9 ms·

It's ironic (or maybe appropriate) that this, talking about how better ideas don't rise to the top, is the top comment. The most abhorrent idea of all to me is

It's ironic (or maybe appropriate) that this, talking about how better ideas don't rise to the top, is the top comment. The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Lots of support for this view in downstream comments (we're just intelligent apes etc). The strawman of the existence of factually incorrect content is irrelevant in my view. Everyone loves to jump on conspiracy theories or whatever other stuff is out there as proof that people (other people) are too dumb to be exposed to the world. First, I think the relevance and the number of serious adherents in the extreme version of these conspiracies etc are dramatically overstated because they reinforce a narrative. Second, I think most of it is an effect, not a cause, of people being told what to do and what to think. People uncomfortable with narratives that end in them giving something up will take shelter in alternative explanations. The problem is not the nutty theories being available, it's in the way that one group forces itself on another in the first place. All this to say, we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice, or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Frankly, the latter idea is ridiculous to me.

Nursie 5y ago
> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" Not what I said. However the idea that everyone is equally able to parse out good information from bad is absurd, and I make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest. Neither do I argue that such people exist or are necessary. > we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice, or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Or we can ditch bland cliches and false dichotomies and look at pragmatic steps that can be taken to, for instance, improve access to good information, improve education around critical thinking, and perhaps (as mentioned in other comments) re-examine things like automated algorithms that feed people ever more extreme content because it increases engagement levels, clicks and ad revenue. But no, of course, you're right, taking any action at all is akin to fascism. Totally.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > I make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest I would say you did: > And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best ideas, I'll answer - nobody, but I can see that factually incorrect, scientifically illiterate, conspiratorial, harmful crank ideas gain legs in the online world we've created. Often at the root of these is a profit motive. You asked the right question (who are you to determine the truth?) but then you didn't answer it. You continued on to imply that, in fact, you are in a position to sort out what's true unlike those other, inferior people who fall for conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. > Or we can ditch bland cliches and false dichotomies and look at pragmatic steps that can be taken to, for instance, improve access to good information, improve education around critical thinking, and perhaps (as mentioned in other comments) re-examine things like automated algorithms that feed people ever more extreme content because it increases engagement levels, clicks and ad revenue. "Improving access to good information" is usually a euphemism for some kind of censorship. As far as I'm concerned, all of these "problems" are not problems, they're justifications for controlling other people and expressions of impotent rage at the failure to control those people. I'm vaccinated and I voted for Biden but I do not understand why peope care that others decide not to get vaccinated or voted for the other guy. Part of freedom is the freedom to be wrong. I think these are not new problems. Democracy, pluralism, free speech, trial by jury, etc are our solutions to these problems. They aren't particularly satisfying solutions because, as you said in your first post, the truth doesn't always win. Rather they're tragic compromises. But I don't see any serious suggestions about how we should improve them.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > You continued on to imply that, in fact, you are in a position to sort out what's true unlike those other, inferior people who fall for conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. You missed that I was drawing a distinction between what is commonly thought of as the market place of ideas - in which rational discourse and honest debate enables people to learn, compare, agree and disagree, find greater truths, learn, etc etc - and the spread of misinformation based on falsehood, often perpetuated for profit. We absolutely can, as a society, say that (for example) misinformation about vaccines, where we are dealing with matters of fact, is not on a level with actual vaccine science. This is not really up for honest debate. We can debate until the cows come home about what it means, whether any opinions should be drawn or any action taken, but motivated lies