4 ms·

This sentiment has high correlation to driving conclusions from a very time limited information set. This isn't the only part that is going to be posted to gith

This sentiment has high correlation to driving conclusions from a very time limited information set. This isn't the only part that is going to be posted to github. What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives? I don't understand the purpose of that approach. Help me.

joshuamorton 4y ago
> can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives This seems to be unsubstantiated. Are you really claiming that selective disclosure is always superior to complete lack of transparency?
- corbulo 4y ago
  The degree to which it is selective has yet to be determined. Are you claiming total ignorance is superior to partial revelation? I think we would all do ourselves better to go live on a desert island and abandon everything about modern life. A shovel might be useful to bury our heads while we're there.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > Are you claiming total ignorance is superior to partial revelation? I am claiming that this is at least sometimes true, yes. Not always, but sometimes. You're the one claiming that partial revelation is always, without exception, superior to total ignorance. That seems unlikely. Propoganda is often partial revelation, are you saying it is always better to receive only propoganda than to receive no information at all?
    - corbulo 4y ago
      I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not understand propaganda are highly likely to be controlled by it. Propaganda can be a pretty vague term by the way. Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda?
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        > I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals Of course, but this requires the propaganda be contextualized, which wasn't a part of the situation I was suggesting. > Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda? You're begging the question. Does Twitters disclosure of parts of the algorithm used (but certainly not all!) actually lead to a better understanding of the inner workings of Twitter? Or is such a release actually serving some purpose beyond transparency? If we had that, I'd agree it would be good. But I'm not convinced we do. Elon's done the exact same thing before at Twitter with his selective disclosure of material to friendly journalists in the "Twitter files". That, in my opinion, led to an overall worse understanding of Twitter's actions, not better.
        corbulo 4y ago
        Then the analogy fails to hold up to reality. There's plenty of information to contextualize. Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic. >But I'm not convinced we do. That would likely be because, as mentioned previously there is still more to come out; it's not possible to be reasonably convinced yet. Going back to the original question: >>What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives?
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        What analogy? > Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic. Luckily not a claim I'm making. It's better for conversation if you reply to what I say, not misrepresentations thereof. > Going back to the original question: And I replied to it already, but I'll reiterate: I don't believe this change "can only" be a net positive, what makes you believe that is the case?
        smoldesu 4y ago
- lannisterstark 4y ago
  Yes. 1>0
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    What is "one" and what is "zero"? Are you saying that information can't ever be misleading? Like if I tell you that your boyfriend has been having secret meetings with some woman you don't know, with full knowledge that the secret meetings are because she's a photographer and he's planning to propose, have I improved things by disclosing the information to you in that manner? Were my actions a "net positive"?
- cwkoss 4y ago
  Yep "Limited Hangouts" are a common disinfo technique

joshuamorton 4y ago

> can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives This seems to be unsubstantiated. Are you really claiming that selective disclosure is always superior to complete lack of transparency?

corbulo 4y ago
The degree to which it is selective has yet to be determined. Are you claiming total ignorance is superior to partial revelation? I think we would all do ourselves better to go live on a desert island and abandon everything about modern life. A shovel might be useful to bury our heads while we're there.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > Are you claiming total ignorance is superior to partial revelation? I am claiming that this is at least sometimes true, yes. Not always, but sometimes. You're the one claiming that partial revelation is always, without exception, superior to total ignorance. That seems unlikely. Propoganda is often partial revelation, are you saying it is always better to receive only propoganda than to receive no information at all?
  - corbulo 4y ago
    I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not understand propaganda are highly likely to be controlled by it. Propaganda can be a pretty vague term by the way. Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda?
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      > I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals Of course, but this requires the propaganda be contextualized, which wasn't a part of the situation I was suggesting. > Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda? You're begging the question. Does Twitters disclosure of parts of the algorithm used (but certainly not all!) actually lead to a better understanding of the inner workings of Twitter? Or is such a release actually serving some purpose beyond transparency? If we had that, I'd agree it would be good. But I'm not convinced we do. Elon's done the exact same thing before at Twitter with his selective disclosure of material to friendly journalists in the "Twitter files". That, in my opinion, led to an overall worse understanding of Twitter's actions, not better.
      - corbulo 4y ago
        Then the analogy fails to hold up to reality. There's plenty of information to contextualize. Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic. >But I'm not convinced we do. That would likely be because, as mentioned previously there is still more to come out; it's not possible to be reasonably convinced yet. Going back to the original question: >>What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives?
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        What analogy? > Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic. Luckily not a claim I'm making. It's better for conversation if you reply to what I say, not misrepresentations thereof. > Going back to the original question: And I replied to it already, but I'll reiterate: I don't believe this change "can only" be a net positive, what makes you believe that is the case?
        smoldesu 4y ago
lannisterstark 4y ago
Yes. 1>0
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  What is "one" and what is "zero"? Are you saying that information can't ever be misleading? Like if I tell you that your boyfriend has been having secret meetings with some woman you don't know, with full knowledge that the secret meetings are because she's a photographer and he's planning to propose, have I improved things by disclosing the information to you in that manner? Were my actions a "net positive"?
cwkoss 4y ago
Yep "Limited Hangouts" are a common disinfo technique