4 ms·

Elite misinformation is an underrated problem

29 points by bschne 2y ago

jollyllama 2y ago
Why not institutional misinformation? Or better yet, institutional deception? Elite misinformation sounds like elites who believe in misinformation. This concerns elites or institutions who don't believe the false info, but they're spreading it for cynical reasons.
- akomtu 2y ago
  Propaganda, basically?
  - rawgabbit 2y ago
    Yes. They are trying to inform the unwashed masses of complicated topics so they often have to resort to word games; this is what they tell themselves. I believe this is a mistake. What I also believe is a mistake is framing issues in monetary terms. Words like "carbon tax" and "subsidy", in people's minds, mean nothing. More concrete framing would be metrics like: numbers of deaths per year due to pollution from fossil fuels. How many homes are at risk of flooding due to rising sea levels. How many acres of arable farmland will be lost this year due to rising temperatures.
    - akomtu 2y ago
      I'd rather see two animated maps: global heat map and global sea level map. This should speak for itself.
    - noworriesnate 2y ago
      YES!!! Many people understand statistics and could help explain things to their friends and family, but when they simply refuse to include statistics, everything becomes a meaningless sea of guesses and fluff.
  - jollyllama 2y ago
    Yes and no. Propaganda is an interesting word. In the US it's tended to imply totalitarian style messaging, but in other parts of the world can apply to advertising as well. I quite like the neutral sense of the word, in which it's simply understood to be something that all organizations - governments, corporations, etc. engage in and you'll do well just to not be suckered in by it. That said, propaganda isn't necessarily deceptive, but can simply be strong rhetoric.
082349872349872 2y ago
what about the implication that the people who work in institutions are "elite"?
- joegibbs 2y ago
  There are a few definitions for an elite - most of these people aren't elite in terms of money by comparison to the owner of a car dealership, but if your definition is in terms of societal influence or how powerful their ideas are, then they are much higher than the dealership owner.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    I wouldn't label the typical car dealership owner as elite, either. People who can buy senators or run short squeezes, those are elite: having an influence on the administration of policy definitely rivals having influence over the policy of administration.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Elon Musk still can't sell his cars in like 15 different states due to laws car dealerships put in place, so while the individual car dealership owner might not be elite, they're higher up on the totem pole than a random ivy league grad student.
LeroyRaz 2y ago
A small niggle: I think the author misses the point on carbon tax. Not having a carbon tax literally acts as subsidy. It is not a metaphor. In polluting, you are exploiting a resource you do not own, and not paying for that exploitation is quite literally a subsidy under a just and fair economic system. It is an intervention from the baseline of a properly functioning market (one that stops people selling things they do not own). They also seem confused, each country should pay roughly for its own global emissions impact. The coordination problem is that if one country pays but the others don't, then the paying country's industry might be outcompeted by other counties industries (who don't pay this just tax).
- gipp 2y ago
  Those are both explicitly arguments that the author made in the article, how is he missing the point? He didn't say the lack of carbon tax acts doesn't act as a subsidy. He agreed that it does. His point was failing to distinguish between that lack, versus literal direct payments from a government budget to fossil fuel projects, is confusing and misleading. Which is true, because while both are effectively subsidies, the incentives and challenges in addressing them are wildly different.
  - LeroyRaz 2y ago
    Subsidy does not solely refer to direct payment. It can also refer to not taxing certain goods. By that standard definition, it is literally a subsidy to not tax carbon (as in a just market it would be taxed). Quoting Wikipedia "Subsidies take various forms— such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services." I think the author has a narrower definition of what subsidy means. They seem to think direct payment is a subsidy and other forms are "effective" subsidies. But this is a false distinction, and the fact that they project that narrow definition onto a standard economic term, does not make the initial communication false, which by the way, is from the international monitary fund, and likely directed towards an audience of the economically literate. In such a context, using the word subsidy is far from misleading.
- rawgabbit 2y ago
blueyes 2y ago
The most dangerous delusions are high-status delusions.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
I remember when this got posted before. It's core message is in fact misinformation. They discovered more preventable maternal deaths by looking at a wider time period. That's important new information. It's like getting a detailed bug report of a problem you weren't aware of by a new approach like fuzzing and saying "well even though we just learned about this bug we know the bug existed before you filed the issue so I'm not going to do anything about it".
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. The linked article on maternal mortality refers to headlines such as "U.S. maternal deaths keep rising" and "Why Maternal Mortality Rates Are Getting Worse across the U.S.", which are misleading at best if the change is solely due to looking at a wider time period. If you introduce a new fuzzing technique, and it discovers a bunch of bugs, I would also call it misinformation to send a memo asking why there are so many bugs without mentioning the fuzzing.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    The guy they specifically called out wrote a big piece on it with the headline: Despite New Manuscript, Incontrovertible Evidence Proves the Unacceptably High U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate And the content mentions exactly what happened: > The authors have created discrete categories to discredit the pregnancy checkbox, which, while somewhat flawed in its implementation, was not created to fabricate a problem. It was created to address an existing one. It is one of multiple sources of data we have—each with its own pros and cons, showing different aspects of maternal health outcomes—that help to provide information so that we can create actionable solutions. > “For instance, data that come from maternal mortality review committees are broader and more in depth and reflect a longer period of time. These multidisciplinary committees examine maternal deaths well beyond 42 days postpartum and instead look up to a year after pregnancy—a critical time. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, approximately 30% of pregnancy-related deaths from 2017 to 2019 occurred from 43 to 365 days postpartum because of several factors, including ones that the authors have discounted, such as mental health conditions, which include suicide and substance use disorder. So their claim of unapologetic misinformation from a specific named elite is actually a couple of shitty headlines written by other people?
yew 2y ago
[flagged]