are just not on the same footing as factual information. > "Improving access to good information" is usually a euphemism for some kind of censorship. You assume bad faith here, again. I think there’s a lot can be done by way of giving access to scientific information in accessible ways. > I'm vaccinated and I voted for Biden but I do not understand why peope care that others decide not to get vaccinated Well firstly Because that decision affects more than just those individuals, and puts others (including the already vaccinated and those who cannot be vaccinated) at risk. And secondly because some of those making the decision not to vaccinate, and putting themselves at risk, have done so armed with bad information. The nature of the problems may not be new, but the scale and severity seem to be.
amelius 5y ago
> we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice One of the problems is that we don't all get the same information. > or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Frankly, the latter idea is ridiculous to me. You've bumped into the exact same problem that exists with our democracy. Do you want our future determined by a few well-informed, rational people? Or do you want it determined by an ignorant, short-sighted mass?
- version_five 5y ago
  > You've bumped into the exact same problem that exists with our democracy. Do you want our future determined by a few well-informed, rational people? Or do you want it determined by an ignorant, short-sighted mass? Isn't this an argument for limiting the power we give to those in power? It's unrealistic to think that only people who are right will be in charge (I doubt I need to give examples). The realistic thing is strong controls on the power they wield, to that "short sighted masses" cannot take over. This idea underpins liberal democracy.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Yes and this is why individual freedoms and local decision making should take precedence over collectivist thought, tyrannies of the majority, and top-down decisions.
  - anyonecancode 5y ago
    Yes, but the tricky part here is that "those in power" is far more than just those in government. As this very thread topic itself demonstrates, there are plenty of people and organizations that are not the government that have a large amount of power. In a democracy, we have a way to limit the power of our government -- but what's the way to do that for those in power who are not in government? The traditional approach has been to use government power to check non-government power, but this seems to run counter to the whole "limiting the power we give to those in power." But if we don't use government power to check outsize private power, then we are again ceding too much power. My own view is that the answer is less about how much power we grant than about how much accountability there is -- ie, broader and deeper democracy. But that seems to work mostly in theory; in practice this often gets circumvented by those with power and we get shallow democracy with limited accountability and thus unsatisfactory restrictions on both governmental and non-governmental power.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tshaddox 5y ago
> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. I find this idea abhorrent as well, but I’m curious if you find it abhorrent because you think the claim is false and/or unsubstantiated, or if you find it abhorrent because even if it’s true it ought to be rejected due to some moral principle.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  The best statements of this problem are in Public Opinion and The Phantom Public by Lippmann. You don't need to share his answers to those questions (which are an enlightened corporatism/fascism), to realize that to be serious about governance, answering them is a prerequisite.
- totony 5y ago
  (not parent) I think it is pretty easy to substantiate it (some people are actually deficient), but hard to substantiate to the degree that would justify the measures people propose. Yes, you can find a few nutjobs, but do they justify these truth-seeking policies for the general population? What suggests that these policies are even beneficial? But even if it was shown to be beneficial, I would still be against it on moral grounds I suppose (but I'm not sure since that might depend on how "beneficial" it is).
- version_five 5y ago
  I've not really thought about it this way, but I believe both statements. Nobody should be a slave to how someone else wants them to behave, because people are autonomous beings with their own capacity and right to make their own decisions, and there is no universal law about how we should decide or prioritize things. I believe of course in many of the societal constructs we have (most of the ten commandments e.g., taxes) but I think there has to be an almost impossibility high bar in any new imposition we make on peoples right to have their own priorities, because we're all equal in the universe. Maybe a weird answer, I'm not a philosopher, I just don't think there is a scale of rights that people have, or in the idea of an elite that has special decision making power because it is enlightened.
