8 ms·

Not saying you are wrong, but could you give real examples of your three points? Right now it feels a bit abstract and hard to argue against.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 5y ago
Not the OP, but the lab leak theory being 'debunked' in the press very swiftly, before any real research, in stories sourced from a bunch of people who would be implicated to some degree by such a thing would be one recent example. That's not to say it's proven by any means, but various media outlets credulously accepting stories from conflicted sources and not even disclosing that conflict is itself a black mark whether or not the theory pans out later.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  It was 'debunked' because it didn't amount to a theory at the time. It was a wild political swing at a manufactured enemy to shift blame from a void of American leadership.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    Well, first, that's not what the word "debunked" even means. Two, there were and are plenty of odd signs, like the furin cleavage site. Yes, that's by no means conclusive, but they say that we should research this instead of coming to hasty conclusions in either direction that are, as you point out, manifestly political.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      A claim that, when being asked "where's your proof," is met with absolute silence if not wild claims without evidence, can be dismissed immediately. Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean it's a solid timepiece.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        Sure, but this was never one of those things.
  - hallway_monitor 5y ago
    Yes, this is the exact storyline that was pushed by the mainstream media. Repeating it doesn't make it true but reinforces the counter argument. There were a lot of clues that it might indeed have originated from a lab but these were selectively ignored, thus it "didn't amount to a theory".
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  More and more communication happens abstractly, away from the facts. An article titled "The lab leak theory is false" is not merely trying to inform people of a fact. Some call these Simulacrum Levels of communication. [1] The hypothetical article may also be trying to cause people to act like the lab leak theory is false. The statement doesn't indicate whether the author believes the fact is true or false, it indicates the behaviors they desire from the reader - for example, not being biased against Asians. See also "You don't need N95 masks", which means is that the speaker doesn't want a panic buy of masks so they're unavailable for medical personnel. It could also be written to cause people to believe that the speaker is part of the group that advocates against the lab leak hypothesis. "That sounds like a conspiracy theory, or racist, or nationalist, and I'm a part of the team that's against those things, go team, we're the best!". By taking a stance against the lab leak hypothesis they indicate their memebership in these causes, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the statement or the behaviors that belief or disbelief in the statement would entail. Finally, it may be expected to benefit the speaker in an abstract sense. If you have any position at all on a hot news item, that brings in eyeballs, which the publisher values. None of the correctness, behavior, or group identification results really matter in this context, their incentive is orthogonal to the communicated information. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qDmnyEMtJkE9Wrpau/simulacra-levels-and-their-interactions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qDmnyEMtJkE9Wrpau/simulacra-...
  - Natsu 5y ago
    Thanks for that, it was an interesting read.
- bb88 5y ago
  The lab leak theory was pushed heavily by QAnon and then got picked up by the usual right wing news outlets without actually providing any proof. It made great TV, and also made conservative news outlets a bit of good profit as well. But since Fox news' (and others) prime time is mostly opinion, not news, it makes it hard to separate what is "fact" and what's someone's opinion stated as fact. I think what you're complaining is valid, but you need to look at both sides. There appears to be a million different hypotheses for how the first transition to human happened, the lab leak is just one of them. Responsible journalism would have included the other hypothesis instead of highlighting the most panic/profit inducing one.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The lab leak theory was pushed heavily by QAnon IIRC, what QAnon pushed was beyond the standard lab-leak theory, that it was an lab leak of something created as an offensive bioweapon. I do think that that had the effect of poisoning the well on the plain lab leak theory (one might even speculate that that was the purpose for which QAnon pushed the theory.)
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    Ironically, we're on a thread discussing Assange, who ran Wikileaks, which published (often cryptographically verifiable) source information. The editor of that publication has been locked in prison indefinitely. So if you're having trouble distinguishing trusted information, you might think that the solution extends beyond "responsible journalism."
    - Natsu 5y ago
      Then we had another thread on HN thereafter suggesting that Google & co. rotate out their DKIM keys to make this sort of news less verifiable. This seems to suggest that factual accuracy is not always the primary concern.
NegativeLatency 5y ago
On the third point about feeling informed but not really being informed, there was something earlier this week where Vox had an article claiming that publications were ganging up on blackrock. Turns out one of the board members has a huge conflict of interest and is an investor in blackrock. https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blackrock-bubble https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blac... Now let’s say you read the vox article but nothing else. You might feel informed, like you’re doing something good keeping up on the news or whatever, but you’re potentially worse off if you don’t know the whole story
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Eh. After yesterdays annoucement on CDFI by US treasury, which indicates that it includes venture capital funds, I can see why some might get a little miffed on missing out on grabbing goverment largesse..
whatshisface 5y ago
It is not possible to give specific examples without crossing paths with readers who happen to have that particular epistemic monkey on their back. I want to avoid political arguments, so I think this tack fits the HN ethos best despite being, admittedly, an imperfect solution to a sticky problem. Although I think anyone can come up with their own examples.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Eliezer Yudkowsky suggests using historical examples, when making points about politics – like French Revolution or earlier. I know you're talking about contemporary US politics, but people are people are people and it can't be that different to something from history.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    I'm not sure if information availability has ever been this high (before modern era). When everyone in your town believes the same thing and only the most wealthy people can or have any reason to send a letter to another country, sustained misinformation is a lot easier to justify without recourse to anyone's preferences, at the top or bottom of society.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Natsu 5y ago

