3 ms·

So 99.9% of the internet is manipulating the minds of everyone on the internet. Some of those people come to HN and post/upvote/downvote, and as a result of the

So 99.9% of the internet is manipulating the minds of everyone on the internet. Some of those people come to HN and post/upvote/downvote, and as a result of their lives outside of HN, they regurgitate slightly filtered PR as opinions or facts on HN. I guess what I'm asking is, how do you guys deal with second hand shilling and PR?

dang 5y ago
If you're asking how we deal with users who aren't consciously shilling but are regurgitating the effects of somebody else doing that, the answer is that there's no way to distinguish that case from the normal general case of people having strong opinions and/or being wrong about things—which is the default on the internet. All we can do is fall back on the general rules of the site (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). That means answering bad arguments with better arguments, and incorrect information with correct information, while remaining patient and respectful with each other, and seeking points to agree about as well as disagree [1]. When feelings are running high, of course, it can often be too hard to do that. In that case, there's a plan B: chalk it up to someone being wrong on the internet, let go, and walk away. When hot under the collar, wait to cool down before posting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20hot%20collar&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). The internet is mostly wrong about most things anyhow. People sometimes object to this answer: isn't that just giving in to manipulation, or at least the effects of manipulation? There's a thought experiment that I find helpful here: imagine a Sufficiently Smart Manipulator (SSM) who is disingenuous and totally sinister, but also clever enough to reliably evade detection [2]. I think most people can agree that either SSMs already exist (and by definition, we're not clever enough to catch them), or soon will exist. So we're either facing this situation already, or had better get ready for it. What should we do in that case? The answer is that we should do what we ought to be doing anyway: answering bad arguments with better ones, bad information with better information, etc., while remaining in good connection with each other. It's in the interest of SSMs to divide and polarize the community, and it's in the community's interest not to let that happen, and instead to pool our energies to figure out the truth together [3]. The answer to the Sufficiently Smart Manipulator is the sufficiently healthy community [4]. The value of the SSM thought experiment is that it directs attention away from the question of detecting manipulators, which is notoriously unreliable (people succumb to all sorts of fantasies about this, and the evidence nearly always points the other way [4, 5]), and toward the question of what positive things we can do to build up a sort of immune system. There's no way to know whether it will work, but in the long run, and maybe the short run too, I don't see what other option we have. [1] The reason for that last bit is that it introduces a human, relational element into the argument, which makes it much easier for people to do curious, reflective conversation instead of reacting reflexively and hardening into battle mode (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679). [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=sufficiently%20smart%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20pg%20figure%20out%20the%20truth&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 [5] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

dang 5y ago

If you're asking how we deal with users who aren't consciously shilling but are regurgitating the effects of somebody else doing that, the answer is that there's no way to distinguish that case from the normal general case of people having strong opinions and/or being wrong about things—which is the default on the internet. All we can do is fall back on the general rules of the site (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). That means answering bad arguments with better arguments, and incorrect information with correct information, while remaining patient and respectful with each other, and seeking points to agree about as well as disagree [1]. When feelings are running high, of course, it can often be too hard to do that. In that case, there's a plan B: chalk it up to someone being wrong on the internet, let go, and walk away. When hot under the collar, wait to cool down before posting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20hot%20collar&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). The internet is mostly wrong about most things anyhow. People sometimes object to this answer: isn't that just giving in to manipulation, or at least the effects of manipulation? There's a thought experiment that I find helpful here: imagine a Sufficiently Smart Manipulator (SSM) who is disingenuous and totally sinister, but also clever enough to reliably evade detection [2]. I think most people can agree that either SSMs already exist (and by definition, we're not clever enough to catch them), or soon will exist. So we're either facing this situation already, or had better get ready for it. What should we do in that case? The answer is that we should do what we ought to be doing anyway: answering bad arguments with better ones, bad information with better information, etc., while remaining in good connection with each other. It's in the interest of SSMs to divide and polarize the community, and it's in the community's interest not to let that happen, and instead to pool our energies to figure out the truth together [3]. The answer to the Sufficiently Smart Manipulator is the sufficiently healthy community [4]. The value of the SSM thought experiment is that it directs attention away from the question of detecting manipulators, which is notoriously unreliable (people succumb to all sorts of fantasies about this, and the evidence nearly always points the other way [4, 5]), and toward the question of what positive things we can do to build up a sort of immune system. There's no way to know whether it will work, but in the long run, and maybe the short run too, I don't see what other option we have. [1] The reason for that last bit is that it introduces a human, relational element into the argument, which makes it much easier for people to do curious, reflective conversation instead of reacting reflexively and hardening into battle mode (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679). [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=sufficiently%20smart%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20pg%20figure%20out%20the%20truth&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 [5] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...