4 ms·

> bad/wrong advice/information look totally legitimate and become part of the conversation Ironically, I don't think that's correct. HN is good because the sig

> bad/wrong advice/information look totally legitimate and become part of the conversation Ironically, I don't think that's correct. HN is good because the signal-to-noise is very high, and comments that violate guidelines or otherwise don't meet community standards get downvoted. While contrarian opinions may get caught up in that, the goal is not to suppress "misinformation" which is mostly only a pretend political problem anyway. On forums like this, even the strawman of "the average person isn't smart enough to be allowed to think for themselves" which is used to justify censoring bigger platforms doesn't apply. People can easily make up their own minds. Downvoting is about community standards, not misinformation policing.

autoexec 4y ago
Downvoting helps maintain community standards and also makes it so that people don't have to waste as much time policing/correcting misinformation. Obviously if someone is just plain wrong about something they should be corrected and not downvoted for it, but when someone posts misinformation it's nice that it can be downvoted out of sight fast enough that it's gone before many people are exposed to it and before a bunch of people have spent their time posting facts/corrections or providing critical context for the benefit of others. We'll likely just have to agree to disagree on misinformation being a "pretend" problem, and it's understandable if your perspective means you don't consider the downvote's utility in fighting against misinformation important, but I'm glad for it.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  > Obviously if someone is just plain wrong about something they should be corrected and not downvoted for it, but when someone posts misinformation it's nice that it can be downvoted out of sight fast enough that it's gone before many people are exposed to it and before a bunch of people have spent their time posting facts/corrections or providing critical context for the benefit of others. How can you tell the difference between someone being plain wrong and misinformation? Are they not one in the same?
  - musicale 4y ago
    The connotation I have is: information that is incorrect, yet widely believed and frequently cited, such as "It's illegal to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater."[1] The dictionary definition seems to include deliberate misinformation for deceptive purposes, but I might call that "disinformation" instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
    - autoexec 4y ago
      You're right, disinformation is the currently preferred. I guess it still sounds strange to me outside of a Soviet context.

autoexec 4y ago

Downvoting helps maintain community standards and also makes it so that people don't have to waste as much time policing/correcting misinformation. Obviously if someone is just plain wrong about something they should be corrected and not downvoted for it, but when someone posts misinformation it's nice that it can be downvoted out of sight fast enough that it's gone before many people are exposed to it and before a bunch of people have spent their time posting facts/corrections or providing critical context for the benefit of others. We'll likely just have to agree to disagree on misinformation being a "pretend" problem, and it's understandable if your perspective means you don't consider the downvote's utility in fighting against misinformation important, but I'm glad for it.

Jcowell 4y ago
> Obviously if someone is just plain wrong about something they should be corrected and not downvoted for it, but when someone posts misinformation it's nice that it can be downvoted out of sight fast enough that it's gone before many people are exposed to it and before a bunch of people have spent their time posting facts/corrections or providing critical context for the benefit of others. How can you tell the difference between someone being plain wrong and misinformation? Are they not one in the same?
- musicale 4y ago
  The connotation I have is: information that is incorrect, yet widely believed and frequently cited, such as "It's illegal to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater."[1] The dictionary definition seems to include deliberate misinformation for deceptive purposes, but I might call that "disinformation" instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - autoexec 4y ago
    You're right, disinformation is the currently preferred. I guess it still sounds strange to me outside of a Soviet context.