4 ms·

I'm not confident that censorship is the right answer, but it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that information flows through complex systems in viral and u

I'm not confident that censorship is the right answer, but it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that information flows through complex systems in viral and unexpected ways and assume the best outcomes will occur naturally when powerful organizations and people promoting certain perspectives over others, without concern for veracity of those perspectives. There are people who travel the country after school shootings, comforting parents who lost children, and one of the first things they have to tell them is to brace themselves for all of the harassment and abuse they will receive from people who believe that all school shootings are false flag operations.

ryandv 4y ago
> it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that information flows through complex systems in viral and unexpected ways Does this principle apply only to information of a particular political leaning, or is it a property of information in general? > veracity of those perspectives. What is the process by which the veracity of any perspective is determined?
- mikkergp 4y ago
  > Does this principle apply only to information of a particular political leaning, or is it a property of information in general? Could you go deeper into why you think political leaning would have anything to do with it? I wouldn't think so... > What is the process by which the veracity of any perspective is determined? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
  - ryandv 4y ago
    I don't think so either. However, I have seen the argument made many times that opinions originating from particular political ideologies should be suppressed (which is a solution I recognize you have stated some qualms with), because of "bad faith actors" spreading misinformation virally that is too labour-intensive to debunk. > Scientific method Undoubtedly: and such teaching suffices on a subject like mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question. The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections. But on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. Even in natural philosophy, there is always some other explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston instead of oxygen; [...] - On Liberty (1859)
    - mikkergp 4y ago
      So you really believe that denying any and all hierarchy to knowledge is rhetorically useful? Newton's laws of motion and Phrenology equally voratious? You can have this opinion but it doesn't seem compatible with building a society. Why should a people trying to support a functioning society take such anarchic philosophy seriously? > the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. This is terrible reasoning, for the opposite reason you seem to be arguing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
      - ryandv 4y ago
        This is a textbook strawman. Did you understand the passage quoted? John Stuart Mill clearly admits of a hierarchy of knowledge, ranging from the absolute truth of mathematics to progressively less "objective" fields (or perhaps, merely "a posteriori" truths), e.g. morals, religion, politics. Here is another excerpt from the paragraph: But when we turn to subjects infinitely more complicated, to morals, religion, politics, social relations, and the business of life, three-fourths of the arguments for every disputed opinion consist in dispelling the appearances which favour some opinion different from it. The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/ P.S. Can you demonstrate how the scientific method was applied when you reached the conclusion that this supposed "real pipeline" exists?
        mikkergp 4y ago
        I never talked about a “real pipeline” that was someone else, also this is a very let me google that for you type question but here goes: https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-n... This was a great podcast: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/epis... The research on this stuff is fascinating.
towaway15463 4y ago
And those people doing the harassing are a tiny group of the mentally ill who are obsessed with these topics and lash out at anyone the media shines a spotlight on. Being a public figure sucks because you are immediately the target of sick individuals feeding their own delusions. Making them out to be representative of any audience is a mistake.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  > Making them out to be representative of any audience is a mistake I mean, I think before he got sued, Alex Jones would have actively disagreed with you. He would have taken pride of that in his audience. There’s some chance he may actually take offense to your comment. Aside from that, why would it be a mistake if someone intentionally cultivated that? there’s been plenty of cult leaders who’ve cultivated terrible audiences. I’m not making a broad generalization about someone with general appeal like Joe Rogan, but there are some bad people out there, some self identified.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    I don’t know anyone that takes Alex Jones seriously. Those whom I’ve seen online that appear to also seem to be unwell. Even Rogan is incredulous about the majority of Jones’ ramblings.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

ryandv 4y ago

> it also seems anti-intellectual to deny that information flows through complex systems in viral and unexpected ways Does this principle apply only to information of a particular political leaning, or is it a property of information in general? > veracity of those perspectives. What is the process by which the veracity of any perspective is determined?

mikkergp 4y ago
> Does this principle apply only to information of a particular political leaning, or is it a property of information in general? Could you go deeper into why you think political leaning would have anything to do with it? I wouldn't think so... > What is the process by which the veracity of any perspective is determined? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- ryandv 4y ago
  I don't think so either. However, I have seen the argument made many times that opinions originating from particular political ideologies should be suppressed (which is a solution I recognize you have stated some qualms with), because of "bad faith actors" spreading misinformation virally that is too labour-intensive to debunk. > Scientific method Undoubtedly: and such teaching suffices on a subject like mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question. The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections. But on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. Even in natural philosophy, there is always some other explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston instead of oxygen; [...] - On Liberty (1859)
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    So you really believe that denying any and all hierarchy to knowledge is rhetorically useful? Newton's laws of motion and Phrenology equally voratious? You can have this opinion but it doesn't seem compatible with building a society. Why should a people trying to support a functioning society take such anarchic philosophy seriously? > the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. This is terrible reasoning, for the opposite reason you seem to be arguing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
    - ryandv 4y ago
      This is a textbook strawman. Did you understand the passage quoted? John Stuart Mill clearly admits of a hierarchy of knowledge, ranging from the absolute truth of mathematics to progressively less "objective" fields (or perhaps, merely "a posteriori" truths), e.g. morals, religion, politics. Here is another excerpt from the paragraph: But when we turn to subjects infinitely more complicated, to morals, religion, politics, social relations, and the business of life, three-fourths of the arguments for every disputed opinion consist in dispelling the appearances which favour some opinion different from it. The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/ P.S. Can you demonstrate how the scientific method was applied when you reached the conclusion that this supposed "real pipeline" exists?
      - mikkergp 4y ago
        I never talked about a “real pipeline” that was someone else, also this is a very let me google that for you type question but here goes: https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-n... This was a great podcast: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/epis... The research on this stuff is fascinating.

towaway15463 4y ago

And those people doing the harassing are a tiny group of the mentally ill who are obsessed with these topics and lash out at anyone the media shines a spotlight on. Being a public figure sucks because you are immediately the target of sick individuals feeding their own delusions. Making them out to be representative of any audience is a mistake.

mikkergp 4y ago
> Making them out to be representative of any audience is a mistake I mean, I think before he got sued, Alex Jones would have actively disagreed with you. He would have taken pride of that in his audience. There’s some chance he may actually take offense to your comment. Aside from that, why would it be a mistake if someone intentionally cultivated that? there’s been plenty of cult leaders who’ve cultivated terrible audiences. I’m not making a broad generalization about someone with general appeal like Joe Rogan, but there are some bad people out there, some self identified.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  I don’t know anyone that takes Alex Jones seriously. Those whom I’ve seen online that appear to also seem to be unwell. Even Rogan is incredulous about the majority of Jones’ ramblings.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]