5 ms·

I'm thankful for people like this. They make apparent the systemic flaws that we--the people of the earth who depend on those systems--may otherwise be unaware

I'm thankful for people like this. They make apparent the systemic flaws that we--the people of the earth who depend on those systems--may otherwise be unaware of. I see this as a form of white-hat hacking. Telling off white-hat hackers leads to less white-hat hackers, which leads to less vulnerabilities discovered by white-hats, which leaves you open and vulnerable to grey- and black- hat hackers (e.g.: a student of dietary studies hoping to receive acclaim for their research, even if the outcome of that research being published is overall harmful). This is one white-hat publishing one paper. I assure you there are far more grey- and black-hats out there producing a greater many more papers. The people of the groups that we have delegated authority to (the governments, megacorps, and supporting companies/associations/schools of the world) are doing a rather mediocre job of managing all this stuff, so I don't mind an individual stepping up and trying to bring attention to something like this that has such negative effects on so many people.

maxbond 4y ago
I think if you hacked a bunch of people and then were like, "see, look, you're vulnerable," it would be seen as a violation of privacy and professional ethics. You'd be in serious legal jeopardy. When I was young and foolish I did similar things, and I regard them as mistakes. On one occasion I accidentally endangered an untold number of people, likely thousands, and I'll never know what the consequences were; they could be nothing, or I could've gotten someone killed, and I'll never know. (Please note that I have grown & matured, and don't engage in similar behavior anymore.) The same goes for spreading bullshit. It's not proving a point about a potential harm, it is knowingly perpetrating that harm. And you have no way of knowing what the consequences are; what people do with the bullshit you've fed them. You don't need to create bullshit to illustrate this point, there's plenty out there in the wild to choose from and write about.
Aunche 4y ago
This definitely resembles black-hat much more than white-hat hacking. At the end of the day, the author is still spreading fake news, getting people trying to lose weight to eat more chocolate, and giving tabloids more advertising dollars. A white hat hacker doesn't cause any harm.
sriram_malhar 4y ago
No, we don't need more ugliness in the world to point out ugliness. Let them spend their time and effort by shaming those who mislead, or gently correct bad interpretations of science, as the case may be. Those who are lazy or mislead must pay a price in society, through social and financial disincentives. Otherwise we have the Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and the dictatorial politicians of the world run riot.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  That's what they did. If you're a science journalist and you can't tell a science paper like this is bullshit in in less than 15 minutes you should be fired. Of course you never will be because the point of news isn't to inform but to get you to watch adds.
  - sriram_malhar 4y ago
    Then the scientists should spend their time naming and shaming other articles that those very journalists and papers have written, not contribute more bilge that others have to factcheck. This is not equivalent to ethical white hacking. We need more people like Ben Goldacre ("Bad Science").
    - dnissley 4y ago
      Bad Science was published in 2008. Whatever strategy it advocated has clearly failed to gain traction, as the problem is even worse than when it was published. Might be time to be open to some other, more bombastic, strategies. You seem to be saying the ends did not justify the means in this case -- I'm not so sure of that. We're living in a world where some of the most educated people among us put signs in their front yard that say "in this house we believe... science is real". Yikes!
      - lupire 4y ago
        This debunkint of fake news didn't go viral. Fake news goes viral. Now what? Planting more fake news as a troll doesn't help. 4chan style "spam lies for lulz" makes everything worse, not better.

maxbond 4y ago

I think if you hacked a bunch of people and then were like, "see, look, you're vulnerable," it would be seen as a violation of privacy and professional ethics. You'd be in serious legal jeopardy. When I was young and foolish I did similar things, and I regard them as mistakes. On one occasion I accidentally endangered an untold number of people, likely thousands, and I'll never know what the consequences were; they could be nothing, or I could've gotten someone killed, and I'll never know. (Please note that I have grown & matured, and don't engage in similar behavior anymore.) The same goes for spreading bullshit. It's not proving a point about a potential harm, it is knowingly perpetrating that harm. And you have no way of knowing what the consequences are; what people do with the bullshit you've fed them. You don't need to create bullshit to illustrate this point, there's plenty out there in the wild to choose from and write about.

Aunche 4y ago

This definitely resembles black-hat much more than white-hat hacking. At the end of the day, the author is still spreading fake news, getting people trying to lose weight to eat more chocolate, and giving tabloids more advertising dollars. A white hat hacker doesn't cause any harm.

sriram_malhar 4y ago

No, we don't need more ugliness in the world to point out ugliness. Let them spend their time and effort by shaming those who mislead, or gently correct bad interpretations of science, as the case may be. Those who are lazy or mislead must pay a price in society, through social and financial disincentives. Otherwise we have the Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and the dictatorial politicians of the world run riot.

thrown_22 4y ago
That's what they did. If you're a science journalist and you can't tell a science paper like this is bullshit in in less than 15 minutes you should be fired. Of course you never will be because the point of news isn't to inform but to get you to watch adds.
- sriram_malhar 4y ago
  Then the scientists should spend their time naming and shaming other articles that those very journalists and papers have written, not contribute more bilge that others have to factcheck. This is not equivalent to ethical white hacking. We need more people like Ben Goldacre ("Bad Science").
  - dnissley 4y ago
    Bad Science was published in 2008. Whatever strategy it advocated has clearly failed to gain traction, as the problem is even worse than when it was published. Might be time to be open to some other, more bombastic, strategies. You seem to be saying the ends did not justify the means in this case -- I'm not so sure of that. We're living in a world where some of the most educated people among us put signs in their front yard that say "in this house we believe... science is real". Yikes!
    - lupire 4y ago
      This debunkint of fake news didn't go viral. Fake news goes viral. Now what? Planting more fake news as a troll doesn't help. 4chan style "spam lies for lulz" makes everything worse, not better.