Not the OP, but the lab leak theory being 'debunked' in the press very swiftly, before any real research, in stories sourced from a bunch of people who would be implicated to some degree by such a thing would be one recent example. That's not to say it's proven by any means, but various media outlets credulously accepting stories from conflicted sources and not even disclosing that conflict is itself a black mark whether or not the theory pans out later.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
It was 'debunked' because it didn't amount to a theory at the time. It was a wild political swing at a manufactured enemy to shift blame from a void of American leadership.
- Natsu 5y ago
  Well, first, that's not what the word "debunked" even means. Two, there were and are plenty of odd signs, like the furin cleavage site. Yes, that's by no means conclusive, but they say that we should research this instead of coming to hasty conclusions in either direction that are, as you point out, manifestly political.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    A claim that, when being asked "where's your proof," is met with absolute silence if not wild claims without evidence, can be dismissed immediately. Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean it's a solid timepiece.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      Sure, but this was never one of those things.
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  Yes, this is the exact storyline that was pushed by the mainstream media. Repeating it doesn't make it true but reinforces the counter argument. There were a lot of clues that it might indeed have originated from a lab but these were selectively ignored, thus it "didn't amount to a theory".
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
More and more communication happens abstractly, away from the facts. An article titled "The lab leak theory is false" is not merely trying to inform people of a fact. Some call these Simulacrum Levels of communication. [1] The hypothetical article may also be trying to cause people to act like the lab leak theory is false. The statement doesn't indicate whether the author believes the fact is true or false, it indicates the behaviors they desire from the reader - for example, not being biased against Asians. See also "You don't need N95 masks", which means is that the speaker doesn't want a panic buy of masks so they're unavailable for medical personnel. It could also be written to cause people to believe that the speaker is part of the group that advocates against the lab leak hypothesis. "That sounds like a conspiracy theory, or racist, or nationalist, and I'm a part of the team that's against those things, go team, we're the best!". By taking a stance against the lab leak hypothesis they indicate their memebership in these causes, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the statement or the behaviors that belief or disbelief in the statement would entail. Finally, it may be expected to benefit the speaker in an abstract sense. If you have any position at all on a hot news item, that brings in eyeballs, which the publisher values. None of the correctness, behavior, or group identification results really matter in this context, their incentive is orthogonal to the communicated information. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qDmnyEMtJkE9Wrpau/simulacra-levels-and-their-interactions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qDmnyEMtJkE9Wrpau/simulacra-...
- Natsu 5y ago
  Thanks for that, it was an interesting read.
bb88 5y ago
The lab leak theory was pushed heavily by QAnon and then got picked up by the usual right wing news outlets without actually providing any proof. It made great TV, and also made conservative news outlets a bit of good profit as well. But since Fox news' (and others) prime time is mostly opinion, not news, it makes it hard to separate what is "fact" and what's someone's opinion stated as fact. I think what you're complaining is valid, but you need to look at both sides. There appears to be a million different hypotheses for how the first transition to human happened, the lab leak is just one of them. Responsible journalism would have included the other hypothesis instead of highlighting the most panic/profit inducing one.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The lab leak theory was pushed heavily by QAnon IIRC, what QAnon pushed was beyond the standard lab-leak theory, that it was an lab leak of something created as an offensive bioweapon. I do think that that had the effect of poisoning the well on the plain lab leak theory (one might even speculate that that was the purpose for which QAnon pushed the theory.)
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Ironically, we're on a thread discussing Assange, who ran Wikileaks, which published (often cryptographically verifiable) source information. The editor of that publication has been locked in prison indefinitely. So if you're having trouble distinguishing trusted information, you might think that the solution extends beyond "responsible journalism."
  - Natsu 5y ago
    Then we had another thread on HN thereafter suggesting that Google & co. rotate out their DKIM keys to make this sort of news less verifiable. This seems to suggest that factual accuracy is not always the primary concern.

NegativeLatency 5y ago

On the third point about feeling informed but not really being informed, there was something earlier this week where Vox had an article claiming that publications were ganging up on blackrock. Turns out one of the board members has a huge conflict of interest and is an investor in blackrock. https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blackrock-bubble https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blac... Now let’s say you read the vox article but nothing else. You might feel informed, like you’re doing something good keeping up on the news or whatever, but you’re potentially worse off if you don’t know the whole story

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Eh. After yesterdays annoucement on CDFI by US treasury, which indicates that it includes venture capital funds, I can see why some might get a little miffed on missing out on grabbing goverment largesse..

whatshisface 5y ago

It is not possible to give specific examples without crossing paths with readers who happen to have that particular epistemic monkey on their back. I want to avoid political arguments, so I think this tack fits the HN ethos best despite being, admittedly, an imperfect solution to a sticky problem. Although I think anyone can come up with their own examples.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Eliezer Yudkowsky suggests using historical examples, when making points about politics – like French Revolution or earlier. I know you're talking about contemporary US politics, but people are people are people and it can't be that different to something from history.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I'm not sure if information availability has ever been this high (before modern era). When everyone in your town believes the same thing and only the most wealthy people can or have any reason to send a letter to another country, sustained misinformation is a lot easier to justify without recourse to anyone's preferences, at the top or bottom of society.