29 points by bschne 2y ago

Why not institutional misinformation? Or better yet, institutional deception? Elite misinformation sounds like elites who believe in misinformation. This concerns elites or institutions who don't believe the false info, but they're spreading it for cynical reasons.

akomtu 2y ago
Propaganda, basically?
- rawgabbit 2y ago
  Yes. They are trying to inform the unwashed masses of complicated topics so they often have to resort to word games; this is what they tell themselves. I believe this is a mistake. What I also believe is a mistake is framing issues in monetary terms. Words like "carbon tax" and "subsidy", in people's minds, mean nothing. More concrete framing would be metrics like: numbers of deaths per year due to pollution from fossil fuels. How many homes are at risk of flooding due to rising sea levels. How many acres of arable farmland will be lost this year due to rising temperatures.
  - akomtu 2y ago
    I'd rather see two animated maps: global heat map and global sea level map. This should speak for itself.
  - noworriesnate 2y ago
    YES!!! Many people understand statistics and could help explain things to their friends and family, but when they simply refuse to include statistics, everything becomes a meaningless sea of guesses and fluff.
- jollyllama 2y ago
  Yes and no. Propaganda is an interesting word. In the US it's tended to imply totalitarian style messaging, but in other parts of the world can apply to advertising as well. I quite like the neutral sense of the word, in which it's simply understood to be something that all organizations - governments, corporations, etc. engage in and you'll do well just to not be suckered in by it. That said, propaganda isn't necessarily deceptive, but can simply be strong rhetoric.

082349872349872 2y ago

what about the implication that the people who work in institutions are "elite"?

joegibbs 2y ago
There are a few definitions for an elite - most of these people aren't elite in terms of money by comparison to the owner of a car dealership, but if your definition is in terms of societal influence or how powerful their ideas are, then they are much higher than the dealership owner.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  I wouldn't label the typical car dealership owner as elite, either. People who can buy senators or run short squeezes, those are elite: having an influence on the administration of policy definitely rivals having influence over the policy of administration.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Elon Musk still can't sell his cars in like 15 different states due to laws car dealerships put in place, so while the individual car dealership owner might not be elite, they're higher up on the totem pole than a random ivy league grad student.

LeroyRaz 2y ago

A small niggle: I think the author misses the point on carbon tax. Not having a carbon tax literally acts as subsidy. It is not a metaphor. In polluting, you are exploiting a resource you do not own, and not paying for that exploitation is quite literally a subsidy under a just and fair economic system. It is an intervention from the baseline of a properly functioning market (one that stops people selling things they do not own). They also seem confused, each country should pay roughly for its own global emissions impact. The coordination problem is that if one country pays but the others don't, then the paying country's industry might be outcompeted by other counties industries (who don't pay this just tax).

gipp 2y ago
Those are both explicitly arguments that the author made in the article, how is he missing the point? He didn't say the lack of carbon tax acts doesn't act as a subsidy. He agreed that it does. His point was failing to distinguish between that lack, versus literal direct payments from a government budget to fossil fuel projects, is confusing and misleading. Which is true, because while both are effectively subsidies, the incentives and challenges in addressing them are wildly different.
- LeroyRaz 2y ago
  Subsidy does not solely refer to direct payment. It can also refer to not taxing certain goods. By that standard definition, it is literally a subsidy to not tax carbon (as in a just market it would be taxed). Quoting Wikipedia "Subsidies take various forms— such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services." I think the author has a narrower definition of what subsidy means. They seem to think direct payment is a subsidy and other forms are "effective" subsidies. But this is a false distinction, and the fact that they project that narrow definition onto a standard economic term, does not make the initial communication false, which by the way, is from the international monitary fund, and likely directed towards an audience of the economically literate. In such a context, using the word subsidy is far from misleading.
rawgabbit 2y ago

blueyes 2y ago

The most dangerous delusions are high-status delusions.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

I remember when this got posted before. It's core message is in fact misinformation. They discovered more preventable maternal deaths by looking at a wider time period. That's important new information. It's like getting a detailed bug report of a problem you weren't aware of by a new approach like fuzzing and saying "well even though we just learned about this bug we know the bug existed before you filed the issue so I'm not going to do anything about it".

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. The linked article on maternal mortality refers to headlines such as "U.S. maternal deaths keep rising" and "Why Maternal Mortality Rates Are Getting Worse across the U.S.", which are misleading at best if the change is solely due to looking at a wider time period. If you introduce a new fuzzing technique, and it discovers a bunch of bugs, I would also call it misinformation to send a memo asking why there are so many bugs without mentioning the fuzzing.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  The guy they specifically called out wrote a big piece on it with the headline: Despite New Manuscript, Incontrovertible Evidence Proves the Unacceptably High U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate And the content mentions exactly what happened: > The authors have created discrete categories to discredit the pregnancy checkbox, which, while somewhat flawed in its implementation, was not created to fabricate a problem. It was created to address an existing one. It is one of multiple sources of data we have—each with its own pros and cons, showing different aspects of maternal health outcomes—that help to provide information so that we can create actionable solutions. > “For instance, data that come from maternal mortality review committees are broader and more in depth and reflect a longer period of time. These multidisciplinary committees examine maternal deaths well beyond 42 days postpartum and instead look up to a year after pregnancy—a critical time. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, approximately 30% of pregnancy-related deaths from 2017 to 2019 occurred from 43 to 365 days postpartum because of several factors, including ones that the authors have discounted, such as mental health conditions, which include suicide and substance use disorder. So their claim of unapologetic misinformation from a specific named elite is actually a couple of shitty headlines written by other people?

yew 2y ago

[flagged]