have failed every time. I'm stupid enough to try again but shit gets ugly fast and I don't want dang to have to scold me yet again.
    - epgui 5y ago
      Unrelated to this thread, but keep up your attitude. I love people like you who persist in trying to engage in good faith.
      - pstuart 5y ago
        Thank you. I wish I didn't fail all the time.
    - kokanator 5y ago
      I think the big question here is who should then 'regulate' the marketplace of ideas? In a free speech society is this the government? Is it corporations? In either case or a combination thereof the regulation will undoubtedly contain bias. Thus why free speech is supposed to be free speech. In economics it is understood the only way to accomplish a true monopoly is through government regulation. If we allow government regulation of in the marketplace of ideas we run a very real risk of seeing monopolies of ideas.
wwweston 5y ago
> So which view is the 'well-established consensus'? In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle A well-established consensus isn't just about how many people believe it, it's about why they believe it, the observations and reasoning behind it, and to some extent the depth of any relevant domain expertise in approach the problem and formulating the conclusions. When many Americans believed smoking was harmless or even healthy, that didn't make it so. The eventual consensus (smking is harmful) was founded in expert-reviewed but publicly available statistical observations connecting smoking with higher probabilities of cancer or other disease, first hand observations by doctors, and eventually models of how/why it happens. Of course, you can have those things and still have a population that doesn't understand them because tobacco companies engaged in disinformation campaigns to provide cover for their business interests, and that brings up the question of how you address it. The answer seems to have been limiting advertisement of tobacco in some media, requiring clear labelling about the hazards, and in some cases subsidizing efforts to communicate consensus information. Now, do you want to reject the consensus here as some arbitrary norm? Do you want to be as full-throated in your free speech advocacy for the right of tobacco companies to present any picture they like of how the world works through whatever means their wealth can provide? Or would you acknowledge that at least sometimes, as this case illustrates, matters of public interest -- even public health -- include matters of public information? And that there's reasons to rely on expertise and try to amplify it? > In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle You may be mixing up the issue of how people vote with the issue of confidence that the vote was accurately represented. Elections are contests. People take different sides. That's expected and explicitly allowed. The consensus isn't that people should all vote one way or all vote another, the consensus is that accurately represented vote counts should decide who holds public office. Are you going against that consensus? > We just had a full year of misinformation from all directions. misinformation involving mistakes or communication gaps arguably is part of the human condition. disinformation is something else entirely, and no, it doesn't come from all directions. > ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ). Presumably you're talking about revived talk about outbreak sources as if it's some matter of controversy or coverup. It's not, and it doesn't matter much.
- pdonis 5y ago

pstuart 5y ago

> How do you create a way to have conversations which lead to understanding We could start by having dialog that tries to find commonality rather than division.

kokanator 5y ago
This is where my original comment was intended. It would seem anyone reading this document in its entirety and extracting the focus on any group or any specific event should see that the premise is a prescription for censorship.
- pstuart 5y ago
  It's understandable that censorship is not a good thing. But when we talk about "the marketplace of ideas" it's easy to forget that marketplaces can have scammers and bad actors. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that flooding the market with fakes is a good thing. I do know that most people don't like to be wrong and there's a human tendency to double down rather than admit a mistake. I've tried to engage in conflicting opinions here trying to find a common ground and have failed every time. I'm stupid enough to try again but shit gets ugly fast and I don't want dang to have to scold me yet again.
  - epgui 5y ago
    Unrelated to this thread, but keep up your attitude. I love people like you who persist in trying to engage in good faith.
    - pstuart 5y ago
      Thank you. I wish I didn't fail all the time.
  - kokanator 5y ago
    I think the big question here is who should then 'regulate' the marketplace of ideas? In a free speech society is this the government? Is it corporations? In either case or a combination thereof the regulation will undoubtedly contain bias. Thus why free speech is supposed to be free speech. In economics it is understood the only way to accomplish a true monopoly is through government regulation. If we allow government regulation of in the marketplace of ideas we run a very real risk of seeing monopolies of ideas.

wwweston 5y ago

> So which view is the 'well-established consensus'? In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle A well-established consensus isn't just about how many people believe it, it's about why they believe it, the observations and reasoning behind it, and to some extent the depth of any relevant domain expertise in approach the problem and formulating the conclusions. When many Americans believed smoking was harmless or even healthy, that didn't make it so. The eventual consensus (smking is harmful) was founded in expert-reviewed but publicly available statistical observations connecting smoking with higher probabilities of cancer or other disease, first hand observations by doctors, and eventually models of how/why it happens. Of course, you can have those things and still have a population that doesn't understand them because tobacco companies engaged in disinformation campaigns to provide cover for their business interests, and that brings up the question of how you address it. The answer seems to have been limiting advertisement of tobacco in some media, requiring clear labelling about the hazards, and in some cases subsidizing efforts to communicate consensus information. Now, do you want to reject the consensus here as some arbitrary norm? Do you want to be as full-throated in your free speech advocacy for the right of tobacco companies to present any picture they like of how the world works through whatever means their wealth can provide? Or would you acknowledge that at least sometimes, as this case illustrates, matters of public interest -- even public health -- include matters of public information? And that there's reasons to rely on expertise and try to amplify it? > In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle You may be mixing up the issue of how people vote with the issue of confidence that the vote was accurately represented. Elections are contests. People take different sides. That's expected and explicitly allowed. The consensus isn't that people should all vote one way or all vote another, the consensus is that accurately represented vote counts should decide who holds public office. Are you going against that consensus? > We just had a full year of misinformation from all directions. misinformation involving mistakes or communication gaps arguably is part of the human condition. disinformation is something else entirely, and no, it doesn't come from all directions. > ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ). Presumably you're talking about revived talk about outbreak sources as if it's some matter of controversy or coverup. It's not, and it doesn't matter much.

pdonis 5y ago