throwawaygh 5y ago
This post is pretty off-topic and unresponsive. A central premise of Doctorow's argument is the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. Proceeding from that framing, he proposes that the ACCESS Act as an important middle ground that could, among other things, help stave off the death of Section 230. OP points out that our better angels don't always win in that marketplace. Let's get less abstract. The article envisions a market-based approach toward online censorship. The idea that a "marketplace of filters" would create a "live and let live" scenario seems extraordinarily naive to me. It seems much more likely that making it easier to choose filter bubbles -- and introducing a profit motive into the construction of such filters -- would just escalate the appetite to censor, on both sides. > All this to say, we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice, or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us You seem to be confusing critique with a proposal of some alternative. Just because OP believes that the "marketplace of ideas" thesis is a farce and that the ACCESS Act is probably a non-solution to the wrong problem, doesn't mean OP wants to censor people. It's possible to both believe that Doctorow's argument is wrong and also not be a full-throated supporter of aggressive censorship. In fact... > The most abhorrent idea... You take rather flagrant liberties when interpreting parent's post, constructing an unrecognizable strawman out of a post that contains phrases like "Is censorship the best way to deal with it? Probably not." and "And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best ideas, I'll answer - nobody". > The strawman of... Those in glass houses...
DSingularity 5y ago
Why is it ridiculous? You don’t respect the potential injustice which can occur due to disparity in information and/or knowledge. Think about the popularity of crypto. How can you think your position of complete lack of regulation is moral? You think it’s okay to allow the targeting of the economically vulnerable to continue without restrictions via ads or - my favorite - celebrity endorsements? This is ridiculous.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
suzzer99 5y ago
IMO your stance basically amounts to "propaganda doesn't work". History would suggest otherwise.
- naasking 5y ago
  Of course propaganda works. So use it to convince people of the truth instead of just muzzling them.
Barrin92 5y ago
>The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them This is the basic hierarchical nature of any complex society. In a well functioning society those people, called elites (today already considered a derogatory term), are being funneled to the top where they're put into positions of power. I don't really know why that's in itself supposed to be abhorrent, because it's how any functional organisation is structured. The problems start when institutions break down and the quality of your elites is reduced, but the solution is not some sort of choose your own adventure story where you let the inmates run the asylum. There's no organisation on earth that survives like that. The entire notion that the vast majority of adults 'make their own choices' is a complete fiction to begin with. Choices exist downstream from culture and culture itself is produced by elites and consumed by 'adults', and so the choice you have to ponder is which people you want to be in charge of producing your culture. Might be Harvard, Zuckerberg, Tucker, or the Pope, but the people have nothing to do with it.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  This assumes that people reach "elite" status due to merit rather than to to complicated in-group favoring dynamics that serve to entrench certain class/ethnic/political interests. The more gatekeeping you allow the elites to do, the less meritocratic the elites are. So the idea that some people are better at some things than other people is indeed true, but the idea that we can reliably measure that without the metric being gamed and corrupted is false.
- int_19h 5y ago
  The elites at any given time are actively promoting this premise. But, seeing how elites get wiped out and replaced now and then, and society keeps going on, I think this "basic hierarchical nature" very much ought to be questioned by anyone who does not fancy becoming part of the current or future elite themselves.
- naasking 5y ago
  > Choices exist downstream from culture and culture itself is produced by elites You have it backwards. People who produce or shape culture become elites, it's not that people who are already elites are the only ones producing culture (or rather, influencing it). That has very different implications from what you're describing. In fact, elites who intentionally try to shape culture often get laughed at (cue the "Imagine" video).
quicklime 5y ago
