3 ms·

There is a saying: A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes.

by dvhh 3y ago

willis936 3y ago
Yesterday I was shown Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Anyone unwilling to address this in the free speech argument is not arguing in good faith. Putting things out there in bad faith is the exact reason why censorship needs to be considered. Not a good look.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it This problem is not new (boy that cried wolf). Doesn’t unmasking all actors provide an efficient shortcut?
  - Volundr 3y ago
    > Doesn’t unmasking all actors provide an efficient shortcut? I can't figure out what you are suggesting here. It kind of feels like you are suggesting removing anonymity from online discussions is the solution? But I doubt that's actually what you are driving at.
    - nobodyandproud 3y ago
      I am indeed suggesting exactly this, though there are different layers of anonymity. Such as continent, nation, state/city, down to the individual. But I also mean that everyone knows who the others are from the start of a conversation. Not so much as a punitive measure after-the-fact. My question is this: Rather than censoring, why aren’t we asking whether/how misinformation can be directly and visibly attributed to the sources peddling the misinformation?
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  There are at least two ways to refute Brandolini's Law, both work. The first refutation is in response to a steelman version of the argument. It's simply that that you often can't know whether a claim is or isn't bullshit until someone manages to refute it, or tries to and fails. Thus even if this claim is correct, it doesn't matter. People will just have to spend the energy in order to discover what's true. The second refutation is to observe that Brandolini's Law is itself bullshit. Therefore anyone presenting it as relevant to a debate on free speech is in fact arguing in bad faith, as you put it, whether they know it or not. Where does this "law" come from? Calling it a law makes it sound like it's got some empirical basis in fact, and it's phrased in a mathematical way, but in reality it's literally a snarky tweet made in 2013 by some rando programmer [1]. Not only was it presented with no evidence but when asked "How do you know that" his reply was "Just read #ThinkingFastAndSlow ... then everything will fall in place". But very ironically Thinking Fast and Slow is a book famous for being built on bullshit. Many of the studies within it don't replicate, and the author later admitted that he relied too heavily on underpowered studies for his claims. Even if this book wasn't full of bullshit, nothing in it is about the claim Brandolini made! So we have something that pretends to be some sort of scientific law but isn't, and which is justified via a bullshit irrelevant reference to a book that doesn't make that claim and which is itself full of bullshit studies. It's a fractal of bullshit. Brandolini's Law is a good example of why we need an open and uncensored internet. Far too many people are willing to take claims at face value because they are phrased in ways that sound superficially scientific or authoritative. Our only defense against this is when people are free to refute such claims in public, extensively and robustly, without being moderated into oblivion. Only then will we be able to inch slowly closer to a truth-based and shared reality. [1] https://twitter.com/ziobrando/status/289635060758507521 https://twitter.com/ziobrando/status/289635060758507521
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    Yes, but I think it’s fair to assume it’s true because any investigative work takes effort. Real investigative journalism is costly, for example, and fewer outlets are able to do this today. Our society is the poorer for it but there seems to be too many interests and market forces against this.

There is a saying: A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes.

by dvhh 3y ago

There is a saying: A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes.

Yesterday I was shown Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Anyone unwilling to address this in the free speech argument is not arguing in good faith. Putting things out there in bad faith is the exact reason why censorship needs to be considered. Not a good look.

nobodyandproud 3y ago
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it This problem is not new (boy that cried wolf). Doesn’t unmasking all actors provide an efficient shortcut?
- Volundr 3y ago
  > Doesn’t unmasking all actors provide an efficient shortcut? I can't figure out what you are suggesting here. It kind of feels like you are suggesting removing anonymity from online discussions is the solution? But I doubt that's actually what you are driving at.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    I am indeed suggesting exactly this, though there are different layers of anonymity. Such as continent, nation, state/city, down to the individual. But I also mean that everyone knows who the others are from the start of a conversation. Not so much as a punitive measure after-the-fact. My question is this: Rather than censoring, why aren’t we asking whether/how misinformation can be directly and visibly attributed to the sources peddling the misinformation?
nvm0n2 3y ago
There are at least two ways to refute Brandolini's Law, both work. The first refutation is in response to a steelman version of the argument. It's simply that that you often can't know whether a claim is or isn't bullshit until someone manages to refute it, or tries to and fails. Thus even if this claim is correct, it doesn't matter. People will just have to spend the energy in order to discover what's true. The second refutation is to observe that Brandolini's Law is itself bullshit. Therefore anyone presenting it as relevant to a debate on free speech is in fact arguing in bad faith, as you put it, whether they know it or not. Where does this "law" come from? Calling it a law makes it sound like it's got some empirical basis in fact, and it's phrased in a mathematical way, but in reality it's literally a snarky tweet made in 2013 by some rando programmer [1]. Not only was it presented with no evidence but when asked "How do you know that" his reply was "Just read #ThinkingFastAndSlow ... then everything will fall in place". But very ironically Thinking Fast and Slow is a book famous for being built on bullshit. Many of the studies within it don't replicate, and the author later admitted that he relied too heavily on underpowered studies for his claims. Even if this book wasn't full of bullshit, nothing in it is about the claim Brandolini made! So we have something that pretends to be some sort of scientific law but isn't, and which is justified via a bullshit irrelevant reference to a book that doesn't make that claim and which is itself full of bullshit studies. It's a fractal of bullshit. Brandolini's Law is a good example of why we need an open and uncensored internet. Far too many people are willing to take claims at face value because they are phrased in ways that sound superficially scientific or authoritative. Our only defense against this is when people are free to refute such claims in public, extensively and robustly, without being moderated into oblivion. Only then will we be able to inch slowly closer to a truth-based and shared reality. [1] https://twitter.com/ziobrando/status/289635060758507521 https://twitter.com/ziobrando/status/289635060758507521
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  Yes, but I think it’s fair to assume it’s true because any investigative work takes effort. Real investigative journalism is costly, for example, and fewer outlets are able to do this today. Our society is the poorer for it but there seems to be too many interests and market forces against this.