3 ms·

People also used to be confidently wrong all the time before the internet was ubiquitous, except then it was hard to quickly verify they were.

by Tenoke 4y ago

mudrockbestgirl 4y ago
True, but a difference is that they could not spread their confidently wrong opinions globally, only locally, and that opinions were tied to their identity. Take my mom for example. She's 80 years old and doesn't use the internet that much. She is confidently wrong about a lot of things she sees on TV or hears on the radio. A recent example is COVID misinformation. The difference is that my mom can't easily influence millions of others because she doesn't have the reach, but also because people are unlikely to take the word of an 80-year old person without any medical credentials or training seriously. It's much easier to look "legitimate" when you are hiding behind an online persona. If my mom wrote a blog or posted on HN/reddit, she could certainly come off as a doctor, or even lie about being one, and many would believe her. Doing this locally, in person, is much harder and riskier.
- j-bos 4y ago
  Pre internet, people could not spread confidently wrong opions globally, but connected and well connected people could. Take a look at the wave after wave of popular, and misleading non fiction books printed last century, or the "scientific" food pyramid, or the testimony of nurse Nariya. On and on it goes, as it has, only now, anyone can play.
- lmm 4y ago
  Many true things about COVID were labelled "misinformation" at one point or another. The publishing gatekeepers of a few decades ago projected an image of confidence, but I'm not sure they were actually any more accurate than random youtube videos. The media establishment of today certainly doesn't seem to be.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    That's a mislabeling. True facts were batched together with false conclusions, and should have rather been classified as disinformation since it was performed by people who knew better in many cases.
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  > True, but a difference is that they could not spread their confidently wrong opinions globally, only locally, and that opinions were tied to their identity. > If my mom wrote a blog or posted on HN/reddit, she could certainly come off as a doctor, or even lie about being one, and many would believe her. I don't think your mom (likeable as she no doubt is) could get an audience of millions just by posting her opinion on HN/Reddit/Social media. I think the situation is pretty much back to what it was: most of the population have a limited reach of influence. Some people have a much greater reach. The difference is that the people with greater reach used to be trained journalists who held to a code of conduct and were given that reach by institutions. Now there is no such code of conduct, and the assignment of audience reach is more random, and totally uncontrolled by any institution.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  > True, but a difference is that they could not spread their confidently wrong opinions globally, only locally, and that opinions were tied to their identity. The content producer - audience ratio was just different, a dumb line from a journalist would definitely have an outsized reach that go well beyond what the writer might have expected. As you note, even today people with a global reach aren’t that many: I could be shouting a lot of thing on top of my soap box, I’d probably not be actually reaching more than a few dozen people, and we have enough content for the effect of a single person to be vastly diluted.
- QuasarOne 4y ago
  Given you are such an expert on viral disease, doesn't it make more sense for you to author a book, movie, ... to explain to your mum what she's wrong? PS: I hope you're not one of these Wikipedia editors censoring physicists on Wikipedia because you "know" better?, or perhaps censoring virologists on Wikipedia because likewise. PS 2: Some doctors were wrong about COVID. Some governments were very wrong. COVID lockdowns hurt the world economy worse the GFC.
denton-scratch 4y ago
This is true. Long before the web, when I was a child, my father would chide me for my bold claims unsupported by facts with the phrase "Confident; but wrong."

People also used to be confidently wrong all the time before the internet was ubiquitous, except then it was hard to quickly verify they were.

by Tenoke 4y ago

People also used to be confidently wrong all the time before the internet was ubiquitous, except then it was hard to quickly verify they were.

mudrockbestgirl 4y ago

True, but a difference is that they could not spread their confidently wrong opinions globally, only locally, and that opinions were tied to their identity. Take my mom for example. She's 80 years old and doesn't use the internet that much. She is confidently wrong about a lot of things she sees on TV or hears on the radio. A recent example is COVID misinformation. The difference is that my mom can't easily influence millions of others because she doesn't have the reach, but also because people are unlikely to take the word of an 80-year old person without any medical credentials or training seriously. It's much easier to look "legitimate" when you are hiding behind an online persona. If my mom wrote a blog or posted on HN/reddit, she could certainly come off as a doctor, or even lie about being one, and many would believe her. Doing this locally, in person, is much harder and riskier.

j-bos 4y ago
Pre internet, people could not spread confidently wrong opions globally, but connected and well connected people could. Take a look at the wave after wave of popular, and misleading non fiction books printed last century, or the "scientific" food pyramid, or the testimony of nurse Nariya. On and on it goes, as it has, only now, anyone can play.
lmm 4y ago
Many true things about COVID were labelled "misinformation" at one point or another. The publishing gatekeepers of a few decades ago projected an image of confidence, but I'm not sure they were actually any more accurate than random youtube videos. The media establishment of today certainly doesn't seem to be.
- tomrod 4y ago
  That's a mislabeling. True facts were batched together with false conclusions, and should have rather been classified as disinformation since it was performed by people who knew better in many cases.
marcus_holmes 4y ago
> True, but a difference is that they could not spread their confidently wrong opinions globally, only locally, and that opinions were tied to their identity. > If my mom wrote a blog or posted on HN/reddit, she could certainly come off as a doctor, or even lie about being one, and many would believe her. I don't think your mom (likeable as she no doubt is) could get an audience of millions just by posting her opinion on HN/Reddit/Social media. I think the situation is pretty much back to what it was: most of the population have a limited reach of influence. Some people have a much greater reach. The difference is that the people with greater reach used to be trained journalists who held to a code of conduct and were given that reach by institutions. Now there is no such code of conduct, and the assignment of audience reach is more random, and totally uncontrolled by any institution.
makeitdouble 4y ago
> True, but a difference is that they could not spread their confidently wrong opinions globally, only locally, and that opinions were tied to their identity. The content producer - audience ratio was just different, a dumb line from a journalist would definitely have an outsized reach that go well beyond what the writer might have expected. As you note, even today people with a global reach aren’t that many: I could be shouting a lot of thing on top of my soap box, I’d probably not be actually reaching more than a few dozen people, and we have enough content for the effect of a single person to be vastly diluted.
QuasarOne 4y ago
Given you are such an expert on viral disease, doesn't it make more sense for you to author a book, movie, ... to explain to your mum what she's wrong? PS: I hope you're not one of these Wikipedia editors censoring physicists on Wikipedia because you "know" better?, or perhaps censoring virologists on Wikipedia because likewise. PS 2: Some doctors were wrong about COVID. Some governments were very wrong. COVID lockdowns hurt the world economy worse the GFC.

denton-scratch 4y ago

This is true. Long before the web, when I was a child, my father would chide me for my bold claims unsupported by facts with the phrase "Confident; but wrong."