It's not ironic, and not surprising. HN is very willing to "censor" (i.e. moderate, ban, etc) and on top of that, "politics" is considered off-topic altogether according to the guidelines. In such an environment, the better ideas often do rise up to the top. Twitter and Facebook are not such environments. "We" shield ourselves from bad ideas because this forum would be overrun if we didn't.
acituan 5y ago
> All this to say, we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice, or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Frankly, the latter idea is ridiculous to me. This is a false dichotomy and a rather romantic notion. Independent adults rarely, if ever, make their minds from first principles. They do already cluster around people who think/convince others that they know better. So few of what we’re talking here is original thought, we are mostly riffing on what we’ve read elsewhere. And that’s OK. That how distributed cognition saves us a lot of time, when working correctly. But distributed cognition of independent adults get to super irrational conclusions too, I don’t need to list past atrocities based on ridiculous ideas. So while the failures and wins of distributed cognition is yet to be understood properly, it alone is not the culprit nor can be corrected via the virtues of atomized individualized cognition. One thing is clear, ideas distributed over ad fueled companies’ screen estates conform to a particular topology and a particular objective function. The normativity of engagement is not that of reality. And the irrationality of those systems effect us even from afar, permeates into our culture and even into non-ad based forums like this.
trainsplanes 5y ago
> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Gullible people exist. I mean, it's such a well-known phenomenon that the term "gullible" exists to describe people who fall for what should be obviously false information and lies. We all have our instances of gullibility, and we all have domains that we know nothing about, and there are countless people who prey on people with lack of knowledge in some area. If people go around in real life deceiving people, someone might step in and tell them to watch out for the scam. There'll be signs in tourist areas where scammers frequent. Banks will send out notices on how to help their customers avoid financial traps. Schools teach kids to look out for bad information and misleading conclusions. Signs are posted in parks warning people not to venture out to certain areas because they're likely unprepared and could die (and people still die anyways). This is all generally accepted as good. But flag a post on some social networking site with a "This might be fake. Be careful", and people go wild saying the elite are trying to police us and they're destroying our freedoms.
- naniwaduni 5y ago
  The term "elf" exists to describe a kind (well, a few kinds) of supernatural vaguely-humanoid being. This is not generally considered evidence for the existence of elfs.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Exactly. Only a gullible person would think so.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Flagging a potential scam or potentially self-serving misinformation is not censorship and is very different from blocking content and banning posters.
refurb 5y ago
The approach of “people are gullible and need someone smarter to show them the truth” of course requires some “smart enough” and no doubt many HNers consider themselves those people. Which is a hilarious take on HN if you ever read a discussion on health matters. The amount of bad information, random conjuncture and conspiratorial thinking is pretty shocking.
mbesto 5y ago
> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Lots of support for this view in downstream comments (we're just intelligent apes etc). What you just described is called a representative democracy and was essentially created because a direct democracy didn't work, for exactly those reasons you mention (many people can't actually think for themselves - at the political level). > All this to say, we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice You're completely ignoring the crux here - it's about both access to information and algorithms that present signals vs noise. Pretending that my 95 year old grandma can reliably decide that a fox news segment isn't sensationalized drivel after being primed for 30+ years that its "news" and not entertainment, is just as silly as you thinking this whole suggestion is ridiculous.
oliv__ 5y ago
"The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Lots of support for this view in downstream comments (we're just intelligent apes etc)." I couldn't agree more. While no-one can deny that we are all born with different capacities (intellectual or otherwise), the argument that some people are essentially incapable of taking care of their own lives is a very slippery slope and a cynical one at that, viewing humans as incapable of learning or improving. I find it truly repulsive.
SyzygistSix 5y ago
I did not interpret their comment that way. I see part of the problem being that the spaces we hang out in now are not conducive to productive conversation with a variety of people and instead nurture division due to perverse incentives and poor design.

Nursie 5y ago

> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" Not what I said. However the idea that everyone is equally able to parse out good information from bad is absurd, and I make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest. Neither do I argue that such people exist or are necessary. > we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice, or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Or we can ditch bland cliches and false dichotomies and look at pragmatic steps that can be taken to, for instance, improve access to good information, improve education around critical thinking, and perhaps (as mentioned in other comments) re-examine things like automated algorithms that feed people ever more extreme content because it increases engagement levels, clicks and ad revenue. But no, of course, you're right, taking any action at all is akin to fascism. Totally.

slibhb 5y ago
> I make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest I would say you did: > And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best ideas, I'll answer - nobody, but I can see that factually incorrect, scientifically illiterate, conspiratorial, harmful crank ideas gain legs in the online world we've created. Often at the root of these is a profit motive. You asked the right question (who are you to determine the truth?) but then you didn't answer it. You continued on to imply that, in fact, you are in a position to sort out what's true unlike those other, inferior people who fall for conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. > Or we can ditch bland cliches and false dichotomies and look at pragmatic steps that can be taken to, for instance, improve access to good information, improve education around critical thinking, and perhaps (as mentioned in other comments) re-examine things like automated algorithms that feed people ever more extreme content because it increases engagement levels, clicks and ad revenue. "Improving access to good information" is usually a euphemism for some kind of censorship. As far as I'm concerned, all of these "problems" are not problems, they're justifications for controlling other people and expressions of impotent rage at the failure to control those people. I'm vaccinated and I voted for Biden but I do not understand why peope care that others decide not to get vaccinated or voted for the other guy. Part of freedom is the freedom to be wrong. I think these are not new problems. Democracy, pluralism, free speech, trial by jury, etc are our solutions to these problems. They aren't particularly satisfying solutions because, as you said in your first post, the truth doesn't always win. Rather they're tragic compromises. But I don't see any serious suggestions about how we should improve them.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > You continued on to imply that, in fact, you are in a position to sort out what's true unlike those other, inferior people who fall for conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. You missed that I was drawing a distinction between what is commonly thought of as the market place of ideas - in which rational discourse and honest debate enables people to learn, compare, agree and disagree, find greater truths, learn, etc etc - and the spread of misinformation based on falsehood, often perpetuated for profit. We absolutely can, as a society, say that (for example) misinformation about vaccines, where we are dealing with matters of fact, is not on a level with actual vaccine science. This is not really up for honest debate. We can debate until the cows come home about what it means, whether any opinions should be drawn or any action taken, but motivated lies are just not on the same footing as factual information. > "Improving access to good information" is usually a euphemism for some kind of censorship. You assume bad faith here, again. I think there’s a lot can be done by way of giving access to scientific information in accessible ways. > I'm vaccinated and I voted for Biden but I do not understand why peope care that others decide not to get vaccinated Well firstly Because that decision affects more than just those individuals, and puts others (including the already vaccinated and those who cannot be vaccinated) at risk. And secondly because some of those making the decision not to vaccinate, and putting themselves at risk, have done so armed with bad information. The nature of the problems may not be new, but the scale and severity seem to be.

amelius 5y ago

> we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice One of the problems is that we don't all get the same information. > or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Frankly, the latter idea is ridiculous to me. You've bumped into the exact same problem that exists with our democracy. Do you want our future determined by a few well-informed, rational people? Or do you want it determined by an ignorant, short-sighted mass?

version_five 5y ago
> You've bumped into the exact same problem that exists with our democracy. Do you want our future determined by a few well-informed, rational people? Or do you want it determined by an ignorant, short-sighted mass? Isn't this an argument for limiting the power we give to those in power? It's unrealistic to think that only people who are right will be in charge (I doubt I need to give examples). The realistic thing is strong controls on the power they wield, to that "short sighted masses" cannot take over. This idea underpins liberal democracy.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Yes and this is why individual freedoms and local decision making should take precedence over collectivist thought, tyrannies of the majority, and top-down decisions.
- anyonecancode 5y ago
  Yes, but the tricky part here is that "those in power" is far more than just those in government. As this very thread topic itself demonstrates, there are plenty of people and organizations that are not the government that have a large amount of power. In a democracy, we have a way to limit the power of our government -- but what's the way to do that for those in power who are not in government? The traditional approach has been to use government power to check non-government power, but this seems to run counter to the whole "limiting the power we give to those in power." But if we don't use government power to check outsize private power, then we are again ceding too much power. My own view is that the answer is less about how much power we grant than about how much accountability there is -- ie, broader and deeper democracy. But that seems to work mostly in theory; in practice this often gets circumvented by those with power and we get shallow democracy with limited accountability and thus unsatisfactory restrictions on both governmental and non-governmental power.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tshaddox 5y ago

> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. I find this idea abhorrent as well, but I’m curious if you find it abhorrent because you think the claim is false and/or unsubstantiated, or if you find it abhorrent because even if it’s true it ought to be rejected due to some moral principle.

pessimizer 5y ago
The best statements of this problem are in Public Opinion and The Phantom Public by Lippmann. You don't need to share his answers to those questions (which are an enlightened corporatism/fascism), to realize that to be serious about governance, answering them is a prerequisite.
totony 5y ago
(not parent) I think it is pretty easy to substantiate it (some people are actually deficient), but hard to substantiate to the degree that would justify the measures people propose. Yes, you can find a few nutjobs, but do they justify these truth-seeking policies for the general population? What suggests that these policies are even beneficial? But even if it was shown to be beneficial, I would still be against it on moral grounds I suppose (but I'm not sure since that might depend on how "beneficial" it is).
version_five 5y ago
I've not really thought about it this way, but I believe both statements. Nobody should be a slave to how someone else wants them to behave, because people are autonomous beings with their own capacity and right to make their own decisions, and there is no universal law about how we should decide or prioritize things. I believe of course in many of the societal constructs we have (most of the ten commandments e.g., taxes) but I think there has to be an almost impossibility high bar in any new imposition we make on peoples right to have their own priorities, because we're all equal in the universe. Maybe a weird answer, I'm not a philosopher, I just don't think there is a scale of rights that people have, or in the idea of an elite that has special decision making power because it is enlightened.

throwawaygh 5y ago

This post is pretty off-topic and unresponsive. A central premise of Doctorow's argument is the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. Proceeding from that framing, he proposes that the ACCESS Act as an important middle ground that could, among other things, help stave off the death of Section 230. OP points out that our better angels don't always win in that marketplace. Let's get less abstract. The article envisions a market-based approach toward online censorship. The idea that a "marketplace of filters" would create a "live and let live" scenario seems extraordinarily naive to me. It seems much more likely that making it easier to choose filter bubbles -- and introducing a profit motive into the construction of such filters -- would just escalate the appetite to censor, on both sides. > All this to say, we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice, or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us You seem to be confusing critique with a proposal of some alternative. Just because OP believes that the "marketplace of ideas" thesis is a farce and that the ACCESS Act is probably a non-solution to the wrong problem, doesn't mean OP wants to censor people. It's possible to both believe that Doctorow's argument is wrong and also not be a full-throated supporter of aggressive censorship. In fact... > The most abhorrent idea... You take rather flagrant liberties when interpreting parent's post, constructing an unrecognizable strawman out of a post that contains phrases like "Is censorship the best way to deal with it? Probably not." and "And before anyone asks who I am to judge the best ideas, I'll answer - nobody". > The strawman of... Those in glass houses...

DSingularity 5y ago

Why is it ridiculous? You don’t respect the potential injustice which can occur due to disparity in information and/or knowledge. Think about the popularity of crypto. How can you think your position of complete lack of regulation is moral? You think it’s okay to allow the targeting of the economically vulnerable to continue without restrictions via ads or - my favorite - celebrity endorsements? This is ridiculous.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

suzzer99 5y ago

IMO your stance basically amounts to "propaganda doesn't work". History would suggest otherwise.

naasking 5y ago
Of course propaganda works. So use it to convince people of the truth instead of just muzzling them.

Barrin92 5y ago

>The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them This is the basic hierarchical nature of any complex society. In a well functioning society those people, called elites (today already considered a derogatory term), are being funneled to the top where they're put into positions of power. I don't really know why that's in itself supposed to be abhorrent, because it's how any functional organisation is structured. The problems start when institutions break down and the quality of your elites is reduced, but the solution is not some sort of choose your own adventure story where you let the inmates run the asylum. There's no organisation on earth that survives like that. The entire notion that the vast majority of adults 'make their own choices' is a complete fiction to begin with. Choices exist downstream from culture and culture itself is produced by elites and consumed by 'adults', and so the choice you have to ponder is which people you want to be in charge of producing your culture. Might be Harvard, Zuckerberg, Tucker, or the Pope, but the people have nothing to do with it.

shkkmo 5y ago
This assumes that people reach "elite" status due to merit rather than to to complicated in-group favoring dynamics that serve to entrench certain class/ethnic/political interests. The more gatekeeping you allow the elites to do, the less meritocratic the elites are. So the idea that some people are better at some things than other people is indeed true, but the idea that we can reliably measure that without the metric being gamed and corrupted is false.
int_19h 5y ago
The elites at any given time are actively promoting this premise. But, seeing how elites get wiped out and replaced now and then, and society keeps going on, I think this "basic hierarchical nature" very much ought to be questioned by anyone who does not fancy becoming part of the current or future elite themselves.
naasking 5y ago
> Choices exist downstream from culture and culture itself is produced by elites You have it backwards. People who produce or shape culture become elites, it's not that people who are already elites are the only ones producing culture (or rather, influencing it). That has very different implications from what you're describing. In fact, elites who intentionally try to shape culture often get laughed at (cue the "Imagine" video).

quicklime 5y ago

It's not ironic, and not surprising. HN is very willing to "censor" (i.e. moderate, ban, etc) and on top of that, "politics" is considered off-topic altogether according to the guidelines. In such an environment, the better ideas often do rise up to the top. Twitter and Facebook are not such environments. "We" shield ourselves from bad ideas because this forum would be overrun if we didn't.

acituan 5y ago

> All this to say, we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice, or we can go the other way where someone who thinks they know more than us (and you hope it's you but it doesn't have to be) gets to decide. Frankly, the latter idea is ridiculous to me. This is a false dichotomy and a rather romantic notion. Independent adults rarely, if ever, make their minds from first principles. They do already cluster around people who think/convince others that they know better. So few of what we’re talking here is original thought, we are mostly riffing on what we’ve read elsewhere. And that’s OK. That how distributed cognition saves us a lot of time, when working correctly. But distributed cognition of independent adults get to super irrational conclusions too, I don’t need to list past atrocities based on ridiculous ideas. So while the failures and wins of distributed cognition is yet to be understood properly, it alone is not the culprit nor can be corrected via the virtues of atomized individualized cognition. One thing is clear, ideas distributed over ad fueled companies’ screen estates conform to a particular topology and a particular objective function. The normativity of engagement is not that of reality. And the irrationality of those systems effect us even from afar, permeates into our culture and even into non-ad based forums like this.

trainsplanes 5y ago

> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Gullible people exist. I mean, it's such a well-known phenomenon that the term "gullible" exists to describe people who fall for what should be obviously false information and lies. We all have our instances of gullibility, and we all have domains that we know nothing about, and there are countless people who prey on people with lack of knowledge in some area. If people go around in real life deceiving people, someone might step in and tell them to watch out for the scam. There'll be signs in tourist areas where scammers frequent. Banks will send out notices on how to help their customers avoid financial traps. Schools teach kids to look out for bad information and misleading conclusions. Signs are posted in parks warning people not to venture out to certain areas because they're likely unprepared and could die (and people still die anyways). This is all generally accepted as good. But flag a post on some social networking site with a "This might be fake. Be careful", and people go wild saying the elite are trying to police us and they're destroying our freedoms.

naniwaduni 5y ago
The term "elf" exists to describe a kind (well, a few kinds) of supernatural vaguely-humanoid being. This is not generally considered evidence for the existence of elfs.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  Exactly. Only a gullible person would think so.
shkkmo 5y ago
Flagging a potential scam or potentially self-serving misinformation is not censorship and is very different from blocking content and banning posters.

refurb 5y ago

The approach of “people are gullible and need someone smarter to show them the truth” of course requires some “smart enough” and no doubt many HNers consider themselves those people. Which is a hilarious take on HN if you ever read a discussion on health matters. The amount of bad information, random conjuncture and conspiratorial thinking is pretty shocking.

mbesto 5y ago

> The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Lots of support for this view in downstream comments (we're just intelligent apes etc). What you just described is called a representative democracy and was essentially created because a direct democracy didn't work, for exactly those reasons you mention (many people can't actually think for themselves - at the political level). > All this to say, we can be adults and let everyone get the same information and make their own choice You're completely ignoring the crux here - it's about both access to information and algorithms that present signals vs noise. Pretending that my 95 year old grandma can reliably decide that a fox news segment isn't sensationalized drivel after being primed for 30+ years that its "news" and not entertainment, is just as silly as you thinking this whole suggestion is ridiculous.

oliv__ 5y ago

"The most abhorrent idea of all to me is that there are stupid, weak people that are worse than "us" that we need to shield from bad ideas because they are not smart enough (like we are) to handle them. Lots of support for this view in downstream comments (we're just intelligent apes etc)." I couldn't agree more. While no-one can deny that we are all born with different capacities (intellectual or otherwise), the argument that some people are essentially incapable of taking care of their own lives is a very slippery slope and a cynical one at that, viewing humans as incapable of learning or improving. I find it truly repulsive.

SyzygistSix 5y ago

I did not interpret their comment that way. I see part of the problem being that the spaces we hang out in now are not conducive to productive conversation with a variety of people and instead nurture division due to perverse incentives and